[bobthepanda]

The fact that one extreme is false does not make the other extreme true.

That being said, at some point if you're cutting, or if you don't know where you're cutting, at some point you will hit bone. More money is not a panacea but neither is less.

[daenz]

I guess I don't understand your position other than "just make it run better." What concrete steps do you want to see occur to make the government run more efficiently, and will they grow or shrink the government?

[bobthepanda]

If the government is going to contract out work it at least needs to have the capability to audit the results of such work on an ongoing basis, rather than just get left with a flaming bag of crap after the fact.

To that end the government needs to attract, develop, and keep in-house talent, starting by actually offering competitive compensation.

[daenz]

The obvious question nobody is asking is: why is the government obligated to pay for a broken service that should clearly be in violation of the contract? And if delivering a broken service doesn't violate the contract, why are these contracts being written so one-sided? There's more at play here than a lack of auditing. In the real world, if you don't deliver what you promise, you don't get paid.