re: thirteen observations

In reply to thirteen observations

Uncle Stan gives several stories illustrating bureaucratic bloat in the US and its human costs. He is more supportive of the Tea Party, because of their goal to get rid of some of this regulation.


Glenn –

As you speculated from your distant perch that Americans don’t seem to be very happy these days, I began to speculate on the reasons why such an impression might be conveyed abroad. As previously stated, I cannot judge the mindset of our country as a whole (where there appears to be massive indifference to many issues that excite the press), but I can relate a couple of recent incidents with which I am very familiar, and which seem symptomatic of others’ frustrations that I read or hear about.

Several years ago, in response to requests for shovel-ready stimulus projects, Baldwin County (where I am located) submitted a grant request for funds to create transit hubs at key points throughout our county (which is many times the geographic size of Luxembourg). It was a relatively modest request for $1.8 million, which in time was approved. However, before the money could be spent, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) wished to have answered a battery of questions. The County Commission responded. The FTA replied to that with more questions. There ensued a bureaucratic ping-pong game that finally tired out the Commission, which determined the game not worth the candle and then sent the money back. The effect was to prolong the eventual creation of a transit infrastructure with potential for substantial economic development and job creation. It will come about, in the fullness of time, by other means, but at a much slower pace. Meanwhile, the incident created a few new Republican voters. Similar situations elsewhere may account for the slow pace of “stimulus” spending, although a few billion has gone down the drain in failed “green energy” efforts.

My wife, Beth, as you know, is an audiologist (She also qualifies for Intertel, an organization for those with IQs in the upper one percentile). She has practiced that profession with a high and broad degree of skill and success for several decades. A few years back her professional society decided to upgrade the profession’s image by converting its largely MS/MA, mostly female membership to AuD. That, of course, required an expensive return to campus to attain the necessary certification and elevated doctoral designation. Existing practitioners were grandfathered (grandmothered?) in legitimacy, and Beth determined that she was of an age that cost and inconvenience could never be amortized within the remaining span of her career—so fugettaboutit. For awhile this was no problem. She was even appointed by our Governor to a three year term on the state licensing board for audiologists and speech pathologists, where she diligently served with distinction, but not with pay. She came to notice of the VA, which offered her contract (non-Civil Service) work in evaluation of hearing disabilities. She was happy to accept, and submitted the paperwork. It took about eight months of back and forth communication, and more paper, before she was taken on board, part-time. After 18 months she was laid off. There were enough younger, more prestigious, and less knowledgeable AuDs to replace her—although the VA continues to send her $0 payroll statements.

Soldering on, Beth managed to gain some short stints at a Pensacola general and a children’s hospital, as well as with a local hearing aids dealer. But the rules began to change. Now it was required that she obtain a registry number as a Medicare provider. Otherwise, she could not be hired, even to substitute. This entailed a 42 page application, signed off on by an established AuD or MD, as sponsor. No problem, except that long after submission she had not heard a word. She re-did and resubmitted her application—certified mail, signature required (and obtained). Still no response. She wrote to our congressman. He enquired and finally the authorities wrote back that they knew nothing about her. At their suggestion, she tried again. Eventually, several days ago, she and her sponsor each received a several page letter stating that she had submitted an incorrect form (the code designation of which was not among those requested or that she prepared), and was therefore not to be granted the precious number at this time. Meanwhile, she has no work, has a pending offer (one day per week) with another local hearing aids dealer, and must muster her forces to create another application from scratch. Does she find this situation irritating? You bet she does.

The foregoing stories are not atypical. I hear similar stories from others. How does such an atmosphere come about? The short answer is bureaucratic bloat. Within the Federal Civil Service the surest route to promotion is to be overburdened with paper and in need of more assistants. I saw this, myself, as my naval career progressed. People supervised is a key ingredient to pay grade evaluation. Clearly, the more complex, detailed, and pettifogging the paper processing chain can be made, the more people are needed to keep it in operation. The Civil Service has kept this basic principle in place for many, many years. It got worse in the early 60s when JFK, inspired by Wisconsin’s ground-breaking example, issued an executive order authorizing support for Federal employee unionization, at a time when any GS-3 or 4 secretary made far more in salary and bennies than her average civilian counterpart, and had no fear in this life of losing her job. LBJ saluted the idea, and had it made into law. Is it any wonder that career Federal employees (and DC area residents, in general) overwhelmingly vote a straight Democrat ticket, election after election? And what was the percentage of NEW Federal employees added to the rolls after January 2009? Why do you suppose that happened?

While the Hatch Act precludes any sort of open campaigning by Civil Service or military members, the Civil Service unions pour enormous funding into Democrat campaigns. (Military folk may not join unions, and predominantly vote Republican, these days. DoD civilian employees, however, remain in the Democrat camp). It does not matter who sits in the White House or the Congress. Most public policy originates within the administration, and arises from the creative minds of Civil Service staffers who clearly understand the cultural rules that affect their careers. The more they can promote for themselves to do, the better. Appointed officials of either party at the top levels have little time to consider the details, only the broad scope briefed to them on actions that require their endorsement. The result is ever increasing complexity, as the Federal administration grows and grows, and effective decision-making slows and slows. (It ought to be noted that Congress has no Civil Service. It operates on the old-fashioned spoils system, and seems to take pretty good care of itself). Is it any wonder that the Administration makes so much fuss over job security for teachers and first responders at state levels? These constituents carry great emotional appeal and belong to the same unions—an endless source of political allies.

We hear a lot of talk about job creation as a first priority. It’s more of a first talking point, unless government jobs are the subject. Like cancer, the current system has no easy cure. Cancer, however, whether biological or political, eventually kills. We see this throughout Europe today. But why should Americans be unhappy?

Your own pursuits seem to be really interesting. Keep at them. Love, Uncle Stan