[sailfast]

To be a bit snarky: why haven't you quit to give the job to somebody more cost efficient? Do you think that if you were given your job as a private citizen you would do better / be more efficient?

I agree that certain jobs do not have to be done by the government and in that way, doing them via government gives rise to all sorts of bad incentives and inefficiencies, but I would not want to paint anything run by government employees as cost inefficient (especially if it's a core government competency) compared to the private sector alternative without some clear evidence.

[TheBeardKing]

In my experience, the benefits and job security guaranteed to government workers provides no added benefit for the taxpayer. No market incentives translates to no worker incentives, and everyone is just riding the gravy train to retirement. The bureaucracratic red tape imposed by Congress builds up endlessly, and special interest groups and crony capitalists magnify the inefficiency. Most government pay systems provide raises based 90% on time served instead of performance, though the ship is slowly turning towards performance-based systems. My agency tried pay-for-performance years ago, the union shut it down, went back to GS, now they're trying performance again.

The comment was directed at the VA, there's no reason it needs to be run by government personnel for the most part. A few could be on hand to handle classified matters if necessary. People hired by the government are not necessarily the best subject matter experts, as the rigid pay structure doesn't allow offering to pay what they're worth - and more often, to pay less, as many job classifications are simply salaried too high. Maybe strictly in matters of government policy could an expert find their niche, and I'd agree be a core government competency. Most other government agencies I can think of would be better off contracted out to enact the laws set by the President and Congress, with the flexibilty of private employment pracitices.