GovernmentExecutive.com

In their push to put hundreds of thousands of federal jobs up for competition with private firms, Bush administration officials have run headlong into a federal culture that could do without public-private competition. Privately, some managers say they wish the whole initiative would just end.

"If we're too enthusiastic about competitive sourcing, our employees would not be pleased," says an official at a civilian agency. "If we're not enthusiastic enough, it looks like we're dragging our feet on the administration's issue."

But Bush officials won't back down. They believe public-private competition can transform federal agencies, and they are prepared to make concessions on the details of competitive sourcing to make agencies stick with it. If government employees would just give competition a chance, the Office of Management and Budget believes, they would like the results.

Jason Peckenpaugh explores the implications of the competitive sourcing initiative in a new special issue of Government Executive. For the full story, click here.

COMMENTS

• After reading this article on job competition, as a government employee I can't see how this will benefit me by putting my job up for competitive outsourcing with private firms. What this article tells me is that the government wants to outsource my job to a private company. If this happens, where do I stand? What I do see is that I could lose my 40lk, retirement, health care insurance, lower my standard of living, and god knows what else. With Enron fresh on everyone's mind, who is to say this won't happen again and the federal government does nothing but say we are sorry you lost all of you 40lk and let the company leaders go free. We as government workers should have a greater say so on how the process is done and what will be the long term effect on our lives and retirement. Is anyone listening? Harvey Williams Posted July 15, 2003 8:31 AM
• Competitive sourcing is a good thing if done correctly. As usual the government is not doing it correctly. This is another example of one-size-fits-all and not a program designed to specific needs and features. There are some thins that cry out for privitization: 1. All the farm lending done by Agriculture should be turned over to private industry. 2. All the research on non-food areas (such as methanol)done by Agriculture 3. Crop insurance again Agriculture should be private with a government subsidy. 4. All the work of the small business administration should be private 5. The data collection efforts at Commerce should be contracted to private groups. Information should be sold to cover costs. 6. Tax collection and processing should be private and accomplished by a contractor. 7. The export-import bank should be eliminated. 8. AID should be eliminated. 9. the CIA should be eliminated there are several other intelligence agencies better suited for the job. 10. FBI, ATF, DEA and the secret service should all be combined into one agency and placed under the Justice Dept. 11. The Air Force should be devided between the Army and the Navy and eliminated along with the academy in Colorado. 12. All HUD programs should be declared a success and eliminated. 13. The is no federal role for educatiopn and that dept should be eliminated. Start with these and once accomplished move on to others. GovExec.com reader Posted July 10, 2003 8:20 AM