For some reason, these competing concepts have been going through my mind all week.
There were no specific developments within the Executive Branch to precipitate this. It’s merely something stuck in the back of my head.
Of course, I could link it to government operations, efficiency, and effectiveness in general, and how smooth running programs minimize time and money expenses. What a wonderful situation that would be for everyone.
I don’t doubt for a minute that our leaders mostly consider time and money – theirs and owns – in political and organizational calculations. At least, I would hope so, but sometimes I wonder.
For the past few weeks no great breakthroughs or breath-taking changes have transpired within the Executive Branch. In fact, it seems as though I’ve been listening to a broken record.
A court decided this week that the Bush Administration’s failure to consult the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court for its spying programs was unconstitutional. I suppose that’s “news,” yet I believe most people saw that coming.
With the exception of President Bush’s signing yesterday of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, rather little has developed this summer. We expected as much, I know, yet it’s a bit discouraging that our prognostications were correct.
Immigration legislation is on hold. Appropriations bills, as usual, will be difficult to pass before the next fiscal year begins October 1st, especially with the approaching November elections, which I believe will usher in a House of Representatives led by the Democrats. Government contractors continue to waste billions of dollars. And the same old beat goes on.
It’s amazing that the populace isn’t angrier about these conditions than they appear to be. My guess is that we all feel helpless. Sure, whistle-blowers can expose these poor management practices, yet it’s apparent that we don’t expect anything to change. Is it because we don’t feel competence exists to remedy these ills? Or do we feel that those in power lack the will? Maybe these leaders feel that some inherent percentage of operational waste is unavoidable. I’d be inclined to agree, but I’d like to know whether they believe it’s 5% of the budget or 15%. Whatever leaders may think, haven’t some academicians already studied this? Can’t they scientifically aver what is a conventionally acceptable rate?
Time and money. In truth, the topic has been weighing on me during my retirement. I’m living a paradox. I love golf. I play hideously. Some courses wouldn’t let me play for fear of damaging their well-manicured fairways. Of course, I hardly ever hit the ball in the fairway. Besides, my hacking down the rough as I try to recover from errant shots reduces the frequency with which the ground keepers must mow the grass, thus keeping club expenses to a minimum. They should welcome golfers like me.
Back to time and money. It takes a lot of both to play golf well – or poorly. And if you’re retired, time spent usually means money spent, not earned. If you’re employed, time means money earned, but reduced time to do anything of interest with the money. It’s a bit tricky.
It’s a bit tricky with our government operations, too. We know how critical time and money are in providing quality services. The real trick is for our Executive Branch to spend both of these commodities wisely.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 555 words.
© August, 2006