PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Clinton Says She Would Cut 500,000 Federal Contractors


BKK
25 April 2007, 00:30
Easy for her to say, but reality is a different matter. Typical rhetoric without any viable solutions.


April 24, 2007

Hillary Clinton Says She Would Cut 500,000 Federal Contractors

Sen. Clinton says such a move would save the federal government between $10
billion and $18 billion per year

by Paul McDougall, InformationWeek

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that if elected she
would put an end to the outsourcing of critical government functions to the
private sector and ax up to half a million federal contracting jobs.

In a speech last week at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., Clinton
-- considered a front-runner for the Democratic nomination along with
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama -- claimed such a move would save the federal
government between $10 billion and $18 billion per year.

"I propose we eliminate 500,000 government contracting positions," said
Clinton, according to a transcript of the speech posted last week on her Web
site.

Criticizing the Bush administration's heavy reliance on the private sector
for everything from IT work to security in Baghdad and Iraq, Clinton said
federal outsourcing programs are plagued with waste and lack oversight.

"All too often, this administration has handed out government contracts
without even shopping around for the best price ... there has been an
explosion in no-bid contracting," said the New York senator.

Bush administration officials argue that the outsourcing of jobs,
particularly tech positions, is essential to offset a looming worker
shortage created in part by retiring government employees. Thousands of
federal IT workers are expected to reach retirement age over the next couple
of years, according to the government.

Clinton's comments come as the Department of Justice last week said it would
investigate several major tech vendors for allegedly offering kickbacks in
exchange for a share of work on lucrative government contracts.

The Department of Justice on Thursday said it had joined three
whistle-blower lawsuits that claim Accenture, Hewlett-Packard, and Sun
Microsystems made kickbacks to or received kickbacks from third parties
involved in technology contracts with government agencies.

The Justice Department said the companies solicited or made payments of
money and other enticements to a number of partners with whom they had
global "alliance relationships" or an agreement to work together on
government contracts.

Accenture and HP have denied any wrongdoing. Sun said it is waiting to see
the results of a government audit before taking further action.


Clinton assails outsourcing

Presidential contender vows to bring greater accountability to government
operations

BY Matthew Weigelt <mailto:mweigelt@1105govinfo.com>
Published on April 23, 2007

Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she favors
reducing the government's reliance on the private sector by cutting 500,000
government contracting jobs and creating more public-sector jobs. Her
proposal could save as much as $18 billion a year and would create a more
accountable and competent workforce, she said in a speech April 13.

"Over the past six years, this administration has steadily outsourced
critical government functions to private companies, adding more than 2.4
million private contractors to the federal payroll," Clinton said. "These
contractors, it turns out, are often more expensive than doing the work in
the government.. They're often less accountable and less competent."

Clinton made her comments in the wake of highly publicized federal
contracting problems, including controversies associated with the Iraq war
and Hurricane Katrina recovery. Increasingly, federal contracting issues,
including the private sector's ability to lure experienced government
workers, have become prominent topics of political debate.

But several industry officials were quick to dismiss Clinton's remarks about
contracting job cuts as political rhetoric. Scott Lewis, president and chief
executive officer of consulting firm PS Partnerships, said the government
already has trouble finding enough qualified workers to meet its needs.
Adding the burden of hiring more federal workers to replace contractors
doesn't seem feasible, he said.

"As a contractor, I wouldn't be worrying," Lewis said. "Except for a few
pockets of services, I just don't think it's going to happen in any way to
really affect the general contracting community. It's just election talk."

Outsourcing proponents point to the government's aging workforce as another
reason to downplay Clinton's remarks. The Office of Personnel Management has
said about 60 percent of workers and 90 percent of federal executives will
be eligible to retire in 10 years.

If anything, the government will depend more on outsourcing in the coming
years, industry experts say.

Clinton's proposal lacks any analytical or strategic basis, said Stan
Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, which represents
companies that sell services to the federal government.

Clinton's remarks presume that the close partnership between the private and
public sectors has lowered the quality of government, and that's untrue,
Soloway said. "Senator Clinton's suggestion.is founded in some troubling
mythology," he said. "I have never heard anyone pine for the 'good old days'
of high-performing government."

Warren Suss, president of Suss Consulting, said making major cuts before
figuring out how to perform the work currently done by contractors is
inviting disaster.

However, it's significant that government contracting has emerged as an
important topic in the national political campaign, he said. The incoming
administration will face unprecedented pressures to reduce the growth of
federal spending, he added.

"The real challenge is whether we resolve the issue in a way that yields
improved efficiency and effectiveness in delivering government services and
in carrying out critical government and military missions," Suss said.

Kalanis
25 April 2007, 06:37
Yeah, that's just blah blah.

Stanley_White
25 April 2007, 07:21
So you cut the contractors...

WHO is then going to provide the service they were providing?

Not a well thought through statement on her part.

SOTB
25 April 2007, 07:24
So you cut the contractors...

WHO is then going to provide the service they were providing?

Not a well thought through statement on her part.Huh? Why govt employees of course. Isn't the party line? More services and more taxes to pay for them and the govt employees who give them out. Since, of course, it is the desire of every American that the non-working fuck down the road have every cool toy and nicety that the other has....

Massgrunt
25 April 2007, 07:25
Conveniently absent is the fact that the rush to privatize began under her husband.

Max Power
25 April 2007, 08:30
Wow...

She made it sound good though. I'll give her that.

Its just an idiotic concept.

CDRODA396
25 April 2007, 08:35
Conveniently absent is the fact that the rush to privatize began under her husband.

One among oh so many issues that would fall into the catagory....:(

Viking
25 April 2007, 08:38
They're often less accountable and less competent


:)

"I have never heard anyone pine for the 'good old days' of high-performing government."

Great line.

SnakeEat
25 April 2007, 08:43
Easy for her to say, but reality is a different matter. Typical rhetoric without any viable solutions.

Yeah, but I appreciate having her intentions on the record; here's another in a series of reasons to ensure there's not another Clinton in the White House.

rubberneck
25 April 2007, 10:04
Criticizing the Bush administration's heavy reliance on the private sector for everything from IT work to security in Baghdad and Iraq, Clinton said federal outsourcing programs are plagued with waste and lack oversight.

"All too often, this administration has handed out government contracts
without even shopping around for the best price ... there has been an
explosion in no-bid contracting," said the New York senator.

Listen here sweet cheeks. It is your fucking job as a US Senator to provide oversight when it comes to government spending. If there is no oversight on bids given out to contractors stop pointing your finger at the administration and look in the mirror. You and your flunky retreads on the hill have failed miserably in discharging your duties and no amount of blame directed at the President absolves you of your failures.

I understand that is really hard to do your job when you spend every minute of every day pimping yourself out to raise money for your Presidential campaign but try.

MixedLoad
25 April 2007, 12:57
Good intentions, bad judgement!

Lannister
25 April 2007, 13:07
This "speech" is "par for the course"...

EVERY potential presidential candidate promises changes to shit they have NO idea about because they didn't RATE to get the true "skinny" of what is really going on...

But then all of a sudden... they wake up one day... and find that they won the election... their security clearance is upgraded... then they are sat down and explained the reason/purpose for the shit they campaigned to change.

Then they are called LIARS for not changing the shit they campaigned and got elected to change...:rolleyes:

Ignorance is bliss...

0699
25 April 2007, 14:05
Listen here sweet cheeks. It is your fucking job as a US Senator to provide oversight when it comes to government spending. If there is no oversight on bids given out to contractors stop pointing your finger at the administration and look in the mirror. You and your flunky retreads on the hill have failed miserably in discharging your duties and no amount of blame directed at the President absolves you of your failures.

I understand that is really hard to do your job when you spend every minute of every day pimping yourself out to raise money for your Presidential campaign but try.

It sounds like you are trying to hold her accountable. How dare you? She can't be expected to fix problems like this unless she's president. :)

I thought out-sourcing was supposed to cure all our governmental problems. Is that not true now? Maybe she considers the military to be contractors and she's just going to fold the DOD... :rolleyes:

grog18b
25 April 2007, 17:59
"I propose we eliminate 500,000 government contracting positions," said
Clinton, according to a transcript of the speech posted last week on her Web
site."
Soooo, it's her plan to create an unemployment problem? Goooood idea...
and how the hell is THAT going to bring MORE accountability???? Enron??? She's a moron, and it'll be a sad day if she wins the election. Very, very sad day. I can imagine future generations saying "What the HELL were they thinking..."

The91Bravo
26 April 2007, 19:00
Clinton=Assclown
Nuf said

SWCC18
29 April 2007, 09:26
And we can all grow up to be GS's with a pension plan and benefits, and vacation time too!

She doesn't know what the hell she's talking about, not to mention if she were to federalize all of those jobs all over again it would take 120 years for everyone to get hired back into the system at the rate they do business.

I'll write in my own name before I vote for that monstrosity...

Savoy6
29 April 2007, 10:15
Is she going to come up with a system like DTS (Defense Travel Service) which is suppose to cut lots of jobs and save the government tons of money?

She wants to cut 500,000 jobs and create more public sector jobs? Does she realize that she is saying she plans to fire half a million people? Now who in their right mind will vote for this? Laying off this many people is good for the economy how?? She doesn't value the vote of anyone who is working in this sector if she is bold enough to put this on her agenda.

TheBigC
29 April 2007, 10:44
I was under the impression that contractors were cheaper to hire than using government employees or military personnel. So what alternative would she purpose that would help the government save money? The work will continue to be needed for operations, so unless she has a alternative like increasing the military it will not happen.

NightLandNav
29 April 2007, 10:57
What purpose? Ambition, that's what purpose. But I am starting to see a change in her affect, and this is just a part of it.

Pres. Clinton was elected Gov. more by Hillary's ambition and focus than his own. The race for Pres., less obvious, but in the greater sense, still by her hand.

Think of her as Mary Todd Lincoln with a Law degree.

When Pres. Clinton tried to appoint her (as first Lady) to be in charge of revamping the medicare system...he stated, and I quote "She is one of the smartest persons I have ever known, and the most capable person I know of to...(get the jog done).

I watched her in person for 45 min as her husband (then POTUS) spoke...The Pres. was of little interest, he was as obvious as could be...but she, really put the hooks in me as I noticed her, more and more.

She was the power behind the throne, and smart enough to hide it just well enough for most.

I have little doubt that she was running for President from 1993 until now.

Little doubt at all.

Sen. Clinton, Ma mam', if you ever read this, just know that I see you.

And if I see you, others do too, lots of others. But as you know, hardly enough to make a difference if you can keep the shroud up as the possibility of your place in US history becomes more plausible.

But that steely eyed focus and determination I noticed in 1996 and saw as evident until this first Dem debate...is now less evident. For all your determined intellect, you are just now having trouble getting your brain around it all.

And unsurprisingly, you are all the more the politician as a reaction to it. And now more people may see beyond your increasingly political affect.

Enough? No, probably not, just like your political advisers have already told you. But there is a whole lot of politicking between now and "Nov."

The shroud may be lifted, just enough to see beyond the pale.

If not, then no hard feelings. I'll be the first to send you and the First Gentleman a fine box of Cohibas and pack of Trojans.

Tracy
29 April 2007, 11:08
I was under the impression that contractors were cheaper to hire than using government employees or military personnel. So what alternative would she purpose that would help the government save money? The work will continue to be needed for operations, so unless she has a alternative like increasing the military it will not happen.

They're not so much cheaper as they are a fixed cost. They can also be hired, and fired, a helluva lot faster than gubbies. Contracting companies don't let supermarket manangers compete for strategic intelligence analyst positions and take 8-12 weeks to make up their minds.

Second, the net effect of hiring contractors is that a LOT of the best and brightest work as contractors, especially at the lowest levels; and the government employees are the supervisors. In the IT and Analyst areas, the USG will slit its own throat if they fire the contractors.

There are no low-level GS positions any more in the technical fields; they're all supervising contractors. Consequently they have no recent or relevent experience.

I have a BSCS degree and a Master's in a couple of IT areas; so I'm not worried about a govt contract. Hell, it would be nice to work an 8-hour day instead of 12...

Type-82
29 April 2007, 12:50
Too frikin funny!! So we will hire government workers to fill the void? Government workers who will not be ever fired, have a long term retirement plan and become a huge drag on the government. Contractors are easy to get rid of when the job is done. The big thing is these new "government" jobs can be handed out to buy votes.

NightLandNav
29 April 2007, 13:43
...
...The big thing is these new "government" jobs can be handed out to buy votes.

What you are suggesting is that a candidate would willfully manipulate their position for blatantly self serving political gain regardless of any detriment to more effective government!

Next you will be accusing candidates of making statements they don't mean and promises they don't intend to keep just in order win an election to office where they can further take advantage.

You conspiracy theorists, you never stop. ;)

Parajuevos
29 April 2007, 14:35
Let Hillary continue her political diatribe. The more she runs her mouth, the farther she will travel away from her goal of becoming President.

NightLandNav
29 April 2007, 14:59
Let Hillary continue her political diatribe. The more she runs her mouth, the farther she will travel away from her goal of becoming President.

That's what I'm realistically hoping for...and this is a new glimmer of hope.

This all seems reactionary on her part...keep it up Sen. Clinton.

Andy0331
4 May 2007, 15:33
So you cut the contractors...

WHO is then going to provide the service they were providing?

Not a well thought through statement on her part.


Huh? Why govt employees of course. Isn't the party line? More services and more taxes to pay for them and the govt employees who give them out. Since, of course, it is the desire of every American that the non-working fuck down the road have every cool toy and nicety that the other has....


LOL, ain't that the truth. TSA baggage screeners anyone?