TOPICS

The new director of the Office of Management and Budget must focus on management issues even in the midst of anticipated budget battles, members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee told nominee Jim Nussle Tuesday.

"We have tried to re-establish the 'M' in OMB," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, during a hearing to consider Nussle's nomination. "When I think about that, I think about working harder and smarter and doing more with less, about having the right people with the right skills in the right place, and also [about] being able to recruit, retain and reward."

In his opening statement, Voinovich said he believes he and Nussle are in agreement that "the 'M' in OMB has been forgotten." Nussle, who has extensive but somewhat controversial experience in the budget arena, having served as chairman of the House Budget Committee, made his commitment to the management side of the job clear.


RELATED STORIES

He said that, if confirmed, he would focus on three specific areas of management. The first would be replacing the 60 percent of the federal workforce eligible for retirement in the next 10 years. The second would be keeping up with technology through OMB's e-government office, and the last, focusing on financial management within the agencies.

"People find money all the time; they find that they lost money all the time," Nussle said. "We pick up the paper and find that dead farmers are getting farm aid . . . Why can't we do a better job of managing those billions, let alone the nickels and dimes that go around?"

"Those are great ones," said Jonathan Breul, executive director at the IBM Center for the Business of Government in Washington, about Nussle's management goals.

Technology is an especially relevant focus under the President's Management Agenda, Breul said. He said the initiative can improve how government is run, "particularly if [Nussle] broadens it in terms of innovation and modernization."

In response to a question from Sen. Daniel Akaka, D- Hawaii, on OMB's dual role, Nussle said much budget-related controversy could be avoided through better management.

"The dollars are what usually grab the headlines," Nussle said. "The dollars are usually what we talk about fighting about and where the problems come up. But that could be alleviated with better management . . . I believe the management side of this equation is very important. The M comes before the B."

At the hearing, Nussle addressed several management concerns raised by committee members, including the practice of contractors managing other contractors and the high numbers of sole source contracts. Nussle said he understands that in some circumstances these practices are necessary. But he said in general, he considered the management of contractors to be an inherently governmental function and would work toward a more competitive and transparent procurement model.

In a pre-hearing questionnaire, Nussle addressed a series of other management-related questions. He reiterated his position that federal employees must perform all inherently governmental activities and that outsourcing of government work should not be based on arbitrary goals, targets or quotas. He also promised to work closely with the administrator for federal procurement policy.

COMMENTS

  • Mr. Nussle is correct-- the M does come before the B in OMB. However, Mr. Nussle is the wrong person at the wrong time in the wrong job to put that M before the B. Mr. Nussle was an extremely partisan politician. If one cannot reach consensus across the aisle while being a Congressman where consensus is built into the system-- how is he going to get along with Congress as OMB Director. Most of his former peers who are now Committee chairs have some baggage when it comes to Mr. Nussle. The President would ahve been better served to have selected a fresh, new person for this position. Mr. Nussle might surprise us and be an excellent OMB Director but I view this as just another attempt by the President to throw another partisan warrior into the fray when talk and reaching consensus is so critical at this point in time.
  • Kudos to Mr Nussle and to the Senators for focusing on this area. Management competence is vital to both delivery of program services efficiently, and to wise use of the budget. Government has to focus on competence. Authoritian governments and world competitors such as the Chinese and Russians enjoy some command and control "top down" advantages in implementing massive government programs on behalf of their economies and people. I would never trade our system for theirs, but The U.S. needs capable skilled leaders and managers, and good negotiators, in order to effectively compete. We are better than that, and we need to be better than we have been. Our system is better at allocation of economic resources overall, but we need better "more efficent" execution of our programs. Competency matters. 9-11 and Katrina should have taught us that, at least, and both parties ought to recognize it. I am a realist, I know you can't eliminate all the "politics", but you have to limit it in support of competency and overall value to the nation. I see too many people in bureacuracys that are afraid to make a decision or take a stand on a business issue. America is competing on a global stage now not just on a national one. It is a competition we can ill afford to lose.
  • I agree with Nussle's top 3 goals. However, focusing on better financial management should be his number one goal, technology second and replacing staff eligible for retirement last. As a government we have to get a controlled handle on the responsibilities of our publics funds.