Gary Pearce Doesn't Get It
Submitted by James Protzman on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 10:22am
The lifecycle of a political operative is an interesting phenomenon. It often starts with fresh-eyed idealism, before it evolves into focused pragmatism, followed by dark cynicism, then doddering senility. Gary Pearce, infamous Democratic pundit and consummate insider, appears to be hard into stage three. Either that or he's in Richard Moore's pocket.
Beverly Perdue has trotted out one of the oldest and tiredest campaign proposals there is: a bipartisan commission to find savings in the state budget. What’s worse, the idea could hurt her in the Democratic primary. This retread comes back up every few years – usually from a conservative or a Republican.
..
For decades, politicians have promised to root out “waste, fraud and abuse” in state government. The bones are pretty well picked over. The only way to cut that much is to lay off people. Or cut education. Or mental health. Or Medicaid. In other words, whack the people Democrats are supposed to help. And who vote in Democratic primaries.
Why, oh why would Perdue open herself up to that line of attack from Richard Moore? He could start by asking Perdue: You’ve been at the legislature for two decades. If $250 million could be cut from the state budget, why haven’t you?
(Maybe Pearce isn't keeping up with the news these days, because the fact is, Moore's campaign has already asked that exact same question.)
Politics aside, Mr. Pearce badly misses the boat with regard to the substance of the matter. Two hundred fifty million is a little over 1% of the state's total budget. And Perdue isn't talking about cutting that budget, she's talking about saving money in some areas so it can be reallocated to others. More to the point, what's wrong with staff reductions in state government? I work with global businesses that reduce long-term operating costs by 1% every year. They generally use technology and supply-chain investments to automate certain activities that used to be done with pure people power. And they almost always use attrition instead of layoffs to reduce payroll. Quality improves, performance improves, service improves. Sure it takes an initial investment, but the long term benefits are clear and well-documented.
The job of state government is not to employ people. It is to serve people. If that can be done better by having a leaner organization backed by effective technology and innovation, then so be it.
There comes a time when members of the old guard need to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they're still serving a useful purpose. In my view, people who think that the Democratic Party shouldn't be focused on efficiency and performance in government are part of the problem.
Hat tip to the Dome.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://bluenc.com/trackback/8386
- James Protzman's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Another Republican idea that doesn't work...
as proven when
a similar idea was implemented by noted Republican Kathleen Sebelius
OH RATS
I was working up a great rant there but hit a key incorrectly and lost it. Just as well. I'll resist the urge to answer your question about what could be wrong with reducing staff in state government in favor of saying that while I don't know Gary Pearce, I don't think he's quite ready for pasture yet. In any event, I have to say, as I think I did before anyway, so this will come as no shock, that I am not impressed by Perdue and that I agree with Pearce's comments with respect to this proposed Commission.
That is not to say, of course (and nor did Gary Pearce) that efficiency in state government is not a worthy focus. It is. I think we could be a lot more efficient if jobs weren't constantly being cut so that people who are supposed to be crafting policy and meeting with citizens and stakeholders aren't stuck answering the phones and doing clerical work that staff used to do.
Make no mistake about it, the person who answers the phone needs to be skilled, because handling the kinds of calls state government gets on a constant basis is serious work, but we have people who are being paid very high salaries to do serious thinking who are spending huge chunks of time filing, looking up addresses, and otherwise spending their time mired in paperwork at the expense of their primary responsibilities. It's nuts.
I'm sick to death of the stereotypes about bloated state government, and in my many years of public service have found that this particular whipping boy is getting danged skinny.
Oh, there I went and ranted anyway.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Yup.
Very well ranted.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
That about says it for me too
Thanks!
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
Business and government
I've had one foot in both camps for a long time. As a US government employee, a state employee, a city employee (elected official), an entrepreneur, and a consultant to Big Business. And I can say this without a scintilla of doubt: there is significant waste and incompetence everywhere.
I'm not talking about bloated government (I didn't say anything about that, you did), I'm talking about costs that come from people doing things that people aren't necessarily great at doing. That does not include answering the phone where customer service matters, but it does include things like filing, photocopying, data entry, mail processing, transaction processing, inventory management, some aspects of purchasing, maintenance management, data management related to risks and threats, fraud detection, reporting, and more.
Many aspects of state government are light years behind the private sector in terms of technology applications that would improve quality and reduce costs. Governments are working to make improvements quickly, but politics and "turf" are constant barriers. That's why I like the BRAC idea. It at least stands a small chance of showing which emperors have no clothes in the turf department.
well . . . . . argh and harumph!
No, you didn't use the word bloated, and I didn't mean to imply that you had made or were implying the stereotype that started me a-rantin'. And there is no question that there are many inefficiencies of a certain kind -- particularly in technology applications.
But the kind of clean-up you're talking about is NOT what Perdue is after. She is not interested in the kind of deliberate and careful surveying and assessing that would address these issues. NO politician is, because they MUST show results within their terms. The kind of analysis and cooperation that what you are talking about requires is never going to show results within a four year term.
What you can do within four years is freeze jobs, eliminate jobs, and refuse to recognize where jobs actually need to be created because you want to show everybody that you got something done.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I'm going to ask Perdue
to come to BlueNC and explain exactly what she's thinking. I'm not sure your take on this is right, but what do I know? All I know is what I would do. Let's go straight to the source.
Deal?
Don't pass the buck
I'm not a big fan of this "gimmick" either. We don't need citizens running around trying to come up with savings. And even if they do, they will likely suggest cutting services that are near and dear to somebody's heart, meaning the GA will not go along with them. We elect the state legislature to manage the people's funds wisely. If they can't do it, we need to elect different people.
The definition of idiocy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. When we keep electing the same people over and over, we should not expect different results. Look at the people we will likely elect for higher office this year? Dalton for Lt. Gov? Same old same old. Perdue for gov? Same old same old. We need some fresh blood and fresh ideas.
I think somebody should start a blog with all the "new" ideas that candidates come up with during the campaign. I bet it wouldn't be very long.
Here's my final answer
It looks like most outspoken people think Perdue's idea sucks, with another bunch who are ambivalent. I've met only a couple of people who like it besides me.
Over the years, I've often deferred to the wisdom of crowds in situations like this. When most people disagree with me, there's a good chance I'll decide I'm wrong. Yes. I'm a flip flopper on lots of stuff.
Not this time though.
I am sorry to report that I am right this time. No matter who the governor is, this should be done.
:)
nothing wrong with asking
But I think we'll get a canned answer. Now, granted, I'm a bit cynical. I don't mind admitting it. I appreciate your pointing out the possible as opposed to what I would call the improbable, because it takes belief in the possible to see changes made. Nor am I averse to giving the concept support. My problem is that I don't believe Perdue gives a damn about the concept. My problem is that I don't think Perdue thinks hard about anything. She doesn't have to. The machine is well oiled.
I feel as though I should apologize for my cynicism. It isn't a pleasant state of mind, and I am not proud of it. But I just can't give Beverly Perdue the benefit of the doubt. Wish I didn't feel so damned sure that I know better, but I do know better, and she will not get my vote.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I'm in the "like it" crowd,
for a handful of reasons:
a) setting a goal (limit?) of 10 recommendations per year should provide the impetus for the Commission to identify and focus upon the highest dollar and most inefficient operations first, and (hopefully) give them the time they need to explore each area in depth.
b) by working this effort throughout the year, the Executive and Legislative will have a much clearer vision of which departments/divisions can withstand cuts and which ones can't. Depending on the economy's impact on revenues and/or unforeseen costs (ice storms, floods, etc.), there's always the potential for a budget crisis similar to what Governor Easley had to struggle with a few times during his tenure. Scrambling to find ways to get by is a recipe for mistakes.
c) as far as I'm concerned, there's not nearly enough transparency in the way our elected officials do the State's business. This should clean that window a little bit, and maybe generate a little housecleaning in the process.