What is the right size of the federal workforce?
The subject of a congressional hearing, “Rightsizing the Federal Workforce,” implies the current one isn’t right.
Maybe it isn’t, but how do we know?
As with many proposals to cut the number of federal employees, the thrust of the House federal workforce subcommittee hearing was on reducing staff with little discussion on how that would affect taxpayers.
The real question is more fundamental and difficult: What is the role of the federal government?
That won’t be answered in a 90-minute hearing just before a holiday break. But it is a question that must be seriously examined, particularly by those who think the workforce is too big, as the hearing title suggests.
Let’s start with some basics.
As told by Rep. Dennis A. Ross (R-Fla.), the chairman: “The size of the federal workforce now stands at over 2.1 million — the largest federal workforce in modern history.”
Not so, according to Office of Personnel Management data.
Executive-branch civilian employment, excluding the Postal Service, was 2.1 million in fiscal 2009. However, in at least two dozen years, from 1967 through 1993, the workforce was bigger than that. Furthermore, on a per capita basis, executive branch employment is at its lowest level in 50 years, said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), citing Office of Management and Budget data.
When asked about this discrepancy, Ross’s office said he is correct because his statement is based only on information from 2000. That’s a narrow definition of “modern history.”
“We’re not going to quibble over the definition of modern,” said Ross’s spokesman, Frederick Piccolo. “Looking at the growth trends over the past decade and projections for the future, Mr. Ross absolutely stands by his statement.”
Whatever. Let’s focus on the number. Is 2.1 million too many people on Uncle Sam’s payroll? That, however, is the wrong question, but it’s what legislative proposals tend to address.
Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) said he wants to freeze federal hiring until the deficit has been eliminated. Rep. Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.) said the workforce should be cut through attrition, so that only one person would be hired for every two leaving the federal service. Her plan, however, would exempt the departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, which make up about 60 percent of the workforce.
If the workforce is to be cut, there’s no doubt that attrition is the least painful method. But focusing on staff cuts to save money does not get to the real issue and may not save money.
Consider this from William R. Dougan, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees and chairman of the Federal Workers Alliance. “If I can leave you with only one message today, let it be this,” he said at the hearing. “You do not measure the size of government by the number of federal workers, you measure the size of government in dollars and cents.”
The reason? Reducing the number of employees doesn’t necessarily mean smaller government. It may mean hiring private contractors for the work.
“As a result of this shift, any purported savings are more than likely negated by an increase in contract spending,” said. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.). There are more than 10.5 million contractors and grantees, nearly four times the number of federal civilian (including postal) employees, Lynch added.
That brings us back to the role of the government.
Ross suggested taking a hard look at those activities that he does not consider to be “traditional” services.
“The federal government since at least the Nixon Administration has expanded its reach to include massive new bureaucracies like the Depts. Of Education, Labor, and Energy and agencies like the EPA that employs 18,000 people,” he said in a written response to a question after the hearing.
We need not quibble over the fact that Labor predates the Nixon administration by more than a half-century. Ross’s point that government is doing too much is a valid topic of discussion and gets to the heart of the matter.
If we don’t want the Education Department to help improve the nation’s schools, if we don’t want the Labor Department to make workplaces safe, if we don’t want the Energy Department to support basic scientific research, if we don’t want the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce toxic chemicals in the environment, then perhaps we can cut the number of employees there.
But do the American people want to do away with those services? What do we want government to do?
Let’s answer that. Then we can determine the appropriate number of people to get the job done.
Loading...
Comments