I Concure, Mr. President

On the White House Blog, today, there was a new posting that the White House priorities were not to “line the pockets of contractors.” First things first, they are looking at changes in defense contracting. No surprise, there, my beloved Commander-in-Chief. Excuse me if I’m not convinced that you will do “whatever it takes to defend the American people.” I’m still waiting to see who is going to defend us, and our great-grandchildren’s pockets, from you.

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), they found cost overruns that totaled more than $295 billion. The cherry on top was when you followed that announcement with, “Let me repeat: That’s $295 billion dollars in wasteful spending.”

You’re a funny man, there, Mr. President. Since marijuana isn’t legal and so my short-term memory isn’t shot, I believe it wasn’t too long ago you hoisted a trillion dollars in wasteful spending on every American taxpayer, including all of those to be born forever and ever. Let me repeat: That’s a TRILLION dollars in wasteful spending. That makes your measly $295 billion argument a little weak. Your repetition has desensitized the masses.

As a government employee, though, the word contractor has a different connotation to me. I’m not just thinking of big time overruns in defense. There are thousands of little leaks right here in DC.

There have been presidents in the past who have claimed to lower the welfare rolls, I mean, the government pay rolls. There have been presidents who have boasted of not increasing the government pay rolls, as well. Technically, these claims may be true, but that is only because a good portion of people who work for the federal government are actually “contractors,” hired by a third party we (taxpayers) pay in order for politicians to trick us into thinking they are keeping the size of government in check, in order to secure our votes. What a fun little game they play!

Your timing, Mr. President, is impeccable. Earlier this week I saw an email from a contracting firm that, currently, only carries about 22 federal employees, err, I mean, contractors. That’s chump change in the federal contracting world.

For an employee that would cost the federal government $33,269 in salary, plus benefits, we were handed a figure of over $80,000. Now, I do realize that what an employee gets paid is never what they actually cost. But, I believe, this is a bit excessive. As wasteful as the federal government is, I can’t imagine that it actually costs the contracting firm over $80,000 to employ someone who is only making $33,269 in salary on the federal payroll. So, it would seem, we are lining the pockets of contractors.

One of the benefits of hiring contractors, supposedly, is they are easier to let go if they don’t work out. This is only a benefit because our system, with all of its victim classes and special interest groups, makes it nearly impossible to fire a federal employee. Unfortunately, it’s not always as easy as it’s supposed to be. Often members of a federally protected class threaten to make a claim or start litigation based on (often non-existent) discrimination.

The threat of a claim is enough to stop any supervisor in their tracks. A claim against a person or office, no matter how unfounded or untrue, will automatically cost the taxpayers more money than it’s worth to fight it. It’s cheaper just to pat them on the back, say job well done, cut them a check, and send them on their way.If Barack Obama sincerely wants to start a “new era of fiscal responsibility,” why doesn’t he start here?

I concur, Mr. President. The “American people’s money should be spent to advance their priorities.” I’m just not sure you know what their priorities are. Based on the “stimulus” bill you and Congress just shoved down our throats, I would say you haven’t a clue. Hacking away at wasteful spending, probably. Putting defense on the chopping block first, not so much.