Name:   Talullahhound - Subject:   Not so fast tumblethunder Date:   7/17/2017 1:51:32 PM

Of course there are problems.  I am the first one to say that the situation with it taking 2 years to fire someone is hosed up and does not reflect where recruitment and retention needs to be in this day and age.  As I understand it, the reason it was originally put in place was to keep employees from being fired when the political winds changed and to prevent cronism and nepotism.  But it really ties the hands of a manager or supervisor.  I had such an employee - a 70 year old man, in poor health, who really doing a minimal job but refused to retire.  He was just taking up time and space.  He also happened to be Indian, so he was covered by several protected groups.  Personnel told me that the best that I could hope for is that he would die or decide to retire. 

I have a lot of experience dealing with State Department and Commerce Department and most of it wasn't good.  I had defense contractors call me to ask me if I could persuade the State Department to move on their requiest, becasue they were about to be in default of contact and State would not answer their phones.  And a lot of desk officers go native and come from a place of "lets build an igloo in the desert and see if it melts" frame mind. 

And in the acuisition system, where there is a long period of time developing and then producing something, people tend to forge friendships with defesnse contactor personnel, so maybe their aren't as hard nosed as they should be.  You tend to here about the failures, but you don't hear about the many successes we have in developing and producing and deploying some pretty amazing technology.  But I truly believe that if Congress could pass a budget and we could count on a steady funding stream, some of those problems would go away.  While I would agree that some budgets requests are overly inflated, the prevailing philosphy is ask for the moon and maybe you'll get some stars. 

In the case of spending money so you are not getting cut the next year.  OMB will decrament any money that isn't used out of one year dollars, out of your next years funds.  So perhaps you don't use all of your travel dollars this year, instead of being about to carry your excess into the next year, you lose it and they reduce your budget the next year.  Let me give you a very simple example to make this understandable and why it is the way it is.  Suppose you were givien money to buy a new car this year, but for whatever reason, you didn't - maybe you didn't like the looks of the new model year or you felt like you could actually get another year out of your current car.  Now, at some point, maybe the next year, you still need to buy another car, but the money you would have used last year is taken away from you, leaving you without the money to buy the new car when you need it.  Knowing this, you are going to buy a new car even if you think you can get another year out of the one you have, becasue you know that your money source is not going give it to you next year, since you know that you will not be given the same money next year, because you didn't spend it this year. 

I have no problem with your excess funds being reallocated to something else if I don't spend them, but for heaven's sake don't cut me the next because I didn't spend the money this year.  So hence, organization go on a buying spree, because they know they will not only lose that money, but not be given it the next year. 

Another thing I would like to point out that I didn't know until I was confronted with it.  A good assumption would be that when federal employees are given a raise by Congress, that additional money would be given to cover your additional payroll costs.  But that isn't the case.  If Congress decides to give everyone a raise, then you have to fund it out of the money you have.  So how do you manage that?  You don't fill vacant jobs, you don't buy the new computers that are scheduled to be bought, business trips won't be taken.  So what do you do?  You pad your budget request with additional lines you may or may not use.  You can reallocate money but you can't ask for more, so then you use that additional money for unforeseen expenses (like sending a team of 6 people to some international meeeting set up by the State Department without consultation. 

It is not a simple system.  Just like I suspect Republicans are trying to come up with a new healthcare plan.  It's not as easy as it looks like it should be, and there is always the wild card Congress.