Are you arguing that your persona here is not to constantly harangue the Bush/Republican position? Other than the your belief that Presidents in general have no impact on the economy and therefore deserve no credit/criticism (which is thus a 'factual', non-partisan issue for you), and the topic that often transcends party lines (abortion), when is it that you've given the benefit of the doubt to this Repbulican administration when news breaks? Whatever the source of your feeling for this administration, you now have a persistent bias against it. It may not force you to change long-held beliefs, you you definitely are consistently anti-Bush administration. As for this topic specifically, it was beyond my belief that someone as educated as you could conceivably assume that a President has NO impact on the economy. I don't give them as much credit/criticism as many Americans do, but they still have viable tools to impact it, particularly after almost 3 years.
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. I have tried to demonstrate this, by citing several issues on which I do not even disagree with either, let alone harangue about. Moreover, I have told you of defending Bush on non-war related issues. Also, I have said that there are other issues, say the death penalty, with which I am in total disagreement with Bush's position, but have never said a waord about regarding Bush, as I don't see it has anything to do with him. Moreover, I feel you have missed the initial point here, about assumptions. I confess that I expected the kind of response to my initial statement from those who make knee-jerk assumptions rather than valid conclusions...it wasn't a trap, exactly, but I was aware that that kind of response was inevitable from some, although I am a tad suprised it was you...but let's review. I said "It's pretty good news, but I honestly don't see how you can gove Bush the attributable credit." ...this, after having said exactly the same thing when Bush was being bashed for the economy, citing my opinion that short term economic attribution of blame/credit is a very nebulous territory. As I said, not exactly a trap, but fully expecting responses like bigtexx's "Yet it was quite easy to hurl blame his way when the economy got worse..." The irony I anticipated being evident is that of an inaccurate accusation of knee-jerk response based on an erroneous knee-jerk assumption. That texx 'fell' for it didn't surprise me...That you did, with "You just find it impossible to ever break-free from the party line, eh?" did, somewhat, but what has beffled me even more was that, when the erroneous assumpotion you based your knee-jerk accusation upon was pointed out, rhather than apologize or at least back off, you have continued with the accusations of partisanship. Whn the erroneous basis for that is pointed out, when each and every one of your questions...party supported, "Republican issues" with which I agree, defense of Bush etc. have all been patiently answered, you still refuse to acknowledge the obvious disservice you have done me, but continue with the accusations. That suprises me. I have made this as clear as possible...I have given my voting record...my position on issues...my stance on this issue in Bush's defense eer...and yet still you won't face it. I am seriously surprised. I have given several topics on which I agree with Republican positions, not just abortion, but I would even contend with your implication that abortion itself doesn't count. Ask Mad Max the primary basis upon which he expects to vote for Bush in the upcoming election...but beyond that I cited affirmitave action, religion/state, Clinton's ousting, etc. Honestly, have you not been reading? And benefit of the doubt? When the Haliburton issue was first raised, my response was immediately to question the accuracy of the report, and state that this was news only IF this was true. I have consistently adopted that position, yet people whom I feel are partisan themselves accuse me of same when it couldn't be accurate, as I have no party. I also pointed out that I have been accused in here of beingpartisan n favor of the Republicans, which should, in and of itself, tell you what you need to know about the consistency of my anti-Republican position, as you attest. I am consistently critical with what I see is wrong...and, as of yet, all of my calls have come true, which mught support the position that I was calling them accurately rather than out of bias. I said pre-war that we had not shown sufficient evidence of WMDs, that we had contradicted our established and enforced position re: pre-emptive war, and that we had not shown sufficient evidence ( or, indeed, any) of a connection between 9-11 and Saddam. Those coupled with the statemtents we made casting our critics as traitors, or misrepresenting evidence to support the war , and the Patriot Act/use of fear to accomplish administration goals are the entire basis of my criticism of the administration/war...On which of thoise, Cohen, was I wrong, let alone biased? I'll agree that when I initially made them I was in a minority, but subsequent events would seem to suggest that I might hae had more basis for my positions than a desire to bash Bush, no? On the other hand Ihave consistenly described Powell as my favorite current politician, proased Bush et al for their handling of the Turkish issue which culd have been a disaster,etc. That you missed these is not my responsibility...and as I state them, as with my original position re: Bush and the eonomy, you can either believe me and admit the eror of your posiion, or call me liar, and be proven wrong. I don;t see the possible middle ground here. The point I thouht that response o the original statemtn would prove is that accustions of bias can themselves bevidence of bias on the part of the accusors when they are revealed to b not supported by fact. I standy that, and am amazed it isn't self-evident. Again, my position is not that the President has no effect on the economy, although that is,in fact,arguable in terms of degree, but that it is virtually impossible to determine that effect in the short term. As such I reserve blame/credit...clearly biased, no?
bump. this topic derailed the rail thread. I get it, but the topic is still interesting. Someone had just posted a quotation from ABC news with something to the effect of ... "at least one or two % of the nearly 7% jump can be attributed to the tax cuts." I think I could get on board with that idea. That seems to preserve the true mystery inherent in such a complex system.
Thank you for the bump B-Bob, I had prepared this response to one of FD Khan's misperceptions and all of a sudden the thread locked on me Contrary to what you may think, I don't think anybody here advocated zero % unemployment. Secondly, I don't think such a thing is even physically possible absent a 20 year socialist overhaul. So you might as well rant about people riding magic unicorns, because neither of them exists. What you may have been intending to allude to was the NAIRU (Non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) theory of Milton friedman. Of course, this theory was called into severe question in the late 90's, as the unemployment rate went far, far below what the NAIRU was believed to be and inflation failed to increase, yet instead hit record lows, so either the NAIRU theory is garbage or the NAIRU is so low as to be inconsequential, as we will never get close enough to it to make a differnce You really shouldn't call people out as ignorant like that unless you are certain you have your own house in order.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031110-536234-2,00.html U S I N E S S If This Is a Boom Why Does it Feel Like a Squeeze? The U.S. economy records a red-hot 7.2% growth rate — fueling hopes for a sustained recovery. But many workers don't see any reason to celebrate By DAREN FONDA Monday, Nov. 03, 2003 Judging from the grim faces of the cashiers, clerks and butchers picketing California supermarkets, you would think we were in a deep economic slump. Golden State grocery workers are on strike for the first time in 25 years, over a plan by Kroger, Safeway and other chains to shift a bigger chunk of the cost of health care to their unionized labor force of some 70,000. Under competitive siege from nonunion superstores like Wal-Mart, whose health packages for hourly workers are stingier, the grocery chains complain that they are paying 50% more on health coverage than they were four years ago. In full-page ads in California newspapers, they proclaim, "We simply cannot pass these costs along to our customers." But passing the medical buck to staff members isn't going over well, either. Norma Perez, 30, picketing with her three kids outside a Ralphs in North Hollywood, says that under the chain's proposed policy, she and her husband would incur an additional $500 or so a month in medical costs — jeopardizing mortgage payments on their house outside Los Angeles or putting the kids' health at risk. "California is already down, and imagine if we all go apply for medical welfare," says the cashier. The supermarkets dispute such dire predictions. As of last week, the two sides were aisles apart on a deal. These are not happy times for U.S. workers. The unemployment rate is 6.1%, and cash-strapped companies have been asking workers still lucky enough to have jobs to pay more for health care. So the startling announcement last week that the American economy surged 7.2% in the third quarter — the most torrid rate of quarterly expansion since 1984--has many wondering whether this is, at last, the start of a sustained recovery that might pull workers out of their funk. Until that happens, strapped workers and the unemployed are wondering why, if the growth rate is so high, they feel so low? The impressive rise in gross domestic product (GDP) was fueled by strong exports, consumer spending and housing-related expenditures. Business spending increased 11.1%, the second straight quarterly rise for a sector that's critical to any sustainable turnaround. Corporate profits for firms in the S& P 500 are expected to be up 20%, on average, from a year ago. And consumers continue to anchor the economy. The summer tax cuts pumped $13.7 billion into their wallets, igniting a 6.6% rise in spending. "Consumers spent aggressively on everything from cars to homes," says economist Mark Zandi of Economy.com. Even so, workers remain tense about nearly everything — job security, benefits costs, puny raises. A nationwide health-care squeeze is contributing to these concerns. Insurance premiums are up 14% so far in 2003, and this will probably be the third straight year of double-digit increases. Though the Federal Government has cut taxes, many state and local governments, facing budget crises, have raised them in one form or another for property, tolls, college tuition, cigarettes, automobile registration. With an inflation rate of 1.2%, prices for goods and services have remained essentially flat, but we're still feeling the pinch. Adding to the pressure: wages have risen only marginally. True relief will come when the unemployment rate starts to fall. That will probably take another quarter or two, as job growth typically lags GDP expansion. So far this has been a jobless recovery. Since the recession started in March 2001, the U.S. economy has shed 2.7 million jobs. The Administration would like to hit a target set by some private-sector forecasters to create 200,000 jobs a month, but it has been wary of making its own forecasts. In recent years spikes in the growth rate have faded. Economists expect this year's fourth quarter to cool to a still healthy 4%. To sustain long-term growth, the economy needs what's known as a virtuous cycle, in which increases in demand for goods and services are such that businesses have to expand capacity, hire more workers and produce more goods, all of which generates additional profits and demand for more workers. For now, the economy's improvement is based partly on the painful work-force reductions of recent years. Companies have become more productive through downsizing and squeezing higher output from workers. Efficiency is terrific, of course, but it won't necessarily translate into job growth. Diane Swonk, chief economist at Bank One in Chicago, says the unemployment rate needs to fall to around 4.5% before we will "feel" the expansion. For now, says Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo, "all of us, both business and consumers, are being squeezed." Here are some reasons why for many of us it doesn't feel as if we are living in boom times THE MEDICAL MIGRAINE No matter whether you are running a business, toiling in an office or looking for a job, you are probably feeling the health-care sting. Workers notice it in the form of higher payroll deductions and larger co-pays for prescription drugs. HMOs, which typically used to cover hospital stays in full, are adding deductibles of about $240 a visit. In aerospace, a cyclical industry that's in a downturn, Boeing's 92,000 nonunionized employees will for the first time face payroll deductions (up to $105 a month) for health insurance. (Deals with Boeing's 58,000 unionized workers are negotiated separately.) Boeing's health costs, says spokesman Ken Mercer, are rising 15% annually and are projected to hit $2.5 billion by 2005. Boeing doesn't expect a turnaround in the airline industry until at least that year, meaning that health-care costs will probably grow faster than revenues. Companies such as Wal-Mart have introduced variable pricing schemes. Its "associates" can choose lower payroll deductions and opt for deductibles as high as $1,000 a year. Other firms, such as General Electric, have launched variable premiums for family coverage, so that a worker pays depending on the size of his or her family. "There used to be two payment levels — single and family," says Gary Sheffer, a GE spokesman. "Starting in 2004, we will go to single, two people and then three or more. And your premiums will go up as you go up that hierarchy. You pay more if you have higher use, and obviously families will have higher use." Boeing has for several years charged workers an extra $100 a month if their spouses or domestic partners who are employed elsewhere decline coverage from their employers. The drawback to such plans is that they are "administratively difficult — you have to get more involved in aspects of a family life," says Barry Schilmeister, a principal with Mercer Human Resource Consulting. A typical family health plan now costs $9,068 a year, and companies intend to ask workers to pay more next year, according to the latest survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The California supermarkets fear that if they don't shift more costs to employees, they will lose the ability to compete against operations like Wal-Mart, whose overall costs for goods and labor are lower. "In order for us to stay competitive, we need labor contracts that are good for both our employees and our companies," the grocers explained in newspaper ads. Part of the problem is the growing number of retired workers. As companies or whole industries downsize, their work forces are becoming smaller than the population of retirees they are supporting, a situation that has led to soaring medical costs. General Motors now has one U.S. worker supporting 2.5 retirees, leading to a massive drain on profits. Because of such pressure, company-sponsored medical care for retirees is becoming rarer. In 1993, 43% of firms offered medical coverage to retirees who weren't eligible for Medicare. The figure last year was 34%, according to Mercer Human Resource Consulting. WELCOME TO SPARTA Forget the toga parties, concierge services and fruit bowls in the office. For most workers, those perks fluttered away after the Clinton boom years and probably won't return, benefits consultants say. Under the new regime, you may not be allowed to dial directory assistance at work, as some employees at Credit Suisse First Boston have discovered. Fewer companies are letting workers keep the frequent-flyer miles they rack up on business travel. DaimlerChrysler, which routinely paid $100 bonuses to corporate-sales folks who sold a car to a retail customer, has eliminated the extra cash reward; the firm has lost $1.1 billion so far this year and is under pressure from shareholders to get back in the black. Companies are squeezing wherever they can. Compuware, a computer-services company in Detroit, eliminated its customary holiday gift of a jar of cashews to each of its 9,300 workers; that will save $500,000. The firm, which has cut wages and plans to start taking payroll deductions of $25 to $50 a month for health care, has been chipping away at other benefits too. Compuware is terminating tuition reimbursements (to save $1.4 million), and it intends to charge more for child-care services at its headquarters. "Our revenues have not been growing, so we need to reduce our expenses," says Thomas Costello, senior vice president for human resources. He says the measures have enabled Compuware to avoid large-scale layoffs, which some of its competitors such as EDS have imposed. Page 2 of 3 THE BENEFITS GET ODDER Fearing that excessive cuts could drain employee morale — and lead to an exodus when the economy picks up — some companies are looking for ways to send workers the message that they care. The burrito slingers at Chipotle Mexican Grill, for instance, have paid 10% to 15% more annually for their health coverage since 2000. But the Denver-based chain of 280 restaurants, which is 90% owned by McDonald's, isn't tightening the belt everywhere. In July 2002 it introduced a new benefit: pet health insurance. Chipotle says it covers the first $10 a month, enough to pay the premium for a pup's first year of care. Employees also receive a 15% discount on veterinary services. "It fits our philosophy of caring for the employee's whole family," says Bob Wilner, chief administrative officer. Only Chipotle's 800 salaried employees (the remaining 5,300 are paid hourly) are eligible, but those who choose it are appreciative. "For a few bucks a month, it's a great benefit," says Dan Fogarty, 42, director of brand development and owner of a mutt named Pete. Yet these small gestures have not eased the sense that the corporate safety net will continue to fray. Even as the economy reflates, many unemployed workers may find themselves in temp jobs with no benefits, or they may end up working for small businesses whose benefits are less generous than those at bigger corporations. Small businesses, says Swonk, are the "shock absorbers" of the new economy. The good news is that the U.S. economy has the flexibility to absorb these shocks. The bad news is that the workers usually do much of the absorbing. — With reporting by Margot Roosevelt/Los Angeles, Eric Roston/Washington, Eli Sanders/Seattle, Joseph R. Szczesny/Detroit and Leslie Whitaker/Chicago
It's the liberals' worst nightmare: An improving job market. Read it and weap, liberals, America's job market is improving. It is hard to deny that things are looking brighter. We are not all the way there yet, but this is another step down the road. This is one less thing for the lunatic fringe to crow about. The tide is turning. Jobless claims at pre-recession level Last week's claims were lowest of Bush's presidency By Rex Nutting, CBS.MarketWatch.com Last Update: 8:38 AM ET Nov. 6, 2003 WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- The number of new claims for state unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level since the recession began more than 2 1/2 years ago, the Labor Department reported Thursday. The average weekly number of seasonally adjusted new claims over the past four weeks fell by 10,000 to 380,000, the lowest since the week of March 10, 2001, the month the nine-month recession began. Read the full release. The number of new claims in the week ending Nov. 1 plunged by 43,000 to 348,000, the lowest level since George W. Bush was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2001. The four-week average is considered a better gauge of the labor market than the volatile weekly number. The effects of a strike by grocery workers in California probably contributed about 10,000 at most to the decline in the most recent week, a Labor Department spokesman said. Some striking workers filed for claims in the prior week, adding to initial claims in that week, he said. A decline in claims was seen across the country, he added. Meanwhile, the average number of continuing claims for state unemployment benefits over the past four weeks fell by about 25,000 to 3.54 million, the lowest since April. The continuing-claims figures do not include some 825,000 workers receiving federal unemployment benefits, which are available to unemployed workers once they exhaust their state benefits, typically after 26 weeks. The number of Americans who've been out of work longer than six months rose to 2.1 million in September, representing 23.2 percent of all unemployed workers. Both figures are highs for this business cycle. The jobless-claims figures show significant improvement in the labor market in the past two months, with the four-week average of initial claims falling by about 30,000 over that time. However, the initial-claims data capture only the patterns of layoffs, not the trend in hiring. With the continuing-claims figures still at high levels, hiring remains anemic. In September, about 57,000 jobs were added to U.S. payrolls, the government has said. That was the first increase since January but remains short of the 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs needed each month to absorb the growing adult population. The Labor Department will report on the October employment situation Friday. Economists forecast that about 56,000 jobs were added in October, with the jobless rate expected to remain at 6.1 percent, according to a survey conducted by CBS MarketWatch. In a separate report that helped explain the weak labor market, the Labor Department said productivity surged at an 8.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter. Unit labor costs fell 4.6 percent. Employers are able to get as much work out of 953 workers now as they got out of 1,000 a year ago. Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of CBS.MarketWatch.com.
Classic! Call us when the 3 million plus jobs lost on Dubya's watch are recreated. Then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, your mindless ramblings remain the partisan drivel they have always been.
Interesting info from Wal-Mart... _________ Wal-Mart dumps cold water on U.S. economic bulls Reuters, 11.13.03, 2:07 PM ET By Ros Krasny CHICAGO, Nov 13 (Reuters) - Economists and politicians giddy about prospects for U.S. economic growth got a dousing of cold water on Thursday from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (nyse: WMT - news - people), the world's largest company. The retailer -- which taps directly into the psyche of the U.S. consumer -- gave a downbeat economic outlook that contrasted with reams of recent data, and bluntly suggested that many of its shoppers are barely making ends meet. Customers continue to buy the cheapest items in any given category -- a sign that household budgets remain tight, Lee Scott, Wal-Mart chief executive officer, said on a recorded message. Buyers are "timing their expenditures around the receipt of their paychecks, indicating liquidity issues," Scott said. "I don't think consumer spending is slowing, but I also don't see the strength that many of you in the investment community appear to see," Scott said. Wal-Mart's sober outlook came after the U.S. economy enjoyed its fastest gross domestic product growth in almost 20 years in the third quarter and is seeing job growth after a years-long slump. But retailing juggernaut Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, is an economic indicator by itself. An estimated 100 million people shop at its U.S. stores every week. The company takes in 6 to 8 cents of every U.S. dollar spent on retailing, excluding autos. "The Wal-Mart numbers leave open the question 'is this just a breather in consumer spending or is it the start of the long-awaited consumer spending recession?'" said Cary Leahey, senior U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities. Wal-Mart's portrayal of financially strapped consumers highlighted worries about how spending would hold up once midyear federal tax stimulus -- chiefly, from child tax credits -- waned. Spending growth had been expected to slow after third-quarter growth of more than 6 percent, but by how much? Shoppers' caution will probably continue until there is further improvement in employment, Wal-Mart's Scott said. U.S. employers have added 286,000 workers to their payrolls over the last three months, the best three-month performance since before the economy entered recession in 2001. But the new jobs may not be an equal exchange for those being lost in terms of wages and benefits. Discount stores like Wal-Mart could take the biggest hit from the end of tax-cut stimulus because they benefited the most from the rebates mailed during the summer. Still, a second wave of stimulus is on the horizon to shore up the retail sector, economists said. "Homer Simpson has gotten his tax cut already but Mr. Burns will continue to pay lower rates. So the largest impact from the tax cuts may be in March and April," Leahey said. Carl Steidtmann, economist with Deloitte Research, noted that this year's income tax cuts were retroactive to Jan. 1, which means refunds mailed in 2004 will be higher. "Our forecast for Nov-Jan, the holiday season, is for 6.5 to 7 percent retail spending growth," he said. "Tax stimulus is not going away," he said.
Shut up RR, it's the liberal Wal Mart crowds worst nightmare. All those ellitist Wal-Mart shoppers, you know, the kind who like chardonnay and caviar with their Jeff Gordon coffee mugs, are just intentionally not spending in order to spite the President, in a truly *pathetic* attempt to hold down the economy. Another pathetic fringer case of sour grapes.
Keep digging for *any* bad news you can, liberals. Better scrounge around looking now, because it's drying up fast!! Again, it's a sad day in America when the liberals cheer bad economic news...
So, posting an article is cheering? Damn, bigtexxx is right. It's like anti-good economy pep rally up in here.
Who's cheering? Wouldn't you rather want to know what's really going on in our country? Wouldn't you want to know if there are problems? Fact is, there are many indicators that suggest the recovery touted by the preliminary 3Q numbers is not quite like the administration would have us believe. Shouldn't we at least be prepared for something other than the rosiest scenario? It's called responsibility, which is something sorely lacking from this administration. Their method is to wish for the best and ignore everything else. Economic policy is no different from Iraq poliocy in this regard.
Interestingly, the one piece of good news cited in rimrocker's article was attributable to Bush's fiscal policy. They said that retail spending growth would be strong as a result of the tax cuts. With this fact established, I find it ridiculous to use this article as an attack on Bush,which rimrocker attempted to do.
Actually, what's funny is that none of the retail spending appears to be at Wal-Mart, which is not surprising as most of the beneficiaries of the tax cut are higher income elitist types like me, who wouldn't set foot in a Wal Mart, and who are statistically less likely to consume and more likely to save in any event. Oh well, more money to donate to his opponent next year!!!
But given the other indicators in this article, is it sustainable? Tax cuts create a short-term jump, but where do we go afterwards? We now have Keynesian policies from the right, but without the requisite rebounding of the economy. To be able to lose jobs and run the deficit up as mush as this administration has is a truly remarkable feat never accomplished before. You may cite it as good news, but I wonder if different policies would have had better results and if this looks good in the way that day-old pizza would look good to a starving man. This administration keeps lowering the bar so they can get cheers when they fall over it. All I want is an economic policy that is not insane.
Sam, I am appalled that you find it 'funny' that Wal-Mart shoppers have a reduced economic outlook. This is just appalling. While some people who take up residence in my very high tax bracket may have a general disdain for shopping alongside the unwashed masses at a store like Wal-Mart, they would never find it amusing that others have fallen on hard times. I am simply aghast to learn of your views. Sam, as you know, the dividend cut was not the only part of the tax cuts. Help was provided for the lower income *taxpayers*, however it's hard to cut taxes for people who do not pay taxes. I suspect many of these people are shopping at Wal-Mart, further diminishing the relevance of this economic news as it relates to the tax cuts. Furthermore, I would like to correct your erroneous logic regarding spending versus saving. Many people who find economics to be 'an obstacle' for them would suspect that spending a dollar is better for the economy than is saving a dollar. I would take issue with this assertion. I believe very firmly in the banking system to allocate capital to its most efficient use. This investment spurs economic growth.
1. very funny post. 2. payroll tax holiday--look into it. Second, what do you propose we do with this investment capital? build factories? increase productivity so that more jobs can be cut? more dotcom startups?
Ah yes, where the Bush adminstration privatizes a function of government, and finds a way to lose money. Sounds like half of Iraq. At least this helps private industry in the short term. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0031115/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/forest_service_jobs Top Stories - AP Forest Service Outraged by Loss of Jobs Sat Nov 15, 2:35 AM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo! By ROBERT GEHRKE, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Dozens of Forest Service employees in Utah and Montana were told last March they would be among the first victims of the Bush administration decision to bid out work by government employees to private contractors, who could do it cheaper. AP Photo Related Links • Competitive Sourcing [PDF](OMB) A required analysis three months later showed it's going to cost the government $425,000 a year more for the same work that was being done by the 41 members of the Forest Service's Content Analysis Team in Salt Lake City and in Missoula, Mont. "I think we can make a pretty strong case for keeping us on board, but nobody gave us an opportunity to do that," said Karl Vester, whose last day on the job was Friday. "The Forest Service should be ashamed for what they've done to us." In all, 41 members of the team are losing their jobs to private contractors in the competitive sourcing program. The Forest Service spent $24 million studying the idea, which was meant to reduce the federal payroll by switching the work to private contractors, assuming they can do it at lower cost. In 93 percent of the cases, the Agriculture Department agency found it was cheaper for government employees to do the work. Fewer than 250 jobs are being sent to the private sector. Worried that the $24 million was being taken out of other Forest Service programs, some lawmakers threatened to cut off all money for the studies. When the White House countered with a veto threat, Congress put strict caps on the privatization effort. Next year, the Forest Service can spend only $5 million for privatizing studies. The Interior Department is limited to $2.5 million, and the Energy Department to $500,000. "We had to slap them around for that a bit," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. "They were out wasting the taxpayers' money doing these studies they shouldn't have been doing." Thomas Mills, deputy chief for business operations at the Forest Service, defends the studies and the decision to privatize Vester's team. He said competitive sourcing will save the Forest Service $6.1 million a year, meaning the initiative will pay for itself in four years. And it has dispelled the myth of government inefficiency while forcing managers to run a tighter ship. So far, the Forest Service has decided to privatize a computer support call center, a handful of maintenance positions and the CAT team, which analyzes public comments on proposed policy changes for several government agencies. Critics of the privatization effort say the way the content team was handled points to serious flaws in the process. "This is just a prime example of the mismanagement of this whole competitive sourcing process from the get-go," said Bill Dougan, president of the Forest Service Council, a union of the agency's employees. "It's unfortunate that the agency didn't know what they were doing when they started this whole program and the (Content Analysis Team) team results are a result of that." Mills said closing the Missoula office and hiring contractors was the right decision. While the cost estimate showed the government employees can do the work cheaper on an hourly basis, it also showed they had significant down time, where employees were paid while not working on projects. Private contractors have the flexibility to adapt to the workload, saving money in the long run, he said. "I think we made the right decision for the taxpayer," Mills said. "Are there some employees who would rather we made a different decision? I'm sure they would. ... But our mission is something other than just keeping people employed." The employees have unionized, lodged a grievance and are committed to seeing their challenge through, even if it means litigation, Vester said. "I don't think I've ever been treated so disrespectfully in my life," said Holly Schneider, a dismissed analysis team member now working in her previous job as a temporary employee with a lower salary and no benefits. "We were just a part of meeting those targets, and we were an easy group to eliminate."
