Welcome to Hubski.   We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login or Join Us!
Government Efficiency At It's Finest?

by hootsbox · #governmentinefficiency
posted 327 days ago · shared by: 2
Makes ya think – heh?

THE NIGHT WATCHMAN

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job. Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies. Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports. Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions: A time keeper and a payroll officer then hired two people. Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary. Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cut back." So they laid-off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter...Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration? Anybody? Anything? No? Didn't think so!

Bottom line is, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency....the reason for which few, if any, people who read this can remember! Ready? It was very simple... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977.................. To LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. Hey, pretty efficient, huh? AND NOW IT'S 2012 -- 35 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $26.4 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?")

34 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports. Ah, yes -- good old Federal bureaucracy!

NOW, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND A LARGE PORTION OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT? Hello! Anybody Home?

Signed, The Night Watchman



by thenewgreen 326 days ago  ·  link
I'm not saying that the analogy of the night watchman doesn't have some truth regarding the bloated nature of government bureaucracy, but here are the origins of the Department of Energy as said by Wikipedia:

    In 1942, during World War II, the United States started the Manhattan Project, a project to develop the atomic bomb, under the eye of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. After the war, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was created to control the future of the project. The AEC was reinstated and gave way to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which was tasked with regulating the nuclear power industry, and the Energy Research and Development Administration, which was tasked to manage the nuclear weapon, naval reactor, and energy development programs. The 1973 oil crisis called attention to the need to consolidate energy policy. On August 4, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed into law The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (Pub.L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565, enacted August 4, 1977), which created the Department of Energy.[3] The new agency, which began operations on October 1, 1977, assumed the responsibilities of the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal Power Commission, and programs of various other agencies.

It appears that the DOE is a consolidation of several departments that already existed and was used to create a cabinet level position after the scare of the '73 oil crisis.

This does seem to be a pattern, doesn't it? After the scare of 9/11 we got homeland security.

by hootsbox 321 days ago  ·  link
Maybe we need to revisit the "scare results" and trim some sails. We have redundant functions. I was a younger person and lived throught the 1973 crisis (which was more than a scare buddy). The Deptartment of Energy, under Carter (who I voted for by the way) was tasked with reducing our dependence on foreign oil - not so much of a success here. Maybe we should let attrition have its way, and combine some departments into one - we could make a diminished DOE part of the Department of Interior which oversees some things in the same way, or let the Atomic Energy Commisssion be part of the Department of Defense (where it more naturally fits). No, what we get is the "blob" that grows and grows and grows and grows and takes the fruit of the inidividual's labor in a more increasing rate - pretty soon we'll have "Atlas Shrugged".
by thenewgreen 320 days ago  ·  link
I'm all for the responsible trimming of our federal bureaucracy. What I think can be irresponsible is when people blindly call for the obliteration of entire departments of government without consideration for the functions they serve. There's a lot of "lip service" out there these days about the departments that will go, some know there are three... but can't recall them all oops.
by hootsbox 303 days ago  ·  link

Any government department will find a justification to use it's own budget; THE BLOB!

by cgod 325 days ago  ·  link
My first thought was that DOE still controls the nuclear arsenal, a pretty significant function. Almost every endeavor business or government involves waste, time to get used to the idea. A real effort to increase government efficiency could net the economy a few percentage points in growth regardless of weather it was put into the provision of more government services or tax breaks. Sadly the debate come down to one side trying to prevent most change, preventing the gutting of the useful functions that many government without any regard to waste and the other side looking to destroy all programs that have wasteful aspects rather then reforming them.

Your seem to be in the destruction camp, narrowly interpreting things like oil consumption percentages without taking any stock of the causes of these changes or considering what the alternative costs and benefits of not having public policy and regulation of the energy sector would be. Every policy and bureaucracy has a cost and a benefit, the focus should be how can we maximize the benefit and minimize the cost of the DOE by eliminating waste and providing more useful services. Maybe you would rather have massive pollution from an energy sector with no efficiency or pollution standards?

And by the way, nice caps bro. Is this your original work? No I didn't think so, might try crediting where ever you got it from. The way you have presented it looks a bit like you are claiming authorship. It's a nice story for the Tea Baggers, but is it true? I tried to find some evidence that there is any truth to this story online, but after a few searches, 20 or so pages of results, I can't seem to find anything that proves that "Nightwatchmen Gate" ever happened. I'd love for you to support your Tea Bag propaganda with a little evidence. If you are just here to share a bit Tea Bagery then thanks but no thanks.

by hootsbox 321 days ago  ·  link
It was an internet post, but I lived during the 1973 oil crisis and know a lot about what the DOE was created for. As with anything else it seems, government will grow (and always find a need - real or perceived) to fit the budget allotted for it, and they will justify their existence to the end. I did not claim to come up with it (let's see - I have noticed many things that are linked to or copied from other sources on this site and many blogs). I just commented. However, on many posts, I not only give the link, I show where the source came from.
by cgod 321 days ago  ·  link
So any comment on the veracity of this fairy tale, or just doing a bit of tea-bagging? I don't see many posts presented in this way with no attribution or link of any kind, but maybe we just follow different people.


about hubski  ·  faq  ·  rss  ·  tmi  ·  twitter  ·  buttons  ·  tools  ·  arc  ·  privacy & terms  ·  login