It’s been about one month since the 2006 Midterm elections. Although a couple races are still being contested through recounts, we know that a new Democratic Order will preside over Washington for the next couple years.
The President has been buffeted like a bush in a hurricane. His recent facial expressions seem to scream “Did anybody get the license number of that truck?” He acts as if he were living in an unfamiliar country.
With the President as neutralized as a President can be – don’t forget the veto or “Bully Pulpit” - the pendulum is shifting and Executive Branch leaders and policy makers are adapting to the new environment.
What can we expect?
Based on news reports, Democratic Party lawmakers are looking for specific tax relief (amend or eliminate the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax - AMT), formulate and execute an Iraq policy designed to end that conflict as quickly as possible without allowing the Middle East to devolve into utter devastation, raise the minimum wage, reduce dependence on contractors to perform government work, and hold contractors accountable for their actions as they deposit billions of public tax dollars into their corporate treasuries.
“Forum” articles have illustrated the change in the contracting world most recently with two articles this week about the Army Corps of Engineers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) abandoning earlier plans to compete 2,000-person work operations with private interests.
If there ever was a reason for using Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulation A-76 procedures to enjoy significant government savings for performing certain activities due to fair competition between government employees and private sector hopefuls, the Corps and IRS examples would seem to be classic. Any activity involving 2,000 people – not an insignificant number – would suggest an opportunity for economies of scale, which would force both government and private companies to devise the most creative solutions possible for delivering superior service at economical rates.
Yet these competitions were called off.
On the surface, I could make the case that this was a pragmatic, political decision to appease Unions, which will likely enjoy greater power and influence in a Democratic-controlled Congress. That’s a facile answer, which may not be accurate. It plays well, given the atmosphere in Washington today, but who knows for sure all the behind-the-scenes intrigues that contribute to the decision making process.
I contacted staff at IRS and the Corps to respond to the above premise. The IRS representative provided a written statement and denied that its decision was influenced by the current political environment. [As a long-time former IRS employee, I can say that this claim is likely more true than not. I was a participant in many Commissioner-level meetings for years, and such considerations were never openly vocalized. Now, how the political winds ultimately factor into the decision maker’s mental machinations, well, who knows?] No one from the Corps returned my call prior to press time.
How much of what’s happening is conscious political calculations within the Executive Branch? I hope not much, as these government employees are tasked with plodding forward no matter what is swirling around them. By and large they do that very well. Decision makers, however, I suspect are at least subconsciously aware, as I feel they should be, of the political winds, and may trim their sails accordingly in order to make as much forward progress as possible.
Yet, the issue of whether some private contractors will be used for parts of the Corps and IRS operations has not been permanently resolved or eliminated. Both agencies, in statements, acknowledge that while the size and scope of each operation makes it imprudent to pass off the entire enchilada to a private concern, some components of these programs may very well be bid to outside interests.
Stay tuned. The winds are changing, and the Executive Branch is tacking as best as possible to achieve its missions and program objectives.
+++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 650 words.
© December, 2006