Obama Public Service
by Donald Devine
Issue 138 - August 26, 2009

On his very first day, President Barack Obama told his top cabinet and White House staff of his personal commitment to public service:

However long we are keepers of the public trust we should never forget that we are here as public servants and public service is a privilege. It's not about advantaging yourself. It's not about advancing your friends or your corporate clients. It's not about advancing an ideological agenda or the special interests of any organization. Public service is, simply and absolutely, about advancing the interests of Americans.

He instituted a “pay freeze” for his senior staff as “a mark of your commitment to public service” and promised “to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely, and lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave.”

As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am President. And there will be a ban on gifts by lobbyists to anyone serving in the administration, as well…If you are enlisting in government service, you will have to commit in writing to rules limiting your role for two years in matters involving people you used to work with, and barring you from any attempt to influence your former government colleagues for two years after you leave.

It did not take long for even his friends to become aware of what The New York Times called “the asterisks” to his “new era of responsibility.” But it was not hidden even at the beginning. Section 3 of the Order allowed the president to “grant to any current or former appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee.” It was the selection of former Senator Tom Daschle for health and human services secretary that most concerned the Times. Not only did he fail to pay $128,000 in federal taxes, he was one of the top lobbyists in Washington, although not a “registered” one. The Times complained that

In the campaign, Mr. Obama assailed Washington’s “entire culture” in which “our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” He vowed to “close the revolving door” and “clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue” with “the most sweeping ethics reform in history.” The language, however, was always more sweeping than the specifics. He spoke of refusing campaign money from lobbyists but took it from the people who hired them. The ethics plan he outlined, and eventually imposed on his administration, did not ban all lobbyists outright but set conditions for their employment and did not cover many who were lobbyists in everything but name. Mr. Daschle, for instance, is not a registered lobbyist, but he made a handsome living advising clients seeking influence with the government, including some in the health industry.

Daschle finally withdrew (with Obama still supporting him) but Raytheon lobbyist William J. Lynn III was nominated as deputy defense secretary. Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson was made chief of staff to the Treasury secretary. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids lobbyist William V. Corr was selected as deputy Health and Human Services secretary. Others selected were lobbyists more than two years earlier so were not covered by the formal ban.

This is nothing new, of course. Jimmy Carter promised a government as pure as the people, Bill Clinton promised “’the most ethical administration in history’ and then endured the most independent counsel investigations in history,” and George W. Bush “vowed a new era of responsibility only to be accused of selling out to energy and military industries.” The irony of the current administration is that both the president and his wife were lobbyists themselves and have populated their administration with likeminded well paid “public service” advocates.

Liberals are so concerned about ethics in government because they think government can do just about everything better – think automobiles, banks, insurance companies, brokerage houses, mortgages, and now health – and these are just the new arenas during the last two administrations. If people could just be ethical, especially at the top, all would be well. Unfortunately for them, a government bureaucracy staffed by angels – as the American Founders noted – is impossible. Self-interest resides in us all. As Bureaucracy author Ludwig von Mises made clear, human bureaucrats just cannot know enough about the vast world around them to make it work. Not knowing how to “advance the interests of Americans,” us all, they establish their own goals to advance the interests of themselves and their bureaucracies.

Is public service “simply and absolutely, about advancing the interests of Americans,” as the president insists? What are the most important tasks that public servants manage these days? When challenged at a recent town hall meeting what government programs work well, Dem. Sen. Benjamin Cardin offered the national parks and medical aid to the poor, eliciting a chorus of boos for the dilettantism of his reply. Let us say, defense, homeland security, the economy and air traffic safety would probably lead anyone’s list as government’s most important. The one closest to a regular American’s everyday life is probably air safety. When one straps oneself into the cramped little seat, one hopes the guy looking at the air controller screen knows his job.

He does. But his idea of his job is not that of the passenger. The controller likes his above-the-federal pay-scale salary, the best benefits in the world and, especially, the super-long weekends. His 2-2-1 schedule is his favorite. As ATC Reform’s Bob Poole explains it based on a Department of Transportation Inspector General study,

a typical 2-2-1 schedule has two evening shifts followed by two day shifts followed by one midnight shift. Between an evening shift that ends at 10 PM and the day shift starting at 7 AM just nine hours elapse, during which the controller presumably drives home, goes to bed, sleeps, gets up and has breakfast, and drives to work again. And on the fourth day, the controller’s day shift ends at 2 PM, and eight hours later he or she must be back in the facility controlling traffic by 10 PM.

It makes for demanding shifts but it is great for long weekends. The problem is that it is bad for safety. Ironically, the IG study was pushed by Dem. Sen. Richard Durban at the request of the controller union which had contended that overtime and use of trainees were the cause of fatigue. While the IG did find “negligible” problems from these at the three airports tested,

the real kicker was that controllers at all three facilities are still working what is called a 2-2-1 shift schedule, the very kind that the National Transportation Safety Board in an April 2007 report said leads to controller fatigue because it disrupts circadian rhythms. The NTSB recommended that the FAA and the controllers’ union NATCA develop shift rotation schedules that minimize the kinds of sleep disruptions caused by the 2-2-1 schedule. But no such change in scheduling practices has taken place.

Will the Obama Administration make the changes so obviously necessary for the safety of all Americans? Want to bet? They are not in either the Democratic House or Senate bill and the union’s top priority is to protect the super-weekends. Even the recent mid-air crash in New York where the controller was absent from his screen for a while beforehand has not so far put this on anyone’s priority list.

For Defense, the Obama Administration just issued a report on the Department’s performance-based personnel system saying it must be scrapped because the employees (read unions) do not trust its methodology. Performance, meanwhile, is on hold. Department of Homeland Security’s performance system is in a similar limbo but the union has just additionally challenged the high failure rate – from 50 to 80 percent – of employees in its Transportation Security Administration. The union concern is not that the screening procedures have been broached in every security evasion test but that the Practical Skills Evaluation test tries to get rid of the incompetents who allow this to happen. Improving operations in these two largest departments have now been delayed eight years since 9/11/01 and apparently will be scrapped completely. As far as the economy, no one thinks the stimulus is working, partially due to the fact that after five months only 7 percent of funds have been spent by the bureaucrats directed to disburse them.

Public service is performing pitifully everywhere in “advancing American interests,” except perhaps in the military which so far is exempted from public service unionization. If the economy is recovering as the Obama Administration claims and 93 percent of the government stimulus has not been spent, it must be the private sector that is responsible, not “public service,” no? As far as air traffic control, privatization is the only possible rational future. As ATC Reform notes “Over the past 15 years, nearly two dozen countries have corporatized their air traffic control systems including Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand and the United Kingdom.” The U.S. Government system has been in decline for at least two decades. The only progress made in either the economy or air control has been made through the private sector.

So what has the Obama Administration done about privatization? The Office of Management and Budget has just issued a directive for agencies to cut outside private contracting by 3.5 percent in each of the next two fiscal years. The object is supposedly to save $40 billion in contracting costs. However, since no programs are being cut, the spending will be done but by government employees, whose public service costs (primarily retirement) are higher. The whole purpose of the government contracting out process is to only do work privately if it is cheaper. Did I neglect to mention that Congress with administration support has suspended use of new contracting-out tests comparing private and public costs of performing services?

So much for a public service that is “ not about advancing an ideological agenda or the special interests” but that is “simply and absolutely about advancing the interests of Americans.” Obama public service is about advancing the interests of the public sector unions and their ideological “public service” lobbyist allies even if that comes in conflict with the safety and efficiency interests of American citizens.

Donald Devine, the editor of Conservative Battleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 and is the director of the Federalist Leadership Center at Bellevue University.

Post this article to your Facebook profile