Are We Better Off: Civil Servants As the Enemy

Long before taking over the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld tried to run another agency by contract.

Photo: AP/Wide World Photos

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney are two of the administration’s biggest proponents for contracting out government to the private sector, and it’s an experiment that they began early in their careers—with questionable results.

In 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Rumsfeld, a 37-year-old congressman from Illinois, to head the Office of Economic Opportunity, which was responsible for overseeing the War on
Poverty. Nixon wanted the agency restructured, and Rumsfeld, with the assistance of his chief aide, Cheney, quickly began bringing in management contractors to do the work of the agency’s top
civil servants.

In The Shadow Government, a 1976 book about the federal consulting industry, Daniel Guttman and Barry Willner quote Cheney as saying, “Don found himself with a bureaucracy that hated him…. [He] was forced to seek outside help. I remember Don reciting to me the Al Smith statement, ‘If I don’t look to my friends for help, who do I look to, my enemies?'”

Rumsfeld relied on two consulting firms, Booz Allen Hamilton and Arthur Andersen, to design the reorganization. According to Guttman and Willner’s book, the consultants moved into rooms
near Rumsfeld’s office and began interviewing more than 100 employees and making recommendations about who should be sidelined. Although civil service rules prevented Rumsfeld from mass firings of the agency’s employees, he could take away most of their responsibilities. Indeed, when Rumsfeld released a new agency telephone directory, it no longer had listings for 108 government employees, including more than 70 senior managers, some of whom were left without desks and wandered the agency’s
halls without any purpose.

According to the book, Rumsfeld even used Paul Anderson, a Booz Allen consultant on leave as a White House fellow, to be one of his top advisers and his gatekeeper, fending off agency workers
who wanted to meet with him. Anderson actually awarded the contract to Booz Allen on Rumsfeld’s behalf. When Anderson then returned to the consulting firm, he said, he moved seamlessly from being a federal employee back to being a government contractor. “No one knew that my status had changed,” he explained at the time. At Anderson’s recommendation, the agency decreased its budget for poverty programs and increased the budget for hiring more management consultants.

Guttman and Willner contend that Rumsfeld’s use of the contractors skirted the law. Only government officials—not contractors—are allowed to make policy decisions. At Rumsfeld’s Office of Economic Opportunity, the authors note, it was sometimes difficult to tell the difference between an “official decision” and a “consultant’s recommendation.”

Rumsfeld’s successor at the agency was Frank Carlucci, who later became Ronald Reagan’s Defense secretary. In 1971, Carlucci told Congress that he was dramatically curtailing the agency’s
spending on management contractors, which amounted to $110 million between 1965 and 1971. “We did not think we were getting our money’s worth,” Carlucci testified.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate