REINVENTING GOVERNMENT GOBBLEDYGOOK

by Jonathan H. Adler

[From The Washington Times, August 23, 1993]

        Eager to regain the mantle of “New Democrat,” President Clinton dispatched vice president Al Gore to streamline the federal government.  Gore was appointed head of a task force that would examine the federal bureaucracy “agency by agency, program by program” in search of waste and mismanagement.  Labeled the National Performance Review (NPR), this task force was charged with instituting “revolutionary” changes in the way government works and identifying jobs that the government “should simply stop doing.”

        Gore initially took to his task with vigor, attacking a federal government that is “bloated, inefficient and wasteful.”  In a series of speeches to federal employees, Gore announced that “We want to make the government work better and cost less.”  He told those working on the NPR that “Your task is to think as boldly, as broadly and as creatively as possible. . . . We want major savings, major reforms and  major innovations.” 

        Gore has since detailed examples of government waste that he wishes to confront.  In Atlanta, the Justice Department paid $40 per lawn for mowing services, when local teens would have done the job for $10.  The Department of Transportation paid $600 for a telephone device that retails for only $300.  Federal procurement guidelines designed to save money through bulk purchases can cost far more than they save.  Gore relishes noting that waiting to purchase steam traps results in hundreds of dollars in lost energy for each dollar saved in purchase costs.  Because of examples such as these, Gore is striving to “change the way government works.”

        Gore’s strong rhetoric notwithstanding, early indications are that the NPR will fall far short of expectations.  As evidence, consider the confidential draft of the NPR’s Environmental Systems Team, dated August 2.  It discusses the need to “Improve Implementation of Environmental Management and Oversight Responsibilities,” and “Improve Environmental Performance at Federal Buildings and Facilities Decisions.”  However, there is little in the report that suggests it will make the government “work better” and “cost less.”  In fact, there are several parts of the report that recommend changes that would make the government cost more, such as hiring additional personnel and instituting new environmental programs. 

        In other instances, the report recommends improving enforcement of environmental regulations by shifting the costs onto private businesses.  For instance, the report suggests that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration “deputize” workers in private companies to assist in enforcement activities.  As if private businesses are not burdened by enough regulatory compliance costs already, this proposal suggests that firms be forced to pay for additional regulators as well.  This is cost-shifting, not cost-cutting.

        The report correctly identifies problems in inter-agency coordination currently caused by “inconsistent statutory missions, demands of special interests, . . . distinct agency cultures,” and the like.  In the case of land management agencies, this causes different federal agencies to “manage the same ecosystem differently, frequently at cross-purposes.”  The solution?  The NPR team seems to think that issuing the proper executive order and holding inter-agency meetings will miraculously change the government’s performance.  Nowhere does there seem to be any recognition that the “institutional barriers to achieving cross-agency action” may be a result of the institutions themselves. 

        The various land management agencies work at cross-purposes because they are in conflict for scarce budgetary dollars and institutional power.  As long as there are over a half-dozen federal agencies entrusted with various land-management duties -- from the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service, to the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation -- this competition will continue.  If the purpose of the NPR was truly to recommend “revolutionary” changes and question the continued existence of government programs, it should have recommended consolidating, and even eliminating, several of these agencies.  After all, how many land-management agencies does the federal government need?

        That the results of the NPR’s Environmental Systems Team were less than path-breaking should not be surprising.  The choice of Al Gore as head crusader against government largess was absurd to begin with.  Gore has repeatedly been one of the Senate’s largest spenders, and in 1992 his voting record supported government -- and opposed free enterprise -- more than any other Senator, according to the Competitive Enterprise Index.  The former Senator has rarely seen a program he did not like, with the possible exception of those that might have actually cut costs.  During the Reagan administration, Gore was instrumental in pushing legislation that barred the government from studying -- let alone implementing -- the market-pricing of electricity at federal utilities, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority.  Implementing such a program could save taxpayers well over $1.5 billion.

        To convince enough Democrats to support the Clinton-Gore economic plan, the administration promised an additional round of spending cuts, some of which would come from the National Performance Review.  If the draft of the Environmental Systems Team is any indication, these swing voters are sure to be disappointed.  Fortunately, it has been reported that other review teams may recommend bold steps, such as the deregulation of the maritime industry.  However, it is interesting that the team closest to Gore’s heart, that which addresses the environment, found no such revolutionary changes.  The Review may well result in “reinventing government,” but there is little reason for anyone to like the new model better than the old.