What will happen to the DC area job market if Romney/Ryan win? (Washington: contractors, salary)

[DC Bossman]

I believe this is the same guy who said the country would be a lot better off if the gov't had more 20 yr olds to make social media apps

[KStreetQB]

Originally Posted by vicnice

There should be analysis done around which agencies to keep (why do we have CBP and INS, or ATF and FBI....combine them and eliminate the duplicate roles).

Pub. Law. 111-139 Title II, Section 21.IDENTIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, AND ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.
The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office shall conduct routine investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within Departments and governmentwide and report annually to Congress on the findings, including the cost of such duplication and with recommendations for consolidation and elimination to reduce duplication identifying specific rescissions.

This was in the Pay-Go bill from 2010. GAO published its most recent annual report in February: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588818.pdf

This gets a little more specific than "we need to do more good things and less bad things, it's simple', so not sure how interesting it will be.

[vicnice]

Originally Posted by KStreetQB

Pub. Law. 111-139 Title II, Section 21.IDENTIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, AND ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.
The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office shall conduct routine investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within Departments and governmentwide and report annually to Congress on the findings, including the cost of such duplication and with recommendations for consolidation and elimination to reduce duplication identifying specific rescissions.

This was in the Pay-Go bill from 2010. GAO published its most recent annual report in February: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588818.pdf

This gets a little more specific than "we need to do more good things and less bad things, it's simple', so not sure how interesting it will be.

So you are comparing my post to the level of detail of a GAO report. Is that your point?

Also, reporting is fine....I am more interested in execution, and then having a report that compares actual consolidation vs growth yoy (fy) funding growth of existing agencies/organizations.

[vicnice]

Originally Posted by DC Bossman

I believe this is the same guy who said the country would be a lot better off if the gov't had more 20 yr olds to make social media apps

Yeah....thats exactly what I said!!!

The basis behind that was having a Federal government thats focused on production (like BEP or TRANSCOM, or DARPA), innovation and/or excellence..... not just being a job program as alot of the Fed has fallen into the vicious cycle of. Eliminate needless/useless jobs, and ensure that this is enforced by creating an ecosystem that caters to that kind of workstyle. Everyone will be better for it, including my tax dollars.

That is one thing that Romney (says he) will bring to the table....but we all know what that campaign stump does to the truth.

So...yeah.....the government needs more iphone apps. Maybe we can angry birds ahmadinejad

[KStreetQB]

Originally Posted by vicnice

So you are comparing my post to the level of detail of a GAO report. Is that your point?

Also, reporting is fine....I am more interested in execution, and then having a report that compares actual consolidation vs growth yoy (fy) funding growth of existing agencies/organizations.

Several points. One is that the study that you wish we had already exists and is updated on an annual basis. Two is that if one ever deigns to drop below the 10,000 foot level, the problem becomes less "simple", as you put it. Three is that Congress's primary focus, which you said should be on reducing spending, HAS been on deficit reduction for years - and reductions in spending have been a cornerstone of those considerations on both sides of the aisle.

I'm glad you've stepped away from the axe you're constantly grinding against federal employees for the time being, but general statements that are universally acceptable like "we just need to reduce spending on what's bad and grow what's good" are also universally useless absent details. In fact, I think they are more than useless; I think they are damaging because they present intensely complicated decisions in a trivially simplistic light.

[vicnice]

Originally Posted by KStreetQB

Several points. One is that the study that you wish we had already exists and is updated on an annual basis. Two is that if one ever deigns to drop below the 10,000 foot level, the problem becomes less "simple", as you put it. Three is that Congress's primary focus, which you said should be on reducing spending, HAS been on deficit reduction for years - and reductions in spending have been a cornerstone of those considerations on both sides of the aisle.

I said that the government should be focused on how to reduce spend and optomize, I never mentioned any study. There are tons of GAO reports and non profits that write papers from the effect of currency velocity, to seigniorage, to the colors of the leaves of the trees and how they affect our spending habits. There are reports for everything. Your bad.

To your second point about the focus of congress, what you state is only partially true. Congress may in one week reduce spending, by say....eliminating a benefit for farmers/group x, but then in the next week approve the creation of a new government agency. The net is still a deficit. What I am after is action that is not counteracted.....which is the core focus of sequestration, action that cannot be undone by special interests.

Originally Posted by KStreetQB

I'm glad you've stepped away from the axe you're constantly grinding against federal employees for the time being, but general statements that are universally acceptable like "we just need to reduce spending on what's bad and grow what's good" are also universally useless absent details. In fact, I think they are more than useless; I think they are damaging because they present intensely complicated decisions in a trivially simplistic light.

Problems in life are very simple, people merely twist them into some never ending debate that spins out of control because they dont understand them or they are not driving an honest point. Take a look at finance and what happened with MBS and CDOs, or Obamas assertion that the rich dont pay taxes......the explainations are long and emotional, when the truth is cut and dried.

Sequestration is here becuase the president and congress cant agree on what programs to cut. Simple problem, and here is the simple resolution.....since you cant play nice, there is a committe and a law to cut it for you.

If you want to draw things out needlessly thats your perogative, dont let me stop you. I keep my posts short because you arent here for the subject matter or debate but something more dubious.....so I dont waste my time.

[KStreetQB]

Originally Posted by vicnice

I said that the government should be focused on how to reduce spend and optomize,

No, you hedged to that position after not being able to back up your other statements.

Originally Posted by vicnice

I never mentioned any study.

Oh no? Does this sound familiar:

Originally Posted by vicnice

There should be analysis done around which agencies to keep (why do we have CBP and INS, or ATF and FBI....combine them and eliminate the duplicate roles).

... hence, you know, me pointing out the existence of that analysis.

Originally Posted by vicnice

To your second point about the focus of congress, what you state is only partially true. Congress may in one week reduce spending, by say....eliminating a benefit for farmers/group x, but then in the next week approve the creation of a new government agency. The net is still a deficit.

So tell me Vicnice, and please don't dodge this one too; how do the statutory limits on discretionary spending from the BCA, or the paygo rules that preceded them, figure in to that elementary example above?

Oh no, another 'dubious' question getting the most basic realities of the subject matter...

Originally Posted by vicnice

Problems in life are very simple, people merely twist them into some never ending debate that spins out of control because they dont understand them or they are not driving an honest point. Take a look at finance and what happened with MBS and CDOs, or Obamas assertion that the rich dont pay taxes......the explainations are long and emotional, when the truth is cut and dried.

No, actually some problems are complicated vicnice. Those complications can be cut and dry as well, if you actually took the time to understand them.

Originally Posted by vicnice

Sequestration is here becuase the president and congress cant agree on what programs to cut. Simple problem, and here is the simple resolution.....since you cant play nice, there is a committe and a law to cut it for you.

I suspect you know little about the BCA aside from the word sequestration.

[vicnice]

Originally Posted by KStreetQB

No, actually some problems are complicated vicnice. Those complications can be cut and dry as well, if you actually took the time to understand them.

Yeah sure.....lol. Anyone can see this is your true end game here....no contributions just blah....or did I hedge too much here too????

Originally Posted by KStreetQB

I suspect you know little about the BCA aside from the word sequestration.

Then you suspect wrong. I posted thoughtful comments on how we ended up here. What have you done? Few links thrown around? Whats your analysis of the situation? I am glad vicnice is on your radar and gets your motor going and all, but how about a little commentary towards the thread vs just taking down others.

Prove that you are above all that....or you can prove that destructive commentary is all that you are here for. shrug....

[KStreetQB]

Originally Posted by vicnice

Yeah sure.....lol. Anyone can see this is your true end game here....no contributions just blah....or did I hedge too much here too????

My true end game was initially trying to figure out if you actually thought the federal government shouldn't provide stable employment as your statement suggested: You didn't answer that simple question.

After you posited a new ambiguous position about balanced employment my game was asking what you meant by balanced employment: You didn’t answer that simple question.

In fact you have not addressed a single issue I have taken with your statements; you simply shift your position to the next one or give a completely irreverent answer like “the deficit” or “partisanship”. In the process you have also made statements that I have taken factual issue with, such as how you reconcile your example of new deficit spending in this environment, which ignores current budget rules and statutory spending limits. You didn’t address that either. My game was pretty simple if you substantiated your statements instead of conflating them with larger issues and hedging into new positions.

Originally Posted by vicnice

Then you suspect wrong. I posted thoughtful comments on how we ended up here. What have you done? Few links thrown around? Whats your analysis of the situation? I am glad vicnice is on your radar and gets your motor going and all, but how about a little commentary towards the thread vs just taking down others.

Prove that you are above all that....or you can prove that destructive commentary is all that you are here for. shrug....

On the first page of this thread, I posted how I thought deficit reduction efforts would affect DC area employment. I gave an example of a budget cut that has actually been proposed and how it would likely affect a program, its DC employment and the rest of the country. The obvious reality is that different deficit reduction policies will have different impacts on DC area employment, so each example is going to be different. The other obvious reality is that deficit reduction policy proposals of any significance are focused on national programs. Reducing DC area federal employment is not a vehicle in itself for achieving meaningful deficit reduction; particularly with the vast majority of the federal workforce outside of the DC area. While some policies will impact DC area employment, both public and private, the impact of deficit reduction proposals will be felt nationally. I would be happy to go into any specifics on that previous post if you have a cogent question to pose.

In my area of policy, whether it’s reducing EHR penalties for Medicare financing, validating physician orders for high cost/fraud/risk services, rebasing Medicaid DSH in 2021, changing utilization factor for advanced imaging services, expanding competitive bidding for Medicare, recouping hospital coding intensity adjustments, reducing Medicaid DME payments, implementing a dual eligible care coordination program, reducing Medicare bad debt payments to providers, increasing cost sharing for post acute/SNFs and home health, requiring clinical lab copays, imposing a part B surcharge on Medigap beneficiaries, implementing Medicaid block grants or individual capitation, adjusting part B average drug sales price, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, reducing DGME/IME payments, freezing market basket updates for providers, reducing part B infusion payments, require drug companies to provide rebates for part D dual eligibles or raising Medicare’s eligibility age to 67 – these policy proposals impact national programs. I can triple this specific policy proposal list in health policy alone, but you get the point. Some of the policy proposals will allow for reduction in federal staff, but not anything that would bring DC’s economy to its knees, and some will require the addition of federal jobs, but those are in the minority. Either way neither the focus of deficit reduction, nor the primary result of deficit reduction, is an adjustment to federal employment.

Now, know you said you know a lot about sequestration, but just don’t want to talk about it, but I’ll talk about that a little anyway. I think the biggest threat to federal employment is calendar year 2013; which is the only year that Congress and the Administration have their hands tied regarding sequestration. 2014 and beyond they will be able to decide which programs get cut within the constraints of statutory spending caps (sidenote: your assertion that sequestration is exempt from special interests is false except for one year under current law). The Administration’s implementation plan did not enumerate the number of federal employees impacted, but I think it has the greatest potential for layoffs. I think that it’s more than likely that Congress will postpone sequestration for 3-6 months. A group of 8 Senators are negotiating a $55 billion deal to achieve that 6 month delay so they can give themselves some time to restructure sequestration to avoid the blind across-the-board cuts. Whether that specific effort succeeds or not, I think the mechanism will be changed during the lame duck session. Both a Romney/Ryan Administration and an Obama/Biden Administration would like to have more flexibility in sequestration implementation.

Now a point of fact: the only link I posted was to a study that you said should exist. I thought the link might help you make the connection to the study’s existence. I’m not sure if it worked because you appeared to disavow any mention of the need for such a study in a subsequent post.

You are on my radar because you have dozens of posts on this subforum calling federal employees lazy paper pushers who only make more bureaucracy to perpetuate their bloated salaries and characterizing DC is a similarly thoughtless and negative light. I think that’s an absurd characterization. You're more than welcome to back up your statements with some objective rationale, and we can just agree to disagree. But you have refused to do that, and instead retreat every time to some universally accepted one-liner like "all i'm saying is that we have to get rid of the bad and make more good", and try to play it off like you were taking that reasonable (albeit somewhat meaningless) position all along.

[clb10]

DC will not lose any jobs if Romney is elected because very few jobs in DC depend on any particular administration. DC has a very diverse economy and the federal government is only a tiny part of it.