GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Defense has much at stake in job competition push

• 1060
  

  The author clearly is on the side of the administration. He uses statistics such as a $5.5 billion "savings" since 2000 as an example of great success. Well, considering the entire Defense budget for 2000, 2001, & 2002 was near $1 trillion this amounts to something less than 5/1000 of 1% of the entire budget. A veritable drop in the bucket. Hardly the huge savings he makes it out to be. He also states that contracting out 72,000 jobs saved 5.5 billion dollars. That amounts to an average savings of $76,000 per job well above the average salary of federal employees. Given that our primary contractor charges approximately double (in this case it would be $152,000) to provide the same services as our government workers the numbers cited in this article just don't add up. This "competition" is not about efficiencies of service. If it were, the rules of engagement would not be so heavily stacked in favor of the private sector. It is about a conservative administration that is both anti-government and anti-goverment employees. It is more about rewarding campaign contributors in the private sector than saving tax dollars. It is a sham, a shame, and a sorry way to run a government.

  Harold T. Davis Posted July 15, 2003 8:50 AM
• 1048
  

  I suggest that another story be written on the contractor's use of "current/active" clearances required to apply. It's irrelevant if you have a TS clearance that can easily be reinstated for a position requiring only a Secret clearance for which you more than qualify. If you would like an example company, try Sytex, which appears to be an Army contractor. So you tell me...who is being selected for these positions?

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 13, 2003 5:38 PM