Reply to Feds- how concerned are you about the possibility of Schedule F?

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Feds- how concerned are you about the possibility of Schedule F?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Call your Senator - this exact issue was the subject of an amendment by Rep. Connolly in the NDAA that has already been passed in the House.

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2022/07/schedule-f-ban-among-many-workforce-provisions-annual-policy-bill-house-just-passed/374537/[/quote]

Thank you for posting this pp. I will call my Senator about it.

I am a fed in a policymaking managerial position, and I would certainly be at risk, even with 20 years in. Aside from that, all American should be concerned about Schedule F.  Our Federal workforce has its major flaws, but having a professional and non-political federal service is the backbone of this country.  I am so glad to see this legislative initiative bc most of the American public will not know/understand/care about the implications of this topic. [/quote]

I think it would be great. If you are in a “policymaking” position, you should be subject to democratic accountability, period.  It’s shocking how many people [b]seem to feel like it’s ok that so many critically important decisions are being made by people with zero accountability to the electorate[/b]. The administrative state is beyond out of control and needs to be reined in.  And “non-political” is a joke, federal civil service personnel are Democrats almost to a person.  [/quote]

I promise you the bolded isn't true.  Agency policy has to be signed off by the head of the agency, typically one confirmed by the Senate.  For Executive Branch agencies (which is most of them), if the White House doesn't want it then you don't even spend time on it.  In addition, the vast majority of decisions affecting the public are subject to procedures for public comment, where the agency has to ask for input and then respond to everyone's comments: there is a whole area of law set up to compensate for the fact policy experts aren't elected.  Plus, agencies are very sensitive to angry congressmen (and budget decisions) so they do their best to avoid things that make you call your congressman to complain.  All of that is at least as much accountability as you get with your Senator coming up for reelection every 6 years.

It's untrue that Feds are all Democrats (it's estimated at about 2/3 of Feds, and I am a non-Dem Fed myself) but in my experience the blue-leaning bureaucrats go out of their way to execute smartly on GOP policy just to show how apolitical they are.  Feds tend to be rule-following people-pleasers, not radicals. They have fully bought into the system, and the system requires them to carry out the directions of the elected leader no matter what.

What would actually happen under Schedule F is the elimination of policy experts -- people with degrees and deep expertise in economics, markets, energy policy, foreign affairs, medicine, transportation, etc. -- in order to replace them with people from the campaign staff and party donors.  We already tried this in the Gilded Age and it didn't go well. I don't think most Americans realize how rampant bribery used to be, and still is in other countries that don't have a protected civil service. [/quote]

Yes, I understand the Schoolhouse Rock version of how the system is supposed to work.  In the real world, “personnel is policy” and the permanent bureaucracy has a million ways to delay, defer, and subvert policies that they don’t want to see implemented.  While it is admittedly true that a political appointee can STOP certain policy initiatives in some cases—a fact that the bureaucracy is increasingly able to circumvent through collusive settlements with sympathetic NGOs—that is quite different than driving affirmative policy changes, which is much harder.  It’s quite easy for the bureaucracy to run out the clock on Republican administrations, to game the system by manipulating the timing of decisions to ensure they occur under Democratic rather than Republican politicals, to develop an administrative record that locks the agency in to certain courses of action, etc.  Agencies care only about members of Congress who sit on their oversight or appropriating committees, so in almost all cases “calling your congressman” means nothing, and the “whole area of law” set up to deal with the the fact that policy is largely made by unelected bureaucrats defers to agency decisions in all but the most clear cases of agency overreach.  None of this is apolitical or objective, although I am sure the permanent civil service believes that they are merely making rational decisions, not political choices.  Ideology feels like common sense from the inside.  [/quote]

NP. I work at a high level at an agency that's very political (our decisions are political). I have absolutely not seen what you're talking about. This sounds like what children think happens in the government. "Run the clock out"- no. Also administrative records don't lock the agency into courses of action. Policies can often do a 180 degree turn and you SEE that in an administrative record. Administrative records are just records, not a guideline or something you follow. They also don't show the future actions, just past actions.

I would say also that most feds are very apolitical. Even my most liberal colleagues follow management and do not subvert policy like what you're describing. I am a conservative, there are lots in the government.

Most of our mid-level political appointees were just lackeys who worked on political campaigns. I do not want them making policies, please leave that to experts with PhDs and actual experience. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics