Letters

It's disturbing that David Walker focuses more on the age of the workforce than any other aspect ("The Human Touch," September).

So what if the average age at GAO is 48, or that 55 percent of its executives will be eligible to retire in four years. Is work so unpleasant at GAO that workers will retire at the instant they are eligible? If so, that is where Mr. Walker's focus should be. Or at a certain age do workers suddenly become useless? If so, Mr. Walker should let us know what that age is, so Congress can pass legislation requiring mandatory retirement. Some employees can function effectively at 100 years of age or beyond; others are incompetent at 22. And the federal government needs managers who recognize the difference.

Even the term "human capital," which both your magazine and Mr. Walker seem to love, is offensive-conjuring up images of the pre-Civil War slave markets where people were bought and sold. What's wrong with the word "employee" or even "person?"

Lastly, changing job titles does not make an agency more effective. Hiring and retaining a skilled and truly diverse workforce (that goes beyond color- and gender-coating) does.

Joe Nemargut
Accountant
EPA

NASA Bigotry

"Faster, Better, Cheaper" did not cause NASA's failures ("Midcourse Correction," September). A loss of experienced personnel-and of those willing to tell a NASA administrator that the king has no clothes-caused the recent failures.

Your article missed one of the key factors leading to an absence of experienced personnel. You might recall that when former NASA Administrator Dan Goldin first addressed the headquarters workforce, he said, "All I see is old, white males." With that speech began the purge of many senior NASA managers such as Dr. Fisk, and with him went other scientists who had seen firsthand the results of government-endorsed bigotry.

When Goldin created an environment in which the "old" experienced engineers were made the targets of age discrimination, rather than being given the role of mentors to the young engineering workforce, the slow decline began. When he eliminated promotions based on merit in favor of political correctness, the velocity of the decline accelerated. When he fully institutionalized his "All I see is old, white males" program, the official policy of an agency devoted to science became mindless bigotry rather than policy based on scientific fact.

Ray Vaselich

Betting on Bush

I would like to know what government agency Susan DeYoung works for that is not a "chaotic mess" already ("Bush the Monster Slayer,"Letters, August).

I'm very thankful for my federal job of 13 years. I believe that most federal

workers do the best they can. Many of them are the men and women who perform the service that keeps this country safe and secure-Border Patrol officers; soldiers, sailors and airmen; and law enforcement officers, firefighters, inspectors and judges.

What is so distressing to me is to see what it takes to provide these necessary functions. If people only knew what an inefficient nightmare the administration of our federal government really is, they would be rioting in the streets at the thought of turning over their health care or giving up more control over their children's education.

If the government were given the task of making ice, it would have to budget for research, which requires a cadre of scientists. They would have to be supported by program managers and contract specialists procuring the equipment and supplies necessary to make the ice once they figure out how. And then the managers and specialists would need an administrative staff to support them.

Now this is becoming a pretty big staff, so you must have an SES-level director to oversee the whole thing and report to Congress when the ice isn't made fast enough, a budget officer and budget staff to monitor spending, an HR person to handle personnel issues, a labor relations person for disciplinary and union issues, a logistics person for equipment and space, and an EEO person to investigate sexual harassment and discrimination charges that crop up at all government agencies. All this before the government can figure out the recipe to make the ice.

Our work in the federal government has become mired in mindless regulations, directives and policies that would bankrupt the most successful corporation within a year. Most issues of poor performance and misconduct are either ignored or mishandled by management. Agencies have become so big that they are paralyzed from the lack of effective communication. A big share of the blame for inefficiency in government should go to the self-serving employee unions who fight any effort to improve efficiency or accountability as an unfair labor practice.

I want to see new ideas for reducing this inefficiency, and if George W. Bush believes he can do it, I'm for giving him a chance. I believe he's an honorable man who has done a good job in Texas, and I don't believe he could make it any worse. Al Gore's reinvention of government has been a disaster. The cuts made in my agency were misguided and inefficient and are now being gradually reversed in greater proportions.

As a taxpayer, I'm ready for someone new who is willing to cut some of this bureaucracy for the sake of our children. As a federal employee, I do not want to lose my job to government cuts, but I am confident I can find work practically anywhere.

Joe Isom

Fewer Appointees

After 25 years of government service (all military related) I believe that Paul Light has a somewhat oversimplified view of proper staffing ("Richardson Redux," Last Word, August). Light's article makes some valid assessments, but he doesn't seem to have an appreciation for reasonable spans of control or responsibility. He seems to only count heads without any other consideration.

Light's criticism is typical of most would-be government reformers in that he offers no viable solutions. In my 25 years I've seen several workforce reductions, and without exception not one has ever given any regard to proper organizational structure dictated by mission requirements-the reductions were done by bean counters who looked only at numbers.

I have a solution. Limit presidential appointee positions in federal agencies. Each President during my lifetime has gone deeper within the organizational structures with their appointees than their predecessors. In many cases these individuals have been ill-prepared/qualified to perform the duties of their appointed positions. Their first action is to hire more advisers/assistants to enable them to do a job they probably should not have had. I have to ask myself, "How many of their assistants are just political paybacks and unqualified as well?"

If you truly desire a more efficient government (perhaps that is an oxymoron), a career service, professionally trained workforce is our best option, not an appointed workforce throughout the upper three levels of each organization.

Lt. Col. Terry R. Council
U.S. Army

Truth About Taxes

I take exception to Steven Brennan's letter ("Military Taxes," August). True, the military is not taxed on quarters and subsistence allowances and may not betaxed on income while in Kosovo or Bosnia. But how many ordinary Americans are sent by their government to an area where their lives are in danger?

There is no sales tax at base exchanges, but if service members use contractors for services such as laundry or dry cleaning, they most certainly pay sales tax. And commissaries charge a flat 5 percent surcharge on all purchases.

In Texas, which doesn't have a state income tax, food is not taxed in the supermarkets, but everything else is. And during my 28-year career, I have been a resident of states with income taxes.

Ron Scharven
Environmental Public Affairs
Lackland AFB, Texas

True Blue

Jim Civik's "Blue-Water Management Wisdom" (Viewpoint, July) should be included in employee orientation literature for GS-1s up to assistant secretaries of departments.

As an Air Force enlisted man, I saw similar versions of Civik's major themes. The one I liked best was: "Avoid putting yourself on report." This is probably the most difficult thing for a subordinate who is willing to admit a goof-up but is not sure what happens next. I think a corollary to this is: "Avoid putting yourself on report, as long as no one else gets the short end."

Most supervisors have already figured out who's halfway capable. Assuming that one is capable, the boss doesn't care whether you goofed as long as you fix the problem. On the other hand, if a goof-up is likely to end up on someone else's doorstep too, it's best to come clean right away.

Connie Carr
Environmental Protection Agency
Philadelphia