Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Without going hostal <h3>if I recall the only real cuts in spending during clintons years were in defense spending. Real cut being spending less money, not reduction in growth which democrats always call cuts.</h3>
|
going "hostal"....good one! Now, if you would just read my posts....I've posted about Gore's initiatives that produced real reductions in the size of the non-military federal work force, a number of times, on this forum.
When Jeb Bush's coup forced Gore out of government, the federal work force had been reduced to it's smallest size since 1960. Real noin-defense cuts, real management, no increase in spending on independent contractors.
In searching for the info to help Ustwo become an informed voter, I came across this, a year 2000 endorsement of Gore from Marc Perkel:
It really was "that simple". The republicans took power in early 2001, and have done a remarkable job, given the short period of time that has gone by...in destroying the fiscal stability of government, and the ability of government to function...broken military, shattered foreign relations.... joke administrations of DOJ, FEMA, SEC, FCC, EPA, and the Fed!
Ustwo, please become an informed voter....so you don't help to vote in disaster, ever again?
Quote:
http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2...nce_kettl.aspx
Has Government Been 'Reinvented'?
Governance, Bureaucracy, Executive Branch, Civil Service
Donald F. Kettl, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies
House Committee on Rules; Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
4-May-00 —
....The downsizing accounts for about half ($54.8 billion) of the $111.8 billion in savings the Clinton administration claims from "reinventing government." The downsizing reductions are clear and the estimates are reliable. Of the other half, most come from savings in procurement ($12.3 billion) and improvements in agency management. These savings are difficult to prove, since it is impossible to say with certainty what the government would have spent for these functions in the absence of reform. It might be possible to contest some of these estimates. However, in my judgment these estimates are certainly reasonable.
One question often raised is whether the "downsized" workers have been replaced by private contractors. Good numbers on government procurement are notoriously difficult to produce. However, the General Services Administration Government Procurement Data System reveals that, from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1999, the federal government's total procurement budget actually dropped slightly, by about $1 billion. The number of contract actions—contracts negotiated—decreased by 48 percent. The number of defense contracts shrank more quickly than the number of contracts elsewhere in the government (a 52 percent decrease in the number of defense contracts, versus a 42 percent decrease elsewhere). Total defense spending via contracts shrank slightly (by 1 percent), while contract spending elsewhere in the government grew slightly (by 1 percent). Thus, it is difficult to make the case that the downsized workers produced an increase in contracting.
<h3>In short, "reinventing government" has significantly downsized the bureaucracy and produced substantial cost savings.</h3> However, the effort has not attacked the critical workforce issues facing the federal government......
|
Studies like the one above were funded by the Smith Richardson foundation, of the ("Vick's vaporub" fortune), hardly a "liberal" source: