Balancing the Federal Budget: Eating the Seed Corn or Trimming the Herds?

Books

Irene S. Rubin

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Part One: Eating the Seed Corn?

    Part Two: Trimming the Herds?

  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Tables

    • 2.1 A Chronology of Major Events 29
    • 2.2 Deficits and Surpluses in Nominal Dollars, 1975–99 30
    • 2.3 Estimated Revenue Impacts of Tax Legislation, 1981–97 31
    • 2.4 Federal Credit: Face Value Outstanding 46
    • 2.5 Federal Credit: Present Value Future Costs 47
    • 2.6 Growth of Discretionary and Entitlement Spending, 1990–99 48
    • 5.1 GAO Appropriations and Staffing Levels, 1995–2000 124
    • 5.2 GAO's Appropriations and Staffing, 1984–95 127
    • 5.3 Number of Jobs Completed 129
    • 5.4 Cost per Job at GAO 130
    • 5.5 Percent On-time Delivery 130
    • 5.6 Planned Project Starts, 1995 and 1996, GAO, Various Issue Areas 139
    • 6.1 Budget Authority for USDA, 1976–2002 156
    • 6.2 USDA Staffing Declines, 1993–2002 157
    • 6.3 Staffing Levels, USDA, 1985–92, CBO Data 159 7.1 Outlays, Department of Commerce, 1980–2000 182
    • 8.1 HUD FTE Staffing, 1981–95 221
    • 8.2 HUD Federal Civilian Workers, 1985–97 221
    • 8.3 HUD Outlays and Budget Authority, 1977–2002 222
    • 8.4 Budget Authority Needed for Contract Renewals 235
    • 9.1 OPM, FTE Employment, 1993–99 259
    • 9.2 OPM Components, FTE Reductions, FY 1993–96 260

    Preface

    THIS BOOK BEGAN as an effort to respond to critics of an earlier book, Shrinking the Federal Government. In that book, I argued that budget cutbacks under the Reagan administration did not lead to more efficient government but rather threw a number of agencies into chaos, with reductions in force, bumping of personnel into unfamiliar jobs, and widespread loss of morale. It took several years for agencies affected by these cuts to recover their former levels of efficiency. Critics suggested that if I had looked at those agencies over a longer time span, I might have seen adaptations to lower staff levels and improvements in efficiency. The argument caught my attention. I thought they might be right, and if they were, I had to set the record straight as soon as possible. I set out to restudy some of the agencies I had done cases on in the mid-1980s.

    By the mid-1990s, when I was doing the field work for this book, many of those same agencies had been cut again, sometimes several times. Rather than a model of one set of cuts and recovery, these agencies were often on a seesaw, sometimes dealing with buildups and sometimes with cutbacks. The concept of the book began to change, to focus on what these agencies learned over time in terms of how to survive cuts, what strategies they used, and what they became—leaner, more efficient, or hollower, providing services of lower quality.

    To what extent was the federal government learning how to cut back in a wiser way, prioritizing, cutting waste, and maintaining program quality and to what extent was it cutting across the board or where it was politically easy to do so, hiding the damages along the way? One end of the continuum I called trimming the herds, skillfully pruning the size of government until it matched the resource levels available, much as hunters trim the deer herds of the old and sick so the herds will not overgrow their food supplies. The other end of the continuum I called eating the seed corn, consuming the basic information, quality staff, knowledge base, and credibility of the agencies, ultimately making any kind of recovery very difficult, if not impossible. If farmers eat their seed corn, they have nothing to plant the following spring.

    The scope of the study expanded in several ways. On the one hand, the choice of agencies shifted to include some not in the original study to better focus on the issue of eating seed corn or trimming herds. On the other hand, the topic grew to include how and when government learns.

    The effort to balance the federal budget reflected a number of deeply held (and sometimes contradictory) goals. Many actors wanted to claim credit for achieving these goals and were reluctant to take the heat for service or program cuts or tax increases, creating enormous pressure to make the budget look more balanced than it was. The budget and finance offices were under great pressure, as was the Bureau of Labor Statistics with its potent cost of living index, the CPI, to come up with the “right” numbers. How these agencies balanced such pressures against the need to maintain a reputation for impartiality and professionalism became part of the story.

    The field work was done in summer and fall of 1996 in Washington, D.C., with the support of a sabbatical from Northern Illinois University and a fellowship from the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. At that time, the deficit was still raging, but by 1998, the budget was nearly in balance. The efforts to balance the budget were beginning to look like a success story; how had this been achieved? What had the government learned over this time period, from the tax breaks of the early Reagan era in 1981 to 1998, when the budget achieved balance? It was not only a matter of whether the agencies survived and what they learned and became; it was also a matter of how Congress learned. How did the failures of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction legislation become the relative successes of the Budget Enforcement Acts of 1990 and 1993? Who, if anyone, learned from the failures, where was that knowledge stored, and how was it called on later? What was the trigger that turned the game playing and obfuscation of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings into the relative discipline and openness of the Budget Enforcement Act?

    If the federal government did indeed learn to balance the budget, then perhaps it can learn to solve other policy problems as well. This book suggests, tentatively, that government can and sometimes does learn, but the mechanisms for learning are fragmentary and fragile. One of the more tantalizing findings was the discovery of the existence of a network of budgeters, across agencies and across branches of government, who often switch between agencies and between branches of government during their careers, leaving trusted peers behind who continue to call on them for advice. This network was simultaneously a repository of learning and a means of teaching.

    People disagree on the importance of balancing the budget as a policy goal, but it is typical of the kind of policy problems government has to try to solve—messy problems with little consensus on means. To the extent that eliminating the deficit resulted from legislative design and political will, as opposed to a booming economy (both played a role), we should have more confidence in our ability to solve other messy problems, such as Social Security and housing the homeless. In the interim, however, we should pay more attention to the structures through which learning in government takes place and ensure that accumulated knowledge is not allowed to drain away in the name of cost savings. That would truly be eating the seed corn.

    The problems addressed in this book are not going away, despite the achievement of budgetary balance after years of massive deficits. Within a couple of years of achieving balance, the outcome is again in question. With increased expenditures for the damage done in the terrorist attack of 11 September and the ensuing military action in Afghanistan, the increased budget for the military in future years, a marked slowdown of the economy (formally designated a recession), and the tax reductions of the George W. Bush administration, deficits seem likely to appear in 2002. Given Bush's determination not to raise taxes—“over my dead body” he is reported to have said—and the increased costs of rescuing the economy, pursuing terrorists abroad, and domestic defense, deficit spending may well return.

    The problems of eating the seed corn have intensified. Years of frozen hiring have left some agencies with major skills gaps and an aging workforce. Many senior staff with years of accumulated knowledge of governmental programs and budgeting techniques are planning retirement within the next few years. Emphasis on contracting out rather than hiring in-house means that a change in contractors often results in a loss of experience and institutional memory. Years of reducing the quality of programs to save money have left some agencies frayed, their reputations eroding, and the usefulness of their products declining. Budget strategies designed to get agencies and programs through tough times are not meant to last over decades.

    Agencies find that they cannot defend themselves by arguing that budget and staffing reductions have hurt their ability to produce a quality product, lest they be punished or even terminated because they are not doing a good enough job. So they accept cuts and continue to claim that they can do the jobs they have always done. The elected officials in Congress and the White House continue to believe or at least argue that they are eliminating waste and making agencies more efficient, but it is not clear that is always the consequence of cuts. The pressure to measure performance and punish poor performers with budget cuts remains high. For some agencies, the result is likely to be a cycle of cuts, poorer performance, and more cuts. This is not the way it was supposed to be. The relationship between appropriate levels of budget and good-quality services and products has yet to be recognized, and it is not clear how governmental agencies will be able to make that argument. While predictions are always risky, I am willing to predict that there will be continued resistance to detailed performance measurement because of this cycle.

    I have tried to pick out a justifiable chunk of the story to tell, from 1981 to 1998, from the buildup of deficits in the early Reagan administration to the balanced budgets of the later 1990s. There was a pause and an outcome of sorts when budgetary balance was achieved. But the story continues, the stakes are enormous, and much remains to be learned.

    Acknowledgments

    I ACKNOWLEDGE WITH GRATITUDE the help of many people in preparing this book. Roy Meyers, Marvin Phaup, and Phil Joyce helped orient me to the field and the players. I am particularly thankful to my interviewees, who gave me their time and explained to me what budgeting was like during the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Some of them are quoted directly in the chapters in which their agencies are discussed, and others asked not to be identified. I am also indebted to those who read and critiqued chapters for me, including Allen Schick and Robert Reischauer, and a number of agency people who declined to be named. It has been a source of great pride and pleasure for me to work with such people; they have demonstrated the helping and learning networks that are the subject of this book. Through a lifetime of effort, they have raised the level of public discussion.

    I would also like to acknowledge the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., for a fellowship in 1996, which gave me a base in Washington, access to the Library of Congress, research assistance, and an identification tag that allowed me to enter federal buildings. Helpful staff and stimulating colleagues made this stay in Washington exciting and productive. During the same time period, Northern Illinois University granted me a sabbatical leave to do the field research.

  • Notes

    Chapter 1 1981–98: Balancing the Budget: What Have We Learned?

    1. Allen Schick, The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, and Process (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1995), 2, 3.

    2. George Strauss, former OMB staffer, interview by author, 10 January 1996.

    3. Al Kliman, phone interview by author, 10 April 1996.

    4. Robert Reischauer, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, interview by author, 16 July 1996.

    5. “Politicians Perform a Bad Balancing Act with Nation's Budget,” Chicago Tribune, 7 May 1997.

    6. Aaron Wildavsky and Naomi Caiden, The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. 3d ed. (New York: Longman, 1997), 288.

    7. Joseph Minarik, OMB, interview by author, 25 September 1996.

    8. Ibid.

    9. Ron Boster, CED, interview by author, 26 September 1996.

    10. Martha Phillips, Concord Coalition, interview by author, 22 July 1996.

    11. Reischauer interview, 16 July 1996.

    12. Dynamic scoring means assuming positive effects of current policies on the economy and, as a result, increasing estimates of revenues. Some feedback effects are routinely included in budget projections; the pressure was to increase estimates of those effects.

    13. Barry Anderson, OMB, interview by author, 18 July 1996.

    14. Tom Cuny, interview by author, 13 August 1996.

    15. Kliman interview, 16 July 1996.

    16. Reischauer interview, 16 July 1996.

    17. Bill Dauster, interview by author, 7 August 1996.

    18. Reischauer interview, 16 July 1996.

    19. Ibid.

    20. Ibid.

    21. Bob Kramer, BLS, e-mail correspondence with author, 29 January 1997.

    22. Dauster interview, 7 August 1996.

    23. Ibid.

    24. Allen Schick, interview by author, 29 October 1996.

    25. The caps held as long as the budget was not balanced. After balance was declared and surpluses began to build, the caps were exceeded and evaded.

    26. Allen Schick, Brookings Institution, testimony at the hearing on the proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, House Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, 5 February 1997.

    27. Dauster interview, 7 August 1996.

    28. Ibid.

    29. Ibid.

    30. Jim Blum, CBO, interview by author, 8 August 1996.

    31. Ibid.

    32. Justine Rodriguez, OMB, interview by author, 4 September 1996.

    33. Ibid.

    34. Blum interview, 8 August 1996.

    35. Boster interview, 26 September 1996.

    36. Ibid.

    37. Ibid.

    38. Irene S. Rubin, Shrinking the Federal Government (New York: Longman, 1985).

    Chapter 2 What Happened and What Was Learned

    1. According to a former staff member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Pete Dominici tried to convince the president that the tax cuts were too large, but President Reagan would not listen. Rick Brandon, interview by author, 9 October 1996.

    2. Richard Darman, Who's in Control? Polar Politics and the Sensible Center (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 73.

    3. Alison Mitchell, “As Deficit Shrinks Parties Rethink Their Core Goals,” New York Times, 28 December 1997.

    4. Sen. Byron Dorgan, Congressional Record, Senate, 16 February 1995, S2181.

    5. Congressman Martin Sabo, statement on Congressional Budget Cost Estimating, Joint House-Senate Budget Committee Hearing, 10 January 1995.

    6. The actual number of people who were forced to leave their agencies because of reduction-in-force procedures was relatively small in 1981 and 1982. The Merit Systems Protection Board estimated that 12,594 people were directly affected by the RIF actions in 1981; that is, they were either separated or forced to retreat to earlier positions, or bumped someone else with less seniority. About half of those were separations (Merit System Protection Board, Reduction in Force in the Federal Government, 1981: What Happened and Opportunities for Improvement, Government Printing Office, June 1983). The GAO used the figure of 10,000 as the predicted number of separations through RIF for 1982, which would mean approximately 20,000 people were directly affected by RIF that year (General Accounting Office, Federal Civilian Personnel: A Workforce Undergoing Change, 14 October 1982). These numbers underestimate the impact, however, because some agencies had relatively large reductions in force, such as the Census Bureau and the Department of Energy, and even in agencies with small RIFs, no one knew whose job would be affected, so many more people feared the RIFs than were actually affected by them. For more on the effects of RIFs on individual agencies in 1981 and 1982, see Irene Rubin, Shrinking the Federal Government (New York: Longman, 1986).

    7. A Merit System Protection Board study found that 32 percent of surveyed personnel in RIF-affected agencies did not think their agencies would carry out a RIF in good faith. About the same proportion were confident the agency would conduct a RIF in good faith. The others did not know or had no strong opinion (Merit System Protection Board, Reduction in Force).

    8. Ibid.

    9. Merit System Protection Board, Reduction in Force, and General Accounting Office, Reductions in Force Can Sometimes Be More Costly Than Attrition and Furloughs (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1985).

    10. Rep. Steny Hoyer, Reductions in Force at the Census Bureau, joint hearings, Subcommittee on Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Census and Population of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, 97th Congress, 2d session, 10 June 1982.

    11. General Accounting Office, Reductions in Force; General Accounting Office, Workforce Reductions: Downsizing Strategies Used in Federal Organizations (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1995); General Accounting Office, Federal Downsizing: The Costs andSavings of Buyouts Versus Reductions in Force (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1996); U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Downsizing in the Federal Government. Karen Bandera and Sherman Chin. Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1998).

    12. Rick Brandon, Democratic Chief of Staff for the Senate Budget Committee, 1975–1985, interview by author, 9 October 1996.

    13. Interview by author, name withheld by request, 11 July 1996.

    14. PL 99–177.

    15. Brandon interview, 9 October 1996.

    16. Interview by author, name withheld by request, 9 October 1996.

    17. Richard Kogan, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, interview by author, 11 July 1996.

    18. The sequestrations were across the board only for programs that were not exempted. But major entitlements were exempted and Medicare had special sequester rules.

    19. Under the BEA, spending was divided into two categories, one for discretionary accounts, one for mandatory spending. Discretionary spending included the routine annual appropriations, while mandatory spending included the entitlements and debt service.

    20. Longtime staffer on the Hill, interview by author, name withheld by request, 17 October 1996.

    21. Ibid. This was less true several years later, as the budget came into balance. Rather than lift the caps, Congress and the president used the emergency provisions to add some spending that did not require offsets. It was true, however, as long as reducing the deficit was perceived as an urgent problem.

    22. U.S. Budget, 1991, 229.

    23. The Credit Reform part of the BEA in 1990 did not actually include insurance, though the inclusion of insurance remains on the policy agenda a decade later.

    24. Justine Rodriguez, OMB, interview by author, 4 September 1996.

    25. Office of Management and Budget, Report of the President's Commission on Budget Concepts (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967), 47.

    26. Thomas Cuny. 1991. “Federal Credit Reform.” Public Budgeting and Finance 11 (2 September): 23.

    27. Ibid., 26.

    28. Congressional Budget Office, Credit Reform: Comparable Costs for Cash and Credit (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1989).

    29. Tom Cuny, interview by author, 13 August 1996.

    30. Richard Darman, Who's in Control? Polar Politics and the Sensible Center (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 235.

    31. Congressional Budget Office, Credit Reform, preface.

    32. Ibid., 22.

    33. Roy Meyers, “Federal Budgeting and Finance: The Future Is Now.” Public Budgeting and Finance 12, 2 (1992): 8.

    34. E-mail correspondence with author, name withheld by request, 1 March 1998.

    35. The expected costs of loan guarantees also reflects the performance of the economy; when the economy is booming there are likely to be fewer loan defaults.

    36. Marvin Phaup, “Credit Reform, Negative Subsidies, and the FHA.” Public Budgeting and Finance 16, 1 (1996): 23–36.

    37. Phil Joyce, former CBO staffer, interview by author, 9 July 1996.

    38. Clay Chandler, “Budget Bonus Presents Clinton with Choices; Hill Analysts’ New Projections May Allow Softer Spending Cuts, Bigger Tax Breaks, Easier Route to Zero Deficit,” Washington Post, 25 December 1996, D1.

    39. Cuny interview, 13 August 1996.

    40. PoliticsNow Web site, run by the Washington Post, 11 January 1997.

    41. Herb Percil, former budget director at HUD, interview by author, 31 July 1996.

    42. Phil Joyce, interview by author, 9 July 1996.

    43. Peter Passell, “The Tax Credit for Research and Development: Free Lunch,” New York Times, 5 February 1998.

    44. Roy Meyers, former CBO staffer, interview by author, 10 July 1996.

    45. Joyce interview, 9 July 1996.

    46. Ibid.

    47. Susan Tanaka, former OMB staffer, interview by author, 26 July 1996.

    48. Ibid.

    49. Joyce interview, 9 July 1996.

    50. Ibid.

    51. Tanaka interview, 26 July 1996.

    52. Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, Senate, 5 February 1997, S994.

    53. Clay Chandler, “Experts See No Long-Term Fix,” Washington Post, 3 May 1997.

    54. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, “Seven Questions About the Budget Agreement,” http://www.ombwatch.org/ombwatch.html, 7 May 1997.

    55. Ibid.

    56. Ibid.

    57. Jim Blum, interview by author, 8 August 1996.

    58. Al Kliman, former budget director, HUD, interview by author, 1 July 1996.

    59. Richard Moose, interview by author, 2 October 1996.

    60. Kliman interview, 1 July 1996.

    61. Interviewed by author, name withheld by request.

    62. Dona Wolf, former OPM official, interview by author, 12 December 1996.

    63. Bryant Benton, Bureau of the Census, interview by author, 6 November 1996.

    Chapter 3 Information Agencies: Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of the Census

    1. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Congressional Record, Senate, 9 November 1995, S16932–3.

    2. Janet Norwood, interview by author, 26 September 1996.

    3. Dan Lacey, interview by author, 25 July 1996.

    4. Joseph P. Goldberg and William T. Moye, The First Hundred Years of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1985).

    5. Lacey interview, 25 July 1996.

    6. Norwood interview, 26 September 1996.

    7. Ibid.

    8. Katharine Abraham, testimony before the House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, D.C., 12 March 1997.

    9. Norwood interview, 26 September 1996.

    10. Lacey interview, 25 July 1996.

    11. Norwood interview, 26 September 1996.

    12. Lacey interview, 25 July 1996.

    13. Most federal agencies’ staff are organized into grade levels, differentiated by amount of responsibility, experience, and expertise, as well as salary. Part of the NPR reform proposals was to reduce the number of people at higher grade levels. Pressures to control the numbers of higher-graded positions had occurred before, however.

    14. Norwood interview, 26 September 1996.

    15. Ibid.

    16. Ibid.

    17. Bob Kramer, BLS, e-mail correspondence with author, 29 January 1997.

    18. Rep. Newt Gingrich, Congressional Record, Senate, 18 January 1995, S1125.

    19. Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, Senate, 4 January 1996, S47.

    20. Katharine G. Abraham, “Statistics in the Spotlight: Improving the Consumer Price Index: Statement,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, paper presented at meeting of the American Statistical Association, Chicago, 6 August 1996.

    21. Louis Uchitelle, “Survey Supports the Theory That Inflation Is Overstated,” New York Times, 13 February 1997.

    22. Kennedy, Congressional Record, S47.

    23. Katharine Abraham, testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, 11 February 1997.

    24. Clay Chandler, “CPI Proposal Gets Mixed Reaction,” Washington Post, 26 February 1997, C13.

    25. Eric Pianin, “Lott Urged to Tone Down Call for Inflation Panel,” Washington Post, 7 March 1997, A11.

    26. David Espo, “Cost of Living Adjustment Eyed,” Washington Post, 28 February 1997; on-line at http://www.washingtonpost.com.

    27. John M. Berry, “Inflation Index Puts Abraham in Thick of Budget Battle,” Washington Post, 9 March 1997, H1.

    28. Alan Greenspan, testimony before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, 4 March 1997.

    29. Clay Chandler and Eric Pianin, “President Won't Back CPI Panel; GOP Says Decision Threatens Budget Deal,” Washington Post, 13 March 1997, A1.

    30. Posted on the BLS Web site at http://stats.bls.gov/cpigm02.htm.

    31. John M. Berry, “Inflation Index Puts Abraham in Thick of Budget Battle,” Washington Post, 9 March 1997, H1.

    32. Bryant Benton, interview by author, 6 November 1996.

    33. From notes taken at an advisory commission meeting by a bureau staff member, posted on the Census Bureau's Web site.

    34. See, for example, House Report 104–821.

    35. Ibid.

    36. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations for 1996, hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1st session, 16 March 1995, 329.

    37. Ibid.

    38. House Report 104–821.

    39. Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, on H.R. 1756, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act, statement of Ronald H. Brown, Secretary of Commerce, 6 September 1995.

    40. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 911.

    41. “Weary of Political Sniping, Census Bureau Chief Quits,” New York Times, 13 January 1998.

    42. D'Vera Cohn, “GOP, Democrats Spar Over Census Funding, Sampling Issues, Washington Post, 9 July 1998, A17.

    43. Ibid.

    44. Mark Wegner, “Dems: GOP Bills ‘Micromanage’ Census,” Government Executive, 18 March 1999; http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0399/03199t3.htm.

    45. Ibid.

    46. Census Monitoring Board, “The Myth: Statistical Adjustment Will Correct Severe Undercounts in Predominantly Minority Neighborhoods,” 30 September 1999; http://207.54.174.87/reports.asp?FormMode=Summary&ID=4475671649.

    47. Congressional Record, Opposition to Frameworks Language in Conference Report to H.R. 2670, Senate, 26 October 1999, S13158.

    48. PL 106–113.

    49. Benton interview, 6 November 1996.

    50. Ibid.

    51. Martha Riche, hearing of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, on FY 1997 appropriations, 2 May 1996, 878.

    52. Benton interview, 6 November 1996.

    53. Hearing of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, on FY 1998 appropriations for Census and the Statistical Agencies, 10 April 1997.

    54. Ibid.

    55. Benton interview, 6 November 1996.

    Chapter 4 Budget Offices

    1. Philip Joyce, “Congressional Budget Reform: The Unanticipated Consequences for Federal Policy Making,” Public Administration Review 56, 4 (1996): 317–26.

    2. Phil Joyce, interview by author, 9 July 1996.

    3. Ibid.

    4. Date of House amendment, 10 July 1996.

    5. Eric Pianin, “Gingrich Presses for Another Cut in the Top Capital Gains Tax Rate: Action Would ‘Supercharge’ the Economy, Speaker Predicts,” Washington Post, 25 June 1998, A4.

    6. Ibid.

    7. Jim Blum, interview by author, 8 August 1996.

    8. June O'Neill, letter to Senate Budget Committee chair, Pete Dominici, printed in the Congressional Record, 18 October 1995.

    9. Sen. Dale Bumpers, Congressional Record, 18 December 1995.

    10. Sen. Byron Dorgan, Congressional Record, Senate, 14 February 1995, S2595–2596.

    11. Excerpts from author's field notes, lunch in the GAO cafeteria, 20 November 1996.

    12. Ken Bentsen, Congressional Record, CBO's Independence Threatened by Partisan Politics, House of Representatives, 16 June 1998.

    13. David Baumann, “Congress Seeks More Oversight of Budget Office,” Government Executive, 12 August 1998; http://www.govexec.com/archive.

    14. Robert Pear, “Ex-Aide to Reagan Will Head Budget Office,” New York Times, 14 January 1999.

    15. Ibid.

    16. Stan Collender, “Budget Battles: CBO in the Crippen Era,” Government Executive, 15 December 1999; http://www.govexec.com/archive.

    17. Blum interview, 8 August 1996.

    18. Hugh Heclo, “OMB and the Presidency: The Problem of ‘Neutral Competence,'” Public Interest 38 (1975): 80–98.

    19. Tom Cuny, interview by author, 13 August 1996.

    20. Joseph Minarik, interview by author, 25 September 1996.

    21. Richard Kogan, interview by author, 11 July 1996.

    22. Allen Schick, The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, and Process (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1995), 22–24.

    23. Ron Boster, interview by author, 26 September 1996.

    24. Rick Hale, interview by author, 1996.

    25. Cuny interview, 13 August 1996.

    26. Rusty Moran, OMB, interview by author, 13 September 1996.

    27. “Who Pays for a Balanced Budget?” Washington Post, 13 December 1996, A22.

    28. Clay Chandler, “Budget Bonus Presents Clinton with Choices: Hill Analysts’ New Projections May Allow Softer Spending Cuts, Bigger Tax Breaks, Easier Route to Zero Deficit,” Washington Post, 25 December 1996, D1.

    29. John F. Harris, “As Clinton's Deal Maker, Bowles Means Business,” Washington Post, 12 May 1997, A1.

    30. Minarik interview, 25 September 1996.

    31. Interview by author, name withheld by request, 14 October 1996.

    32. Shelley Tomkin, Inside OMB (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1998), 63, 106.

    33. Ibid., 153.

    34. Ibid., 104–5.

    35. Ibid., 104.

    36. Ibid., 105.

    37. Ibid.

    38. Franklin Raines, testimony before the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 11 March 1997; http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMB/Testimony/19970311-22242.html.

    39. Cuny interview, 13 August 1996.

    40. Rodriguez interview, 4 September 1996.

    41. Interview by author, name withheld by request, 14 October 1996.

    42. Moran interview, 13 September 1996.

    43. Tomkin, Inside OMB, 185.

    44. Ibid.

    45. General Accounting Office, “Changes Resulting from OMB2000 Reorganization” (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1995), 29 December, hearings before the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on Management Information and Technology on splitting OMB into two sections, 4 February 1999.

    46. Ibid.

    47. Ibid.

    Chapter 5 General Accounting Office

    1. Dexter Peach, assistant comptroller general for Planning and Reporting, interview by author, 26 August 1996.

    2. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 23 July 1993, S9341.

    3. The National Academy of Public Administration, The Roles, Mission, and Operation of the U.S. General Accounting Office (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994).

    4. Phil Joyce, interview by author, 9 July 1996.

    5. Joan Dodaro, ACG for Administration, interview by author, 29 July 1996.

    6. See, for example, GAO, Training Institute Participant Manual, The New Job Process, 7 February 1996, Release 3.

    7. David Walker, comptroller general GAO, testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations, 29 February 2000.

    8. Comptroller General's 1996 Annual Report (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1997), 71.

    9. Comptroller General's 1995 Annual Report (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1996), 60–61.

    10. GAO notes that letters and correspondence are now posted on the agency's Web site and are not private. Briefings, however, still remain out of the public view.

    11. Dodaro interview, 29 July 1996.

    12. Comptroller General's 1995 Annual Report, 59.

    13. Dodaro interview, 29 July 1996.

    14. “GAO Realignment: Major Elements,” memo, 3 February 2000.

    15. GAO Management News, “The New GAO: CG Outlines New Headquarters Structure, Names New Leadership Team,” vol. 27, no. 31 (2 May 2000). This article was posted on the GAO Intranet and made available by a staff member.

    16. From the transcript of the comptroller general's video on internal reorganization, 28 April 2000.

    17. Dodaro interview, 15 August 1996.

    18. GAO, “GAO's Congressional Protocols,” January 2000.

    19. David Walker, comptroller general, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, 18 July 2000, 44.

    20. Dodaro interview, 15 August 1996.

    21. Ibid.

    22. Data provided by GAO, “Historical Trends of Basic Legislative Responsibility Work vs. Congressional Work,” 4 June 1996; 1997 and 1999 annual reports; and David Walker, GAO, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, 18 July 2000.

    23. David Walker, FY 2000 budget request testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, 29 February 2000.

    24. Dodaro interview, 29 July 1996.

    25. Ibid.

    26. Interview by author, name withheld by request.

    27. Interview by author, name withheld by request.

    28. Dexter Peach, interview by author, 26 August 1996.

    29. Walker testimony, 18 July 2000, 16.

    30. Susan Irving, interview by author, 29 July 1996.

    31. Comptroller General's 1995 Annual Report, 2.

    32. Comptroller General's 1997 Annual Report.

    33. Comptroller General David Walker's testimony, House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, 29 February 2000.

    34. Peach interview, 26 August 1996.

    Chapter 6 Department of Agriculture

    1. Stephen B. Dewhurst, “Downsizing: A View from Inside,” Public Budgeting and Finance 16, 1 (1996): 49–59.

    2. U.S. Budget, FY 2001, Historical Tables, Table 17.3, Total Executive Branch Civilian Full-Time Equivalent Employees, 1981–2001.

    3. Ibid.

    4. Ibid.

    5. USDA, FY 1999 budget request.

    6. Effects of Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 on U.S. Department of Agriculture Programs, hearings before the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, 99th Congress, 2d session, 29 January 1986, 156.

    7. Dewhurst, “Downsizing,” 51.

    8. Douglas Ihrke, “Job Burnout in an Evolving Federal Agency: A Model Based on Environmental Change and Performance Strategies.” Ph.D. diss. (Dekalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University, 1996), 53–64 and appendix.

    9. Dewhurst, “Downsizing,” 51.

    10. General Accounting Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Farm Agencies’ Field Structure Needs Major Overhaul. RCED-91-9 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991a).

    11. U.S. Farm Policy: Proposals for Budget Savings, hearing before the Task Force on Urgent Fiscal Issues, of the Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, 101st Congress, 2d session, 28 June 1990, 14.

    12. Charles Schumer, U.S. Farm Policy, 25.

    13. Ibid., 26.

    14. Ibid., 49–50.

    15. General Accounting Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Interim Report on Ways to Enhance Management. RCED-90-19 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1989).

    16. General Accounting Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Strengthening Management Systems to Support Secretarial Goals. RCED-91-49 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991b).

    17. General Accounting Office, Agricultural Trade, Improvements Needed in Management of Targeted Export Assistance Program. Nsiad-90-225 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1990).

    18. Allan Mendelowitz, GAO, statement to Budget Committee Task Force, U.S. Farm Programs, Proposals for Budget Savings, 28 June 1990, 71–72.

    19. Rep. Dan Glickman, Congressional Record, extension of remarks, 11 March 1993, S602.

    20. Stephen Dewhurst, testimony before the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, 14 May 1997, 19.

    21. Sen. John McCain, Congressional Record, on FY 1998 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, 23 July 1997, S7931.

    22. Stephen Dewhurst, budget director, USDA, interview by author, 24 July 1996.

    23. Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, Interior Appropriations Bill, FY 1995, Forest Service reorganization, 26 July 1994, S9717–9718.

    24. Sen. Robert Byrd, Congressional Record, Interior Appropriations Bill, FY 1995, Forest Service reorganization, 26 July 1994, S9717–9718.

    25. Sen. Don Nickles, Congressional Record, Interior Appropriations Bill, FY 1995, Forest Service reorganization, 26 July 1994, S9717–9718.

    26. Sen. Richard Lugar, Congressional Record, Interior Appropriations Bill, FY 1995, Forest Service reorganization, 26 July 1994, S9717.

    27. Dewhurst interview, 24 July 1996.

    28. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, “Forest Service's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget,” hearing before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, 11 March 1999.

    29. General Accounting Office, Farm Programs: Administrative Requirements Reduced and Further Program Delivery Changes Possible. Letter rept. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1998a).

    30. General Accounting Office, USDA Service Center IT Modernization (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1998b).

    31. Keith Kelly, USDA, Farm Service Agency, statement before the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 15 April 1999.

    32. Joshua Dean. 1999. “USDA Gets by Y2K, Money Problems with Stopgap Measure,” Government Executive, 7 December.

    33. Richard Rominger, Deputy Secretary, statement before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 29 July 1998.

    34. Bryan Friel, “Downsized USDA Forced to Call in Temps,” Government Executive, 26 (1999).

    35. Kelley Lunney, “House Directs USDA to Beef up Online Services,” Government Executive, 12 (2000).

    36. Jerry Hagstrom, “Gathering Storm,” Government Executive (1998); General Accounting Office, USDA Reorganization: Progress Mixed in Modernizing the Delivery of Services. GAO/RCED-00-43 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2000).

    37. Hagstrom, “Gathering Storm.”

    38. Rep. Charles Stenholm, Information Technology Procurement Practices, hearing, House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Departmental Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture, 14 May 1997, 35.

    39. Gene Brewer, e-mail correspondence with author, fall 1998.

    40. Ibid.

    41. General Accounting Office, USDA Reorganization.

    42. Dewhurst interview, 24 July 1996.

    43. Ibid.

    44. General Accounting Office, USDA Reorganization.

    45. Roger C. Viadero, Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, statement before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, 17 February 2000.

    46. Dewhurst interview, 24 July 1996.

    47. General Accounting Office, Farm Programs: Impact of the 1996 Farm Act on County Office Workload. GAO/RCED-97-214 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1997a).

    48. General Accounting Office, Forest Service Decision Making: A Framework for Improving Performance. GAO/RCED-97-71 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1997c).

    49. Anne Reed, Information Technology Procurement Practices, hearing, House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Departmental Operations, Nutrition, and Foreign Agriculture, 14 May 1997.

    50. General Accounting Office, Federal Downsizing: Buyouts at the Farm Service Agency. GAO/GGD-97-133 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1997b).

    51. Kenneth Ackerman, administrator for the Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, statement before the Subcommittee on Risk Management and Specialty Crops, U.S. House of Representatives, 10 March 1999.

    52. General Accounting Office, USDA Reorganization.

    Chapter 7 Department of Commerce

    1. GAO, “Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and Quality Issues,” testimony, 9 April 1997, GAO/T-GGD-97-78.

    2. Ibid.

    3. Historical Tables of the U.S. Budget, 2001; outlays for 2000 are estimates.

    4. Mark Brown, budget director, interview by author, 17 July 1996.

    5. Paul Blustein, “Cloud Over Commerce: Politics May Have Tainted Choices, Policy,” Washington Post, 22 December 1996.

    6. Raymond G. Kammer Jr., acting chief financial officer and assistant secretary for administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, prepared statement before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 14 May 1997. Provided on the Internet by Federal Information Systems Corporation, Federal News Service.

    7. Ron Brown, secretary of commerce, statement to Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, on H.R. 1756, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act, 6 September 1995.

    8. Alan Balutis, chief information officer, Department of Commerce, interview by author, 25 October 1996.

    9. Brown, interview by author, 17 July 1996.

    10. Brown statement, 6 September 1995.

    11. Alan Balutis, interview by author, 25 October 1996.

    12. Andy Moxam, deputy CFO and chief administrative officer, NOAA, interview by author, 5 November 1996.

    13. Kammer statement, 14 May 1997.

    14. U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary, From Lighthouses to Laser Beams; A History of the U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1988).

    15. Ibid., 25, 41.

    16. Balutis interview, 17 July 1996.

    17. Stuart Eizenstat, hearings, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, FY 1998, Internet version, 14 March 1997.

    18. Phillip Singerman, testimony before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, 16 April 1997.

    19. Balutis interview, 25 October 1996.

    20. Frank DeGeorge, inspector general, U.S. Department of Commerce, prepared statement before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 14 May 1997.

    21. Agency Reports, Commerce, National Performance Review, Internet version, at http://www.npr.gov.

    22. Wilbur Hawkins, interview by author, 19 November 1996.

    23. Ibid.

    24. Ibid.

    25. Ibid.

    26. Ibid.

    27. Department of Commerce, accompanying report of the National Performance Review, Office of the Vice President, September 1993, 5. On the Internet, http://www.npr.gov.../agnrpt93/doc.html.

    28. Hawkins interview, 19 November 1996.

    29. Ibid.

    30. Senate Report to accompany S2364, the 1998 reauthorization of the EDA programs, 105th Congress, 2d session, 14 September 1998.

    31. Howard Coble, Extension of Remarks, Congressional Record, 23 April 1998, E671.

    32. Press Release: PTO 95–29, PTO Responds to Senate Appropriations Budget Allocations for Fiscal Year 1996.

    33. Howard Coble, Extension of Remarks, Congressional Record, 11 February 1997, E201.

    34. “Reducing Pendency and Maintaining Quality Top List of PTO Millennium Budget Priorities,” The PTO Pulse, February 1999.

    35. Moxam interview, 6 November 1996.

    36. Ibid.

    37. Ibid.

    38. Ibid.

    39. Ibid.

    40. Ibid.

    41. Ibid.

    42. Dr. D. James Baker, undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, before the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 15 May 1997.

    43. Ibid.

    44. Ibid.

    45. Kammer statement, 14 May 1997.

    46. Dr. D. James Baker, undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, testimony before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 19 March 1998.

    47. Joel C. Willemssen, director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information Management Division, and L. Nye Stevens, director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues, General Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement before the House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 24 February 1999.

    48. Moxam interview, 6 November 1996.

    49. Baker testimony, 15 May 1997.

    50. Moxam interview, 6 November 1996.

    51. National Performance Review, Streamlining and Reinvention, FY 1999 Budget Request of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on-line at http://www.noaa.gov.

    52. William Stelle Jr., regional administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Boise, Idaho, 3 September 1998.

    Chapter 8 Department of Housing and Urban Development

    1. Susan Gaffney, HUD inspector general, statement before the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 27 March 1996; Audit-related Memorandum Number 98-HQ-179-0801, for Dwight P. Robinson, deputy secretary, from Kathryn M. Kuhl-Inclan, assistant inspector general for Audit, Subject, Interim Review of HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan, 25 November 1997.

    2. Irene S. Rubin, Shrinking the Federal Government (New York: Longman, 1985), 105–6.

    3. Al Kliman, interview by author, 1 July 1996.

    4. Rubin, Shrinking the Federal Government, 112–13.

    5. Irving Welfeld, HUD Scandals: Howling Headlines and Silent Fiascoes (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Press, 1992).

    6. House Government Operations report on the Abuses and Mismanagement at HUD, 1990, quoted in Welfeld, HUD Scandals, 116.

    7. Welfeld, HUD Scandals, 47.

    8. Ibid.

    9. National Academy of Public Administration, Renewing HUD (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration, 1994).

    10. Ibid., 23, 29–30.

    11. Ibid., 34–35.

    12. Ibid., 33.

    13. Gaffney statement, 27 March 1996.

    14. Henry G. Cisneros, testimony before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittees on Housing Opportunity and Community Development and HUD Oversight and Structure, 29 March 1995.

    15. Andrew Cuomo, statement before the House Appropriations Committee, VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, FY 1999 Appropriations Hearing, 26 March 1998.

    16. Ibid.

    17. Ibid.

    18. Ibid.

    19. Ibid.

    20. Rick Hale, General Accounting Office, interview by author, 15 October 1996.

    21. Ibid.

    22. Kliman interview, 16 July 1996.

    23. Ibid.

    24. Ibid.

    25. Hale interview, 15 October 1996.

    26. Helen Dunlap, “Point of View,” National Low Income Housing Coalition Newsletter, vol. 3, 12 (27 March 1998).

    27. “Understanding the Project-based Section 8 Renewal and Restructuring (‘Mark to Market') Program,” National Low Income Housing Coalition, http://www.nlhic.org/marktomarket/whydoes.htm.

    28. Judy England-Joseph, GAO, interview by author, 24 September 1996.

    29. Ibid.

    30. Interview by author, name withheld by request.

    31. Interview by author with HUD employee, name withheld by request, 25 September 1996.

    32. Renewing HUD, 143.

    33. Judy England-Joseph, testimony before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Housing and Opportunity and Community Development, hearing on issues relating to the implementation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's “HUD 2020” Management Reform Plan, 7 May 1998.

    34. Ibid.

    35. Ibid.

    36. HUD had to absorb mandated salary increases without additional funds and separation leave pay, a cost of downsizing, and pay for additional training, all from the salaries and expenses budgets.

    37. Kliman interview, 16 July 1996.

    38. Interview by author with HUD official, name withheld by request.

    39. England-Joseph interview, 24 September 1996.

    40. Sen. John McCain, talking points on FY 1998 VA, HUD Appropriations Bill, 22 July 1997.

    41. Mark Gordon, interview by author, 14 November 1996.

    42. England-Joseph interview, 24 September 1996.

    43. Interview by author with HUD official, name withheld by request, 25 September 1996.

    44. Ibid.

    45. National Low Income Housing Coalition, http://www.nlhic.org/marktomarket/whydoes.htm.

    46. England-Joseph interview, 24 September 1996.

    47. Passback occurs after an agency has prepared its budget proposal and it has been examined by the Office of Management and Budget. OMB may reduce some items or alter others and then pass back the request in altered form. The agencies may then try to negotiate with OMB about the most important items of difference.

    48. National Low Income Housing Coalition, Memo to Members #39: Weekly Housing Update, 20 December 1996.

    49. Gordon interview, 14 November 1996.

    Chapter 9 Office of Personnel Management

    1. Dona Wolf, interview by author, 28 August 1996.

    2. Curtis Smith, interview by author, 29 August 1996.

    3. CFO Annual Report, FY 1992, OPM.

    4. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the Merit System: A Retrospective Assessment (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1989).

    5. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Deregulation and Delegation of Human Resources Management Authority in the Federal Government (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1998).

    6. Janice R. LaChance, statement before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, FY 1999 Appropriations Hearings, 105th Congress, 2nd session, 13 March 1998.

    7. National Performance Review, Office of Personnel Management: Accompanying Report of the NPR (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1993).

    8. General Accounting Office, Managing Human Resources: Greater Leadership Needed to Address Critical Challenges. GAO/GGD-90-19 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1989).

    9. Larry Lane and Gary Marshall, “Reinventing OPM: Adventures, Issues and Implications,” paper presented at the American Society for Public Administration, San Antonio, 3 July, 1995.

    10. Jim King, “The Privatization of OPM's Investigative Services,” House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on Civil Service, 17 October 1996; posted on OPM's Web site in testimony archives: http://www.opm.gov/news/testify/1996/101796.htm.

    11. Gary Marshall, former OPM employee, telephone interview by author, 19 November 1996.

    12. MSPB, Office of Personnel Management, 23.

    13. Irene S. Rubin, Shrinking the Federal Government (New York: Longman, 1985), 170–71.

    14. Ibid., 172.

    15. Ibid., 177.

    16. MSPB, Office of Personnel Management, 4.

    17. Ibid., 5.

    18. Terry Newell. 1992. “Our Endangered Human Resources Investment,” Government Executive 24, 1 (January): 42–43.

    19. Scott Fosler, letter to James King, OPM director, 16 September 1994.

    20. National Performance Review, Office of Personnel Management.

    21. OPM Monthly Report of Federal Civilian Employment, 22 May 1997.

    22. FTE for 1981 is from GAO; data for 1993 to 1999 is from the OPM 1999 and 2000 budget requests.

    23. Smith interview, 29 August 1996.

    24. OPM Financial Statement, FY 1993, 35–36.

    25. Office of the Inspector General, OPM, Evaluation Report: Systemic Issues Contributing to the Financial Difficulties of the OPM Revolving Fund (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994).

    26. General Accounting Office, OPM Revolving Fund: OPM Sets New Tuition Pricing Policy. GAO/GGD-94-120 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994).

    27. Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation Report, 15.

    28. Ibid., 44.

    29. CFO Annual Report, 1992, OPM, 45.

    30. Wolf interview, 28 August 1996.

    31. OPM, “Federal Employee Direct Corporate Ownership Opportunity Plan (Fed Co-op): An Alternative Contracting-Out Approach, July 1986.

    32. Financial Statements, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1993, 33.

    33. Timothy P. Bowling, associate director, Federal Human Resource Management Issues, General Government Division, GAO testimony before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives Subcommittee on Civil Service, Privatizing OPM Investigations, 15 June 1995.

    34. Wolf interview, 28 August 1996.

    35. Smith interview, 29 August 1996.

    36. Gary Marshall, e-mail interview by author, 10 November 1996.

    37. Smith interview, 29 August 1996.

    38. Marshall e-mail interview, 10 November 1996.

    39. Smith interview, 29 August 1996.

    40. Wolf interview, 28 August 1996.

    Chapter 10 Eating the Seed Corn and Trimming the Herds

    1. Rudy Penner, testimony before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Budget Committees, 10 January 1995.

    2. Ibid.

    3. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings applied across-the-board cuts to the programs that remained after a number of major programs had been removed from consideration. So it was not completely without programmatic focus, but the cuts that were to be implemented were supposed to be across the board.

    4. Phil Joyce, interview by author, 9 July 1996.

    5. Penner testimony, 10 January 1995.

    6. Judy England-Joseph, interview by author, 24 September 1996.

    7. Congressional Record, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, House of Representatives, 29 July 1998.

    8. Sen. Christopher Bond, Congressional Record, Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act of 1997, Senate, 6 May 1997, S3986.

    9. This material is taken from Irene Rubin, “Downsizing: Managing the Muddles,” M@n@gement (spring 2000), on the Web at http://www.dmsp.dauphine.fr/Management/

    10. Gene Brewer, e-mail correspondence with author, 28 September 1998.


    • Loading...
Back to Top