Want to know how the US Government is doing?

Silver Hilton · 02-06-2003, 03:58 PM

See what they say themselves. Fascinating!

Office of Management and Budget Performance Assessment

Cool Texan · 02-06-2003, 04:17 PM

Now who is really going to read that???

Silver Hilton · 02-06-2003, 04:24 PM

Well, if you take a minute to look at it, and click the bookmarks on the left, it expands into a relatively concise list of targets. It will allow you to see, for example, that Army Corps of Engineers Hydropower program has a rating of "results not demonstrated". Think that could be useful in writing your congressman?

[ 02-06-2003, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

Cool Texan · 02-06-2003, 04:37 PM

Tempting...but I'll pass. Been a long day and I got better things to do right now like pack up at work and head to campus for class.

Its a big budget with a lot of ambition...will be interesting to see it play out.

The Fishing Geek · 02-06-2003, 06:01 PM

Why would I want to read that when I have a perfektly good media that will tell me everything that I need to know?

Straydog · 02-06-2003, 06:26 PM

I'm waiting to get the real scoop from Rush.

[ 02-06-2003, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

STGRule · 02-06-2003, 07:22 PM

Gads, I'm dissapointed. Its only 300ish pages. Not a heck of a lot longer than the last 30 days on ifish. If you don't have the "time" to read something like this you better not have the "time" to gripe about the government. Sound bites are not a teaching tool. :tongue:

Silver Hilton · 02-07-2003, 07:38 AM

It's too bad nobody's interested in poking around in this. I'm not going to read it from cover to cover either, but there are several interesting things that can be gleaned from a quick skim.

1) It's interesting to skim the book marks for the agencies you are interested in, and see how their effectiveness is rated internally.

2) It is further interesting to see how the administration is working to define measurement and effectiveness criteria for various agencies. I think this is a heck of a good idea, and about time. I have to give credit where credit is due, this is a good thing GW is having his folks do. There's a description in the introduction about how this is being done.

3) It's interesting to see how meager some of the goals are. The DEA has a goal of intercepting only 5% of the drugs coming into the country, for example. Despite that lofty objective, they are rated as not having demonstrated effectiveness.

4) It is interesting to see how many of the agencies have a quota for introducing faith based programs.

But, if no-one is interested, that's OK.

Cool Texan · 02-07-2003, 07:43 AM

But if you dont read it cover to cover, what is the likelihood that you will take things out of context? 90%? 95%??

Silver Hilton · 02-07-2003, 07:57 AM

CT,

Let's see, if I look at it, in any way, shape or form, I have partial context. If you don't look at it at all, you have no context.

I always figured that some data is better than no data. Maybe they teach kids differently in business school these days.

However, the reason I suggested that you all take a look is that, atypically for a government publication, the document is produced well for navigability, and is actually pretty easy to skim through.

But that assumes motivation. You can lead a horse to water...

Cool Texan · 02-07-2003, 08:12 AM

You make me laugh dude...thanks for the chuckle this morning.

I agree 100%, it looked like it was set up to get around easily. Nicely done on their part.

And you are partly correct...I have no context of what that document says, which is why I have offered up no opinions on it, no federal budget discussion threads, etc.

Some data is is only better if you understand what it means...otherwise, sorry, but misunderstood partial data is dangerous.

And no, I obviously have no motivation to read the document.

Lured In · 02-07-2003, 08:19 AM

The Dept. of Labor, Energy, EPA, Science Foundation, and Social Security :shocked: were the only ones that had more yellow than red. for current status. The National Science Foundation was the only one with GREEN (good) for any of its objectives in its current status.

My question is, how can you be failing (red), but get a green for progress? Is that like failing really good? :whazzup:

Pretty sad over all.