Specter of Gilded Age Tarnishes VA Reforms

McCain: Balks at "baked in" overruns.
National Journal
Norm Ornstein
See more stories about...
Norm Ornstein
July 9, 2014, 5:42 p.m.

When Mark Twain col­lab­or­ated with his neigh­bor Charles Dud­ley Warner in 1873 to write the nov­el The Gil­ded Age, it re­ceived mixed re­views—but it be­came a clas­sic, in large part be­cause of its title, which has come to define an era of thor­ough and deep cor­rup­tion in pub­lic af­fairs and gov­ernance.

Not the least of the cor­rupt­ing and shock­ing dy­nam­ics of that era was the spoils sys­tem—the dis­tri­bu­tion of gov­ern­ment jobs not based on com­pet­ence, ex­per­i­ence, or ex­pert­ise, but for polit­ic­al pat­ron­age, to curry fa­vor and ex­tract in re­turn money to re­main in of­fice or to at­tain of­fice.

Des­pite pub­lic un­hap­pi­ness, the spoils sys­tem re­mained in place—its Re­pub­lic­an sup­port­ers, in­clud­ing Chester Ar­thur, were called “the Stal­warts”—un­til a massive pub­lic up­ris­ing upon the as­sas­sin­a­tion of Pres­id­ent Gar­field by a dis­ap­poin­ted of­fice seeker. Charles Guiteau shouted after shoot­ing Gar­field, “I am a Stal­wart…. Ar­thur is pres­id­ent!” Guiteau was hanged, and Ar­thur, who was Gar­field’s vice pres­id­ent, as­cen­ded to the pres­id­ency.

But hor­ri­fied by the as­sas­sin­a­tion, Ar­thur aban­doned his sup­port for the spoils sys­tem and cham­pioned re­form. The res­ult was the Pendleton Act of 1883, which es­tab­lished the prin­ciple that gov­ern­ment jobs should be awar­ded on the basis of mer­it, not pat­ron­age, cre­at­ing the Civil Ser­vice Com­mis­sion to im­ple­ment mer­it ex­ams and mak­ing it il­leg­al to fire, de­mote, or har­ass civil ser­vants for polit­ic­al reas­ons. (In an in­ter­est­ing bit of trivia, George Pendleton, the Ohio Demo­crat who was au­thor of the act, was show­cased in Steven Spiel­berg’s movie Lin­coln as a prime op­pon­ent of the 13th Amend­ment.)

The Pendleton Act star­ted with a small share of fed­er­al jobs, but the pro­por­tions grew sub­stan­tially over time, ul­ti­mately en­com­passing the vast ma­jor­ity of fed­er­al em­ploy­ees. An­oth­er re­form, 1939’s Hatch Act, en­acted after a series of scan­dals in­volving the Works Pro­gress Ad­min­is­tra­tion for in­volving em­ploy­ees in the 1938 con­gres­sion­al elec­tions, provided ad­di­tion­al pro­tec­tions against the in­volve­ment of most gov­ern­ment em­ploy­ees in par­tis­an polit­ic­al activ­it­ies, as much to pro­tect em­ploy­ees from un­due pres­sure from their polit­ic­al su­per­i­ors as to cur­tail polit­ic­al in­flu­ence by gov­ern­ment em­ploy­ees with power over cit­izens.

Why this ba­sic his­tory? I write it in part as re­form of the Vet­er­ans Af­fairs De­part­ment moves through Con­gress, with as great a chance of suc­cess­ful en­act­ment this year as any piece of le­gis­la­tion (of course, giv­en the pathet­ic re­cord of this Con­gress, that makes it no sure thing). The re­form, which will likely re­semble the Sen­ate bill co­sponsored by Bernie Sanders and John Mc­Cain, does some im­port­ant, ur­gent, and ne­ces­sary things, es­pe­cially mak­ing sure that vet­er­ans who have waited for months or longer to see a VA doc­tor will have oth­er im­me­di­ate op­tions in the private sec­tor.

The re­form also ad­dresses what is clearly a pat­tern of gross mis­man­age­ment at the VA, both on the health-de­liv­ery side and on the side of pro­cessing dis­ab­il­ity claims. Therein lies the rub. The House bill, writ­ten by Vet­er­ans’ Af­fairs Com­mit­tee Chair­man Jeff Miller, did so by wip­ing out en­tirely any pro­tec­tion from fir­ing or de­mo­tion for VA em­ploy­ees, in­stead treat­ing them like con­gres­sion­al em­ploy­ees, who have polit­ic­al jobs and no civil-ser­vice pro­tec­tion. The Sanders/Mc­Cain bill is bet­ter, but not by much. It would give a fired em­ploy­ee sev­en days to file an ap­peal after get­ting a ter­min­a­tion no­tice and hav­ing his or her pay stopped, and give an ap­peals board a dead­line of three weeks after that to render a de­cision. The bill al­lows VA ex­ec­ut­ives to stop pay­ing em­ploy­ees they want to fire be­fore the em­ploy­ees can find out what the reas­ons are or file an ap­peal.

In al­most all cases, an ap­peal would be com­plex enough to re­quire the em­ploy­ee to hire a law­yer, who would then have to talk to the cli­ent, get evid­ence to­geth­er, write an ap­peal, and ap­pear be­fore the board. Law­yers who know any­thing about this field are in short sup­ply—simply get­ting one with­in a week would be tough. Get­ting one who would drop everything to fo­cus on a case would be nearly im­possible (not to men­tion very ex­pens­ive for the canned em­ploy­ee whose paychecks have already stopped.) And if the ap­peals board had to deal with large num­bers of cases, it would be over­taxed and over­whelmed, and the ap­peals would not be heard in any­thing re­sem­bling a fair and thor­ough fash­ion.

At the same time, what we know of VA mis­man­age­ment is that high­er-level ex­ec­ut­ives de­vised the sys­tem of con­ceal­ing long wait times, and prod­ded un­der­lings to go along and abet the cor­rup­tion or face re­tri­bu­tion. There is a chance that this new stream­lined fir­ing pro­cess would ac­tu­ally give more power to miscre­ants over their in­feri­ors, mak­ing the prob­lem worse.

To be fair, Sanders, Miller, and Mc­Cain had to move quickly to deal with the back­log, and re­spond to pub­lic out­rage over the mal­feas­ance, mis­feas­ance, and non­feas­ance. The need to stream­line the pro­cess of ac­count­ab­il­ity here, to tilt a sys­tem that makes it ex­traordin­ar­ily dif­fi­cult to fire or dis­cip­line civil ser­vants back to something more re­spons­ive, is clear. But the rush to do so puts in place a dan­ger­ous sys­tem and pre­ced­ent—one which we can be sure would be­come the tem­plate for re­mov­ing pro­tec­tion from em­ploy­ees in oth­er agen­cies (no doubt, the IRS will be the next tar­get) any time there is a scan­dal or al­leged scan­dal, and be­gin to inch us back to­ward a pat­ron­age sys­tem.

That is not the only prob­lem. We are about to have a ser­i­ous crisis in gov­ern­ment man­age­ment, as the top ca­reer fed­er­al man­agers in the Seni­or Ex­ec­ut­ive Ser­vice, mostly baby boomers, reach re­tire­ment age. Get­ting com­pet­ent man­agers to re­place them will not be easy—and this makes it harder. We are hav­ing prob­lems as well at­tract­ing top-flight pro­fes­sion­al people in­to gov­ern­ment, in­clud­ing en­gin­eers and com­puter sci­ent­ists to deal with cy­ber­se­cur­ity, tech pro­fes­sion­als to man­age out­dated com­puter sys­tems, and phys­i­cians—one of the core prob­lems at the VA has been the in­ab­il­ity to at­tract doc­tors. Fed­er­al em­ploy­ees face vili­fic­a­tion, pay freezes, shut­downs, and no budget cer­tainty from year to year. Add to that the abil­ity to fire them without much re­course to ap­peal, and the prob­lem gets much worse.

The fact is that we have already been mov­ing in this dir­ec­tion in the states, which were not covered un­der the Pendleton Act but all fol­lowed in suc­ceed­ing dec­ades with their own pro­tec­tions for state civil ser­vants. But in re­cent years, a ma­jor­ity of states have moved to ex­pand at-will hir­ing and fir­ing, to erode civil-ser­vice pro­tec­tions, and to give more lever­age to gov­ernors’ polit­ic­al ap­pointees.

Act­iv­ist gov­ernors, Demo­crat­ic and Re­pub­lic­an, pushed for more con­trol over the past dec­ade-plus, and the trend has ac­cel­er­ated in the past few years in states such as Ari­zona, Col­or­ado, In­di­ana, Kan­sas, North Car­o­lina, and Ten­ness­ee. Throw in the as­sault on pub­lic-em­ploy­ee uni­ons in In­di­ana, Ohio, Wis­con­sin, and oth­er states, and the pat­tern is clear: a move away from a mer­it-based civil-ser­vice sys­tem to one with sub­stan­tial ad­di­tion­al polit­ic­al con­trol.

Re­form has clearly been needed, at both the fed­er­al and state levels. There have to be means to fire or de­mote in­com­pet­ent or cor­rup­ted em­ploy­ees, while pre­serving ba­sic due pro­cess. But re­form needs to be done with ex­treme cau­tion and care. When I have writ­ten about the state of cam­paign fin­ance in the coun­try, I have fre­quently re­ferred to this as the New Gil­ded Age. In a highly par­tis­an and tri­bal en­vir­on­ment, with heightened hos­til­ity between the parties and their par­tis­ans and a huge gulf between the pri­or­it­ies, is­sue po­s­i­tions, and agen­das of the parties, the erosion of a sys­tem built on in­de­pend­ent civil ser­vants car­ry­ing out their re­spons­ib­il­it­ies im­par­tially, hired on the basis of mer­it, and pro­tec­ted from purely polit­ic­al pres­sure, is not to be taken lightly. This coun­try does not need a new spoils sys­tem to add to its already cor­rup­ted cam­paign fin­ance re­gi­men.

What We're Following See More »
WEST WING REDUX
Allison Janney Takes to the Real White House Podium
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Carolyn Kaster/AP

STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
13 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
×