GovernmentExecutive.com

President Bush announced Monday that he would ask Congress to pass legislation creating hiring preferences at federal agencies for spouses of military service members.

In his 2008 State of the Union address, Bush also put pressure on Congress to further limit earmarks in spending bills. He said he would veto any spending measure that did not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half.

Bush also said he would issue an executive order Tuesday directing agencies to ignore earmarks that are not explicitly approved by Congress. That, the White House said, was designed to end the congressional practice of including earmarks in report language on bills, rather than in the actual text of legislation.

"The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks," Bush said.

The hiring preference proposal would extend preferences that already are in place for veterans to their spouses. Such a measure could prove challenging for agencies to implement. Last September, a House subcommittee held a hearing to examine whether the complexity of existing veterans preference laws was hindering federal agencies' compliance with the laws.

In his speech, Bush also said he would seek legislation allowing service members to transfer unused education benefits under the Montgomery GI bill to their spouses or their children.

"Our military families ... endure sleepless nights and the daily struggle of providing for children while a loved one is serving far from home," Bush said. "We have a responsibility to provide for them."

Bush also praised the efforts of federal employees in homeland security agencies. "Dedicated men and women in our government toil day and night to stop the terrorists from carrying out their plans," he told the assembled members of Congress. "These good citizens are saving American lives, and everyone in this chamber owes them our thanks."

In the address, Bush also renewed his pledge to trim federal spending, saying his proposed fiscal 2009 budget, due out next week, would eliminate 151 "wasteful or bloated programs" involving total spending of more than $18 billion.

"In all we do," Bush said in the speech, we must trust in the ability of free people to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives and their futures."

"The secret of our strength, the miracle of America," Bush said, "is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people."

COMMENTS

• What are these women thinking when they marry someone in the military? I have seen first hand the "qualifications" of some of these spouses. Can't file, have no grammar skills, won't use reference material to even try to get it right. They would rather do it wrong then have someone else make the corrections. Whine about the low pay and want to be the GS-12 in charge, just because their husband is an officer. Some stay for a year and move on, some are here from 3 years then move on, but it seems that there is always another to take her place. If socialization is what we need in the work place then by all means hire the spouses. That they can do very well. Who will give me a break Posted February 14, 2008 9:55 AM
• I miss the point Dr. Gala is attempting to make. First, he proffers that there was and is oI miss the point Dr. Gala is attempting to make. First, he proffers that there was and is ongoing misuse of the federal hiring and promotion process in DoD "without any checks or oversight." And then he adds that too many federal/DoD hiring managers, the majority of who are incompetent, hire only "friends or lovers," and by inference argues that meritocracy has little or nothing to do with those that get DoD jobs or promotions. For goodness sake, Dr. Gala, take off those horse blinders! Cannot you see that that is precisely the point that many have taken who oppose the furtherance of non merit-based set asides and entitlements merely for the spouses who chose to marry military volunteers, volunteers who literally include doughnut bakers and barbers and bean counters and supply clerks, or in other words those who represent the majority of the US military who DID NOT ASK FOR AND DO NOT PERFORM in combatant roles? Again, nearly all citizens and patriots firmly support our military, including those of us who are veterans and sons of WWII Combat Marine Infantryman! Please do not even attempt to defend misguised set aside and proposed polices on the utter falsehood and fabrication that all of our Nation’s military volunteers face real danger or eve fire weapons when the FACT is that only very, very few ever do. Stop attempting to dilute the service and sacrifice of those that do! Michael J. Smith, M.P.A. Posted January 31, 2008 5:10 PM
• O'Please, be for real. We have female employees being promoted from a GS-7 secretary slot to a GS-12 in less than 2-years and she merely had 2 courses in Secretarial Sciences; another female promoted from a secretary GS-7 to a GS-9, to a GS-11 within 2 years, and then promoted to a GS-12 management position, with a degree in Legal Assisting. Both of these woman beat-out personnel with Masters and Doctorate degrees and more than 20-years of admin. and management experience. I could go on, but these atrocities are ongoing without any checks or oversight. We see either friends or lovers getting the upper edge all the time and you are going to fuss about those who serve our Nation getting an edge. Shame on you. The number of bad managers in our Executive Branch provides an indication of the problem, not the less than 1% of our Veterans having an edge when they return from serving in the military. I left the government after nearly 29-years of federal service (CSRS), of which nearly 21-years was in law enforcement, and 5-years in the military. I had 100% rating without my 10-points when I entered civilian federal service in 1980. I got sick of watching the same old nonsense in the promotion process. By the way, they are lucky not to have put me in a high level administrative position, since I would have promoted the best qualified, not some friend or lover. Next time, tell the truth and let the genuine and truthful information pass from your fingers through the keyboard, if you dare. Don Drennon Gala, Ph.D. Posted January 31, 2008 1:09 AM