Comments on: Federal Government Needs Massive Hiring

By: proreason

proreason — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:15:58 +0000

I think a big part of this is about expanding the government voting block.

A government contractor is temporary and is less inclined to vote for the “all government all the time” party than a permanent Civil Service employee.

When the fascists are ready to takeover the Defense industry, they will just gin up an artificial crisis and sieze the Defense manufacturers.

That takeover is probably scheduled for the Moron’s second term.

By: Petronius

Petronius — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:53:00 +0000

The penultimate sentence in this article is most curious: “The Obama administration has signaled in its budget its intention to replace many contractors with government workers, particularly in the field of defense acquisition.”

If this statement is accurate, there are only two possible inferences. The first is that Nerobama’s administration does not have a clue about what it is doing. The second is that Nerobama does have a clue, but deliberately intends to corrupt or destroy the defense acquisition system, and to insert the government into competition with private enterprise.

In the first place, “the field of defense acquisition” always consists exclusively of government personnel. Contracting positions cannot be contracted out because only licensed government contracting officers have authority to obligate government funds (money appropriated by Congress).

Perhaps what the reporter really meant to say here is that the Administration intends to bring work currently performed by defense contractors in-house to be performed by government workers. However, that is impossible –– or at least impossible without making fundamental and sweeping changes to the American system of government.

Federal procurement laws have long provided that government workers perform only inherently governmental functions, such as military combat, law enforcement, control and spending of government funds, etc. All other work is contracted out, and once work has been contracted out it remains in the private sector so long as there are companies willing to compete for the work.

The underlying principle has always been that the American system is based on private enterprise, and the government does not compete with private enterprise.

Perhaps that is about to change.

By: proreason

proreason — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:27:15 +0000

I can’t shake this strange idea I have that counting the things other people make and telling them they have to make something else (your typical government job) doesn’t raise the standard of living of the country.

I just can’t get into this Marxist thing.

By: proreason

proreason — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:25:06 +0000

But the ratio is about right.

By: GuppyNblue

GuppyNblue — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:07:04 +0000

Suicide Economics 101

Grow federal government and subsequently shrink its source of revenue.

By: P. Aaron

P. Aaron — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:56:03 +0000

QUOTE: But Sanders said Obama’s vow to make government service “cool” and federal efforts to streamline the hiring process should leave the government in good stead to make the hires.

Obama means “cool” to rat out your neighbor at: flag@whitehouse.gov

By: OneAmericanCitizen

OneAmericanCitizen — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:02:32 +0000

I filled out a 17 page application for a job with the resolution trust corporation (RTC) circa 1991. I had met with RTC officers, several times. I found them corrupt and stupid. I was certainly qualified. I was turned down. I later found out the 17 page application was for chumps like me. If you knew somebody, you were hired on the spot. The application was then just a formality.

In Atlanta we have had a minority compliance board for years. Can you guess how that has worked?

By: BillK

BillK — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 05:34:31 +0000

Too bad this won’t begin to balance the number of private-sector jobs the Government has destroyed.