GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: White House report touts management success stories

• 21905
  

  These are compelling arguments in favor of seizing control of costs associated with illegal immigration. I think all European-descended (like me, for instance, an Irish) should have to pay if their ancestors did not complete the forms to immigrate. I wonder how much we'd be willing to fork over? $25,000? $200,000? It would probably depend on how many generations we've been here.

  Accountability runs two ways.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 22, 2007 9:50 AM
• 19296
  

  Accountability runs two ways. The president and Congress should be held accountable for the national debt. If the president Congress cannot manage this checkbook, why are the other government workers being held accountable for performance?

  If the president and Congress cannot control the illegal immigrants from overtaking America, how can they expect accountability from other government workers? How could the number of illegal immigrants leap to over 12 million and the president and Congress not notice? Where is the accountability to closing the gate/border after the herd has passed through? I expect the president and Congress to quit giving these illegal immigrants a free ride on the backs of the legal Americans and make them apply for citizenship to remain in our country. The Mexican government is getting rich from these illegal immigrants at the expense of the American people and our ancestors. I expect the president and Congress to ensure these illegal immigrants and families applying for citizenship to not be allowed to overburden our social services and agencies until their citizenship is complete. The length of time being an illegal immigrant in the United States does not automatically ensure citizenship for either the illegal immigrant or their family. I expect the president and Congress to get rid of all the illegal immigrants not applying for citizenship and giving America back to the American people.

  America has been fighting the battle with Iraqi for nearly 15 years and it has not even gotten close to the Iraqi government being able to take control of their government with the insane suicidal bombings and killings. Where is the accountability? It's not the president's daughters being maimed for life, being blown to bits, and dying for the freedom of the Iraqi people, it's our sons and daughters.

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 23, 2006 1:25 PM
• 19207
  

  I wonder how the "savings" would look without the "use a best case scenario" and the "spin it so the president looks good" style? I have noticed over the years that the government has a tendency to claim a lot of savings up front, and then not publicize (if at all possible) the corrections made later. Oddly, they always claim "savings" and never mention that those "savings" are usually achieved at the expense of programs for the poor and/or the middle class (but never any programs that benefit large businesses, special interest groups, or the upper classes).

  Larry R. Doane Posted October 17, 2006 8:15 AM
• 19206
  

  Just some comments on the following:

  1. E-government, more specifically e-travel used by OSHA. Prior to the implementation of E2Travel it took 15 minutes at the maximum to fill out a travel voucher and employees were paid within five days. Now it takes three to four hours to input a trip and get the program to work correctly and up to a month to get reimbursed. I don't see a savings here. Multiply this by the number of employees using this system and you have a lot of wasted money. The system is not user friendly.

  2. Management: the president's initiatives are setting back government service, at least here in Region 6 of OSHA. During the Clinton era, partnership between labor and management was bettering the work environment. Now, since the president decided that partnership needs to be scrapped, managers have reverted to the old ways of doing business in so far as employee relations are concerned. This old way is what gave government service a bad name. The president wants to increase productivity. Well, he should look at federal managers not the rank and file federal employee. The dinosaurs (i.e. federal managers) need to be removed from service, not the front line people, that's where the talent is. If my opinion would count, his initiatives for management of the government would get an F.

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 17, 2006 7:58 AM
• 19204
  

  I'm pretty sick and tried of hearing about how badly the government agencies perform. I've been keeping track over the last eight to 12 months. Normally I wouldn't care, were it not for NSPS. I am being forced into NSPS where I must outperform my co-worker or lose pay (or even lose my job). Here you have major government agencies failing month after month, yet no one gets a pay cut or gets fired. Why is outstanding performance only required of regular civilian employees? How can we respect a system that is so biased, protects failing managers and squashes the worker? No one in the government will dare address this question. The score cards are on the Internet for everyone to view, if you visit the score card site you will find agency heads failing month after month, quarter after quarter. No one loses his or her job and no one suffers any adverse action. I thought the president wanted the best and the brightest. Oh, I forgot. He was referring to his agency heads.

  Un-Civil Servant

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 16, 2006 3:09 PM