The Civil Service or the President's Service?

[Eric J in MN]

Liberal Oasis had a really great article last week on how some conservatives view the civil service.

The civil service includes people whose job it is analyze intelligence at the CIA, to mail checks from the Social Security Administration, etc.

After discussing how the Bush Admin. has arranged for the SSA to spread the false notion that social security is in crisis ("Social Security Agency Is Enlisted to Push Its Own Revision" by Robert Pear, New York Times, Jan. 16, 2005), Liberal Oasis shows how this misuse of civil servants reflects the conservative Heritage Foundation's appetite for putting power in one man ("Breaking The Civil Service" Jan. 18, 2005):

The Heritage Foundation…report “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel"...sniffed at the “Public Administration Model” of government as “emphasiz the Progressive ideal--a value-free ‘scientific’ program of government administration.”

Instead, it preferred the “Political Administration Model” which it defines as “providing presidential leadership to committed top political officials…holding them and their subordinates personally accountable for achievement of the President's election-endorsed and value-defined program.”

That may sound nice enough on paper, but we’ve seen what that means in action.

To me, the Heritage Foundation model doesn't even seem good in theory.

I want government scientists, economists, and intelligence analysts doing their jobs in a non-partisan, honest way. I want the workers in offices like the Social Service Admin. concerned with serving the public, not advancing an agenda.

That applies whether the person in the White House is a Republican like Bush or a Democrat like Clinton.

Civil servants should be serving us, not the White House.

The Liberal Oasis article proceeds to discuss the consquences of misusing civil servants to advance an agenda:

It means to provide assessments that fit with predetermined Administration objectives.

It means threatening to fire staff that dare try to give Congress .

It means creating a Homeland Security agency, , that is .

It means cronies at the head of Cabinet agencies, turning the Cabinet into a Politburo.

In sum, it means a government that is no longer yours, no longer one that serves the broad public, but one that serves a single politician.

Liberal Oasis then says more about how the media hasn't had enough follow-up since revealing the Bush Admin.'s exploitation of workers in social security offices to distribute propaganda:

So far, the Bushies have been able to bat down this Social Security revelation with little effort.

The day the story came out, top Bush aide Dan Bartlett went on , and .

On MTP, when Tim Russert asked if he would “allow” a “propaganda campaign” to happen, Bartlett said:

There's no expectation that career employees would be asked to advocate on behalf of any specific prescription for Social Security.

This was a very blatant and audacious dodge.

The charge isn’t necessarily that the Social Security Administration will explicitly back a detailed privatization proposal, a “specific prescription,” but that it is spreading misinformation which Bush can then cite in pushing such a plan.

But Russert neglected to follow-up.

And neither CNN or Fox bothered to ask him one question about the Social Security Administration propaganda effort.

More at:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_01_26_the_civil_service_or_the_presidents_service.asp