Victims of 'unprincipled' policy

If you've been to the airport in the past year or so, you've probably been impressed at the skill and efficiency of the new Transportation Security Administration — the folks who screen passengers on the way to the gate. If you've looked carefully, however, you might also have noticed that the people who check your ID before you get to the screening machines are not working for the federal government; in fact, they're the same low-paid, poorly-trained workforce that was on duty on the morning of Sept. 11th. If you ask a TSA supervisor what's going on, you'll find out that the job of checking IDs has already been given back to low-wage labor. Cutting costs and corners, the government and the airline industry is probably hoping that you won't notice.

For another example, you could talk to Stu Smith. Smith emailed me recently in response to an earlier column, and he introduced himself as probably the only Princetonian (Class of '52) who's currently a local labor union president. (Are there any more of you out there?) Smith and his union members work in a division of the Department of Justice which evaluates the efficiency of programs and grants relating to crime victims, the prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault and even the effort to combat terrorism. The work of these federal employees is crucial to ensuring that the government both researches and responds to these serious issues with efficiency and integrity. However, most of Smith's colleagues are currently facing the ax under a new federal initiative to outsource or downsize "commercial" positions within the federal government, in the hope of cutting as many as 800,000 government jobs in the near future.

Most recent presidents have attacked "big government," and the federal workforce has shrunk by more than 20 percent since 1990. (Around 400,000 jobs were cut across this period, and the federal workforce contracted every year save for 2002: Public pressure to create the TSA was responsible for last year's small increase in the federal ranks.) However, President Bush now seeks to introduce "competition" even to the assessment and maintenance of crucial projects in the Department of Justice, with the full approval of John Ashcroft. The rationale for this — that these positions are essentially "commercial" in nature — seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy: As more corporations try to get into the business of delivering government programs on a for-profit basis, so the need for truly independent assessment and management of these programs becomes still more urgent. If Bush and Ashcroft have their way, over 500 of Smith's unionized analysts and program managers will be replaced by unaccountable contract workers. The Bush administration has its eye on the short-term savings from this slashing of the federal payroll; the rest of us, however, will bear the burden either of the cronyism and corruption of an entirely for-profit system, or of the inferior programs that result from this race to the basement.

Smith takes pride not only in his work, but in his responsibilities as a public servant. An executive order outlining the responsibilities of federal employees puts this well: "Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain." If President Bush succeeds in downsizing hundreds of thousands of government jobs, he'll effectively hand over responsibility for important areas of the government to employees who are neither enjoined to uphold the Constitution, nor reminded in their terms of employment that their primary function is to serve the public. Do we have any faith that this administration, with its fingers all over the financial scandals of last year, will promote integrity and fairness in its contracting out of important government work?

The modern civil service came into being in 1883 with the Pendleton Act, a landmark piece of legislation intended to bring professionalism into government and to end the practice by which presidents rewarded their friends and financial supporters with jobs and contracts. Of course, the impulse to turn the federal government into a patronage system remains strong for both Republicans and Democrats: There's a reason for those nearly 40,000 D.C. lobbyists, and for the more than $1 billion spent by corporations and individuals on the last presidential election. However, even as we try to address the substantial corruption within our current political system, we hardly need to add to the problem by rolling back the positions of dedicated public servants like Stu Smith and his colleagues. It's obvious that the United States government can't simultaneously increase its military spending, enact huge tax cuts and expect to balance its books. It's heartbreaking, however, to see that the victims of this unprincipled economic policy are those federal employees who labor to make this country safer and more decent for the rest of us.

Nicholas Guyatt is a graduate student in the history department. He is from Bristol, England.