GSA Party Controversy... An Unusual View

My Name is Michael Land, and I have an opinion.  It is an opinion that is rarely popular with those of you with a liberal bent.  That's OK.  I don't expect my opinions to be popular.  I do, however, hope to make you think beyond what you've been spoon-fed by the media, unions, and the politicians who purchase your loyalty with handouts taken by force from others' bank accounts.

That being said, I sometimes tick off my more conservative friends, as well.  There are those on both sides who sit idly by like baby birds with their maws open to the sky, waiting for whatever regurgitated goodies their media stars and politicians will drop in.

The latest dust-up has been over an employee party near Vegas that cost the US taxpayers more than $800,000.  Apparently, the US General Services Administration held a "regional meeting" for around 300 employees.  Some of the costs break down as follows [according to The Atlantic Wire]:

Thanks to an investigation and report from GSA Inspector General Brian D. Miller, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press, we now know how Johnson and her team spent all that money. Here's how it breaks down (keep in mind that in 2010, according to Inspector Miller's report,  the meal and incidental expenses allowance was $71 per day):

• $31,000 on a "networking reception" that featured $19-per-person "American artisanal cheese display" and $7,000 in sushi
• $3,200 on a session with a mind reader
• $5,600 for in-room parties 
• $100,405.37 in employee travel costs to scout the event--meaning, these people returned to the Las Vegas area multiple times to visit hotels before settling on the fancy M Resort and Casino.
• $3,700 for T-shirts
•  $2,800 in water bottles
•  $1,500 for "Boursin scalloped potato with Barolo wine-braised short ribs" and a $525 bartender fee for a cash bar.
• Three officials spent almost $400 for rented tuxedos
• $1,840 for vests for the 19 “regional ambassadors” and other employees
• $146,527.05  was spent on catered food during the entire conference
• $6,325 was spent on commemorative coins in velvet boxes to reward all participants for their work on stimulus projects (because a certificate and the $800,000 party they're at wouldn't do)
• $75,000 for a “team-building” exercise — the goal was to build bicycles (which would later be donated to a Boys & Girls Clubs)

More details can be found here, here, and here. 


Conservatives and liberals alike have railed against the excessive and ridiculous spending of this organization.  People have been fired.  People have resigned.  And rightfully so.  It goes strongly against conservative principles to take money from taxpayers to spend on frivolous things like mind readers, tuxedos and "location scouting" pre-parties.  

Likewise, it looks really bad for liberals, especially after President Obama's speech in the early days of his term of office in which he called corporations to task for  their lavish parties and bonuses, specifically mentioning trips to Las Vegas in the mix.

It's a bad situation all the way around.  And, as usual, the taxpayer is the chief loser.

Now, here's my take on the situation.  It will probably ruffle feathers on both sides.  


1.  It's not Obama's fault.  Let's face it.  The federal government is HUGE!  By some counts, there are more than 2.65 million federal employees in over 1300 distinct agencies.  There is no way one president can possibly even know what all of those agencies are, let alone personally manage the activities of each one.  These types of debacles occur under presidents of both parties.


2.  I don't begrudge the employees of the GSA a party.  Look, my company had a staff Christmas party.  We enjoyed it very much.  It was a good time of recognition of accomplishments and growth.  We had some games, some good food, and a speech from my boss (a very long speech from my boss).  


That probably made my conservative friends angry.  At the same time, my liberal friends are probably sitting back with a bit of a smug look on their face.


Here's the thing:  While it isn't President Obama's fault this happened, he is in the position of ultimate responsibility.  He is the Chief Executive of the US Government.  Therefore, it is his responsibility to solve it.


Not only that, it is the very policies he embraces that cause these atrocities!  The liberal approach to governing is to create more programs, more agencies, and more bureaucracy.  Each time they create another agency they reduce their ability to effectively oversee them.  It isn't just Obama.  Under the leadership of the past several presidents, the federal government has literally exploded in size.  

Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution spells out the basic purposes of the Congress.  

• To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
• To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If a president and congress were to return the federal government to its original purpose, the number of non-military federal employees would be a fraction of its current size... and so would the budget and debt.


President Obama should stand up and disband the multitudinous agencies that do little more than suck up taxpayers' dollars.  Multiple, redundant, non-productive, and expensive agencies are not only unnecessary, but unconstitutional.  If the federal government were reduced to the proper scope of its constitutional function, I dare say, one president could easily be aware of what each department was doing and lead each agency more directly.  


As to my second point.  I do not begrudge the employees of the GSA a party.  Nearly every organization for which I've worked has held holiday parties, recognition ceremonies and other "regional meeting" style events.  However, there is a huge caveat. There is a difference between private companies and government agencies.  If my boss, who owns a wireless retail company, chose to hold a party that cost him $2,700 per attendee, that's alright.  It's lavish and over the top, but it's alright.  Why?  Because nobody is forcing the population, by threat of imprisonment, to purchase wireless phones!  My boss could throw as large and extravagant a party as he wished (and I wholeheartedly encourage him to do so) because he would be spending money that his company legitimately earned.  


A government agency, on the other hand, has a greater burden of accountability.  Those who pay the bills don't do it out of choice, but by coercion.  Failing to contribute financially to the federal government carries the risk of severe punishment.  Therefore, for a government agency to squander money on extravagance is not only bad form, it is misappropriation of funds.  It's fraudulent use of taxpayer's money.  It is criminal behavior.


The sad thing is, in a society where everyone thinks everyone else owes them something, getting this point through peoples' thick skulls is like trying to push a marshmallow through a rock.