A Day In The Life

COLUMN of the DAY: EPA Chief, a.k.a. Acceleratti Incredibilis

OhMyGov! — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:06:00 GMT

Washington Post - Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson is doing his best Road Runner impersonation as he is pursued relentlessly by the Senate Environment and Public Works chairman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). Boxer has been after Johnson since March to come to the Hill to answer a few friendly questions about his policies on the Clean Air Act and global warming.

Each time the wily chairwoman thought she had Johnson in her grasp, his schedule was absolutely jammed, he couldn't make it, busy, busy, on the road, even wandering about in Australia.

Congress investigating drug payments to doctors

Briana Kerensky — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:47:00 GMT

Since the Beijing Olympics, we've seen Michael Phelps on the Today Show to talk about his Speedo LZR swimsuit, and the image of Shawn Johnson sticking a perfect landing is on millions of McDonald's paper bags and cups. But athletes aren't the only people getting paid to promote products anymore; physicians are, as well. In an age where it seems like doctors are prescribing pills for every little ailment, it's becoming apparent that some of these medical professionals are getting big bonuses from pharmaceutical companies.

Concerned about the use of unapproved medications in children and the influence of industry money in medicine, Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) has been on the hunt for university medical researchers who do not disclose the kickbacks they receive from pharmaceutical companies while receiving federal funding through NIH grants. His crusade against big Pharm triggers an important question: are doctors prescribing us medicine for our own good, or for the good of their wallets?

"For the sake of transparency and accountability," Grassley said in an August 2007 speech, "shouldn't the American public know who their doctor is taking money from? After all, anybody can go on the Internet and see who is funding the campaigns for federally elected officials. Because doctors are expected to look out for the health and well-being of their patients, shouldn't we hold doctors to similar standards?"

According to the New York Times, the National Institutes of Health promotes medical integrity by stipulating that researchers must report to the universities they work for earnings of $10,000 or more per year from drug companies. Such earnings include payment for consulting services. In turn, universities are supposed to avoid conflicts of interest by requiring that the money be disclosed to research subjects.

Pressure from Grassley is forcing NIH to investigate the disclosures of academics at Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of Cincinnati and Brown University. If a conflict of interest is found, Grassley wants NIH to revoke its grants. In all, some 20 schools and the American Psychiatric Association are also being probed.

The most recent doctor to be criticized by the senator is Karen Wagner, a psychiatrist at the University of Texas Medical Branch. In a September 11 Wall Street Journal report, it was revealed that Wagner failed to disclose over $150,000 in consulting and speaking fees she received from GlaxoSmithKline. Considering that the doctor worked on a study for the treatment of teenage depression using Glaxo's antidepressant Paxil, her moonlighting can easily be seen as a major conflict of interest.

But $150,000 is a paltry sum next to Grassley's biggest "bust." Dr. Joseph Biderman, A psychiatrist at Harvard and Massachusetts General, failed to disclose most of the $1.6 million he received in consulting payments from Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly between 2000-2007.

Medical researchers do get money from the drug companies when they clinically test their products. But according to the New York Times, Biderman failed to disclose to Harvard exactly how much he earned. In 2001, for example, the psychiatrist reported to Harvard University that he received no income from Johnson & Johnson. When asked to check again, he said he earned $3,500, but Sen. Grassley discovered that in actuality, Biderman was paid $58,169 by J&J that year.

Also Interesting:

Federal programs honored for innovation

Jaime L. Hartman — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:34:00 GMT

Two federal programs were honored by the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School last week. Along with one city and three state government programs, the Global Maritime Domain Awareness program of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Intelligence Community Civilian Joint Duty Program of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are 2008 winners of the Innovations in American Government (IAG) Awards.

The programs were selected because they encourage cross collaboration and knowledge sharing. The Intelligence Community Civilian Joint Duty Program requires intelligence officials to complete a period of duty outside their parent agency. The program aims to develop leaders with a broader sense of the inner workings of American intelligence across the intelligence community agencies.

Developed in 2007, the Joint Duty Program is designed to address the unique threats faced by American intelligence in the post-9/11 world. Through the efforts of Director of Intelligence Mike McConnell and the strong backing of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, all 16 intelligence agencies, including those within the six cabinet departments that make up the intelligence community, participate in the program. Previously, these agencies all operated almost independently - an insularity identified by the 9/11 Commission as one of the primary reasons the intelligence community failed to anticipate the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Under the guidelines of the Joint Duty Program, all Intelligence Community employees are evaluated under the same performance standard. These standards include how well they share information, collaborate, and take integrated action across agency boundaries. While formal outcomes are classified, the program is receiving anecdotal acclaim.

"Joint Duty ensures that leaders of the Intelligence Community acquire a deep understanding of how each element of the IC contributes to the overall mission," said Director McConnell. "It's like the quintessential CEO who has spent time working in the mail room, advertising, distribution, sales, and accounting."

The Global Maritime Domain Awareness Program provides an unprecedented level of visibility into transit and port activity by tracking the movements of more than 10,000 vessels from over 40 nations in real-time. The program was developed in 2006 by the Volpe Center of the Department of Transportation's Research and Innovative Technology Administration.

At the center of the program is its Maritime Safety and Security Information System (MSSIS). It is an easily scalable and accessible web platform which consolidates information transmitted from commercial ship transponders with data from shore side receivers. The system's built in analysis tools facilitate easy identification of data anomalies that could signify suspicious activity, updating every 10 seconds. Information is unclassified and easily accessible with a user name and password.

MSSIS is a resource and time saver because it eliminates costly ship board inspections and fly-over surveillance. Due to the data sharing nature of the system, it supports multi-national naval exercises such as NATO's Operation Active Endeavour and officials from many partnering nations use the system to enforce environmental and safety regulations, prevent oil spills, and reduce port congestion and vessel collisions.

Since the Global Maritime Domain Awareness' inception two years ago, its participating membership has expanded from five to 40 countries with another 40 nations currently evaluating participation. It has facilitated atypical cooperation among unlikely nations, including Turkey and Greece as well as Pakistan and India.

Stephen Goldsmith, director of the IAG awards, praised the program's combination of technology expertise with diplomatic savvy. "It practices not only advanced security on international seaways, but also shows how innovation can arise from the creative and collaborative use of existing assets."

Each of the IAG award winners receives $100,000 towards dissemination and replication across the country. OhMyGov! salutes the winners as well as the Ash Institute for their efforts to improve government and by extension the quality of life of US citizens.

Also Interesting:

INNOVATIONS: It's not an iPhone, it's a crime fighting tool!
INFANTS IN PRISON
Congress asks for analysis of flexible work schedules
GREENING THE GOV: Seattle not just famous for rain anymore
NY government bares all to the public
State department employee wins recognition for international diplomacy

What does “service” mean to Obama and McCain?

Chris Asch — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:51:00 GMT

“Service” has become quite the theme in this election season. At their conventions, both Barack Obama and John McCain emphasized their long years of service to our country. On 9/11, they will make a rare joint appearance at the Service Nation Summit in New York to discuss their plans to encourage service and reinvigorate civic life.

It’s quite exciting, particularly for those of us in the service movement. But a fair question to ask might be: what do the candidates mean by “service?"

Barack Obama has said that national service “will be a central cause of my presidency.” In his initial speeches on the subject, he talked of service in exclusively civilian terms — volunteering, working in non-profit organizations, serving in the Peace Corps, and so on. After enduring a storm of criticism, he now carefully includes military service alongside non-military endeavors.

As a veteran, John McCain naturally emphasizes military service, but has also called on every American to embrace “a cause greater than yourself.” McCain differs from many in his party by supporting national service programs such as AmeriCorps, and like his rival he has called for expanding them.

Unfortunately, neither candidate has offered bold or innovative ideas to encourage a new generation to pursue perhaps the most important field of non-military service: working in government as a career. It seems the gap in top-level support for encouraging careers in government must be filled by other organizations, and indeed that is exactly what is happening.

The Service Nation coalition has embraced two innovative initiatives aimed at inspiring a new generation of young people to pursue government service as a career: the U.S. Public Service Academy and the Roosevelt Scholars program.

The Public Service Academy would realize George Washington’s dream of a national college for developing civilian leaders. As the civilian counterpart to our five military academies, it would offer 5,000 students per year an intensive, federally-subsidized undergraduate education in return for a mandatory five years of work in public institutions following graduation.

The Roosevelt Scholars program would target graduate students. Named after the father of the modern civil service, Theodore Roosevelt, the government-wide Roosevelt Scholarship would fund graduate-level study in exchange for a federal service commitment in targeted “mission critical” occupational areas.

Together, these initiatives will raise the visibility and prestige of public service and develop a new generation of civilian leaders who will be prepared to help our country meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. We should want – no, we should demand – that our best, most creative people are at the helm of our public institutions, and we should expect our presidential candidates to offer plans to encourage our brightest young minds to see government service as a noble calling.

Chris Myers Asch is the Executive Director of the U.S. Public Service Academy.

Also Interesting:

Raising the visibility of public service
Why not scholarships instead of a Public Service Academy?
Guest Columnist: Chris Asch, U.S. Public Service Academy
Where does government fit into Obama’s call to service?
'And it's all just a little bit of history repeated'
The federal workforce of tomorrow
Army creates new educational program to combat recruitment challenges

Gustav recovery a political sink or swim event

Andrew B. Einhorn — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:24:00 GMT

As Hurricane Gustav winds down, Gulf State southerners are beginning to make their way home, only this time with a little more faith in their government.

Sure, Gustav hardly rivaled Hurricane Katrina's power, but the mass exodus executed by FEMA and state and local governments proved two important things: governments can learn from their mistakes and can do a good job. The evacuation went smoothly - partly because residents were more willing to evacuate this time around, but mostly because all levels of government worked tirelessly in preparation. The levees seemed to have withstood a decent pounding, despite not being completed. And in stark contrast to the Katrina recovery effort, there were adequate stockpiles of food, water, and supplies ready ahead of time.

“'It's amazing. It makes me feel really good that so many people are saying, 'We as Americans, we as the world, have to get this right this time,''' New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin told the Associated Press before Hurricane Gustav hit. '”We cannot afford to screw up again.”

Indeed they can't, especially during an election year when Presidential hopeful Barak Obama continues to highlight the Katrina debacles as an example of poor Republican leadership at the highest government levels, and rightfully so. As the Post eloquently states, "The lackluster federal response [to Katrina] laid bare Bush's failure to pay attention to core functions of government -- and a serious empathy problem."

So it should not have surprised anyone when Senator Obama chastised federal leadership - namely President Bush and his political appointees - in his acceptance speech last week by stating that Americans should not tolerate a government "that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes." And so rose the tides of Katrina to weigh heavily upon the minds of Americans once again. As Gustav spun towards New Orleans, government leaders at all levels were fully aware of the humanitarian and political stakes riding those storm surges.

In the end, government triumphed, and the five Republican Gulf state governors and their Republican president may have earned some redemption from their Katrina follies. But in this country, successes are remembered with less ease than failures, and the images of an overcrowded and chaotic Superdome, a National Guard brigade arriving a week late, and row upon row of toxic trailers may be too branded in the minds of voters to so easily overcome in November.

Also Interesting:

TOP STORY: Toxic trailers from FEMA still source of debate and concern
Red Tape Preventing Disaster Relief Being Eliminated...Finally
When it comes to presidential elections, 'you gotta have faith'
Obama and McCain Remain Silent on the Federal Workforce
FEMA improving its operations in latest disaster recovery efforts
Bush sums up his experience as President as "a cool time"

Bush sums up his experience as President as "a cool time"

Andrew B. Einhorn — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:36:00 GMT

Despite the highest oil prices in the country's history, a housing and financial crisis, two unpopular wars, and one of the lowest job approval ratings in history, President Bush still called his time spent as President a "cool experience for Laura and I."

Long known for ineloquence in his verve and an undeterred belief his actions and policies are sound - irrespective of criticism from experts - Bush's comment should surprise no one. And yet his flagrant minimization of an experience at the helm of the modern day Roman Empire sits uncomfortably at the least and incomprehensibly at the worst.

To work at the same desk as Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy; to wander halls decorated by George Washington and Abraham Lincoln; and to be briefed where Harry Truman made the horrifying decision to use atomic force against the Japanese in the midst of a World War: one would think these intimate and tangible connections with the nation's history would provoke a deeply moving and humbling awe, the likes of which can be felt staring out from a mountain top or walking into the Colosseum. But perhaps if you're the son of a President whose rise to power was all but handed to you on a silver platter, your time in the Oval Office could just be another "cool" thing to do for a while.

It's hard to imagine how such a blasé attitude wouldn't affect your work, which in this unfortunate case involves running a nation. A better psychologist might surmise the policies approved by the most-vacationing President in history could only be given as much reflection as the CEO of America gives to his own job. And that begs one final question: Have Americans paid the price for the President's tour de power?

Also Interesting:

Why won't the EPA do its job?
GREENING THE GOV: Seattle not just famous for rain anymore
Cheney played role in yet another scandal
Will new food laws put a squeeze on your wallet?

Most Popular:

The Forgotten Achievements of Government

Doug Amy — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:52:00 GMT

Many conservatives and libertarians like to depict government as an incompetent institution that has achieved little of real value in society. As one conservative critic put it: “The more important question is not why government is so big … but why with few exceptions, it fails in even its simplest tasks.”

Another critic, Charles Murray, puts it even more bluntly: “The reality of daily life is that, by and large, the things the government does tend to be ugly, rude, slovenly – and not to work.” Or consider the bold challenge uttered by Rush Limbaugh on one of his radio shows: “With the exception of the military, I defy you to name one government program that has worked and alleviated the problem it was created to solve. Hhhmmmmmmm? I'm waiting. . . . Time's up.”

The Stereotype: Government as Bungling and Inept

Many of us have bought into this image of government as a bungler – a bunch of bureaucrats that can’t do anything right. Ask most Americans and they will tell you: if you want something messed up, have the government do it. We’ve all heard the jokes:

Q: How many government bureaucrats does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Two. One to assure everyone that everything possible is being done while the other screws the bulb into the water faucet.

Q: How many government workers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Two. One to screw it in and one to screw it up.

This popular view of government as a low-achieving screw-up is confirmed by surveys as well. When asked, “When the government in Washington decides to solve a problem, how much confidence do you have that the problem will be solved?” only four percent of Americans said “a lot.” Sixty-four percent said “none at all” or “just a little.” Of these, more than a three out of four said the reason was “government is incompetent” not that “those problems are often difficult to solve.”⁴

Surveys also show that a large majority of citizens (70%) believe that “government creates more problems than it solves."⁵ Clearly, for many Americans, government is the Inspector Clouseau of institutions.

But how accurate is this popular image of the government as a bumbling fool? Actually, this is largely a stereotype – one based primarily on myth and selective anecdotal evidence. The reality is this: most government programs are successful most of the time. By and large, the public sector does a good job providing clean water to drink, keeping the peace, sending out Social Security checks, educating our children, ensuring aircraft safety, feeding the hungry, protecting consumers, and so on.

Of course anyone can cite a number of failed government policies – such as the war on drugs, public housing programs, urban mass transit, and so on. But it is wrong to leap from this kind of anecdotal evidence to the conclusion that government as a whole is inherently incompetent. Just because a particular policy fails to deal with a problem does not necessarily mean that other policies will not succeed or that government itself is hopelessly ineffective. No one is perfect – everyone makes mistakes – but we don’t usually take this to mean that they are irredeemably inept.

For example, all doctors make mistakes at times – they misdiagnosis patients or give them treatments that have inadvertent, but severe, side-effects. And yet few of us would condemn the profession as a whole.

Likewise, business people make huge blunders all the time: 80 percent of all new small businesses go under within five years. Over 60 percent of all new foods introduced in our supermarkets fail to catch on with the public, at a cost of billions of dollars a year. And yet few of us would label American business people as a bunch of incompetent losers. But government bashers refuse to cut government this same kind of slack. They take every policy failure as a sign that government just can’t do anything right, and simply ignore the policies and programs that do work.

But once we begin to look at the actual performance of major government programs, we see that the vast majority of them have produced substantial improvement in the problem areas that they are addressing – they have produced successful results. This is not the conventional wisdom, but it is what the evidence shows if you bother to look at it. Let’s consider some of that evidence.

An Initial List of Government Achievements

Let’s start by taking up Rush Limbaugh’s challenge: can we name any government programs that have worked? Actually, that is quite easy to do. What follows is a short list of some of the federal government’s greatest accomplishments. These are policy programs that have not only worked, but have been very successful and have greatly improved the quality of life of most Americans.

Public Health Programs. A variety of programs run by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state and local Public Health departments have greatly improved the health of most Americans. For example, the scourges of polio, cholera, and smallpox have been effectively eradicated from this country – a huge achievement. And vaccination programs have reduced by 95% our risks of contracting potentially debilitating diseases like hepatitis B, measles, mumps, tetanus, rubella, and diphtheria. Federal funds spent on buying and distributing these vaccines have saved countless lives and the billions of dollars it would cost to treat these illnesses. In addition, the dedicated scientists who work for the CDC are all that stand between Americans and a potentially catastrophic epidemic imported from abroad. The most likely and worrisome threat is from a new and deadly strain of bird flu. The last deadly flu epidemic to hit the United States, in 1918, killed over 675,000 people in matter of months.
The Interstate Highway System. Started by the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s, this system now forms the backbone of long-distance travel and commerce in the United States. It makes up less than 1% of our highways, but carries almost a quarter of all roadway traffic. It has also allowed millions of Americans to move out of big cities and live in more pleasant suburban and small town environments. In addition, the interstate system has the benefit of being considerably safer than the old two-lane highways it replaced – saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Even some conservatives have been forced to admit the success of this building program, with George Will calling it “the most successful public works program in the history of the world." It’s hard to imagine the U.S. without this interstate highway system, and this system would not exist at all if it weren’t for the government.
Social Security and Medicare. Without these two government programs, growing old would be hell for many Americans. Before Social Security and Medicare, millions of the elderly were doomed to spend their retirement years in poverty and illness. Social Security has cut the rate of poverty for the elderly by over half – from 29% in 1966 to 10% today. Not surprisingly, financial columnist Jane Bryant Quinn has described Social Security as “arguably the U.S. government's greatest success.” Medicare has also been incredibly successful. It has doubled the number of the elderly covered by health insurance, so that 99% now enjoy that benefit. Without this form of “socialized” medicine, 15 million of our neediest citizens would be going without many vital medical services and many would have to choose between food and medicine. Older Americans are now living 20% longer, thanks in part to this effective program. These two programs have done more than anything else to relieve the pain and suffering of our elderly population.
GI Bill Without this program, the middle class as we know it would not exist. The GI Bill provided government funds for 16 million World War II and Korean veterans to attend college. It allowed my father to become the first one in his family to graduate college, to become an engineer, and to go on to build a middle-class life for our family. Historian David Kennedy has remarked that “GI Bill beneficiaries changed the face of higher education, dramatically raised the educational level and hence the productivity of the workforce, and in the process unimaginably altered their own lives.”⁷
Federal Housing Authority. The middle class housing building and buying boom in the United States was initially financed by cheap GI Bill housing loans and by Federal Housing Authority insurance of conventional home loans. In 1945, only 44% of Americans owned their own home. But thanks in large part to the FHA program that lowered interest rates and down payments, 63% of Americans owned a home by 1968. These homes have become a multi-generational source of wealth for tens of millions of Americans. The FHA still insures over $50 billion a year in mortgages, and remains especially important for low-income house buyers.
Consumer Protection. In reaction to increasing pubic pressure in the early 1970s, government began to pass legislation to protect consumers from shoddy and dangerous products. The Consumer Product Safety Commission remains the key agency enforcing these laws. The need it fills is still a vital one – products kill over 20,000 consumers a year and injure over 25 million more. It would be far worse if the CPSC did not recall hundreds of products every year. It is estimated that its activities produce $10 billion in savings on the health care bills, property damage, and other costs that would have been created by these defective products.
Anti-Discrimination Policies. Since the 1960s, policies like the Civil Rights Act and Title IX have chalked up impressive gains in decreasing discrimination against minorities and women. Racial segregation in hotels, restaurants and other public facilities has been eliminated. Housing discrimination and workplace discrimination, while not completely eradicated, have been substantially reduced. College enrollment for minorities has greatly increased, jumping 48% during the 1990s alone. In terms of gender, workplace discrimination and sexual harassment have decreased and record numbers of women are now attending colleges and graduate schools. There is still room for improvement – particularly in the area of equal wages – but it is clear that these policies have made substantial progress in eliminating racist and sexist practices that had existed for hundreds of years.

Job Spotlight: U.S. Coast Guard Helicopter Tactical Squadron

Joseph Rendeiro — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:04:00 GMT

A suspicious "go-fast" vessel is spotted racing through the Caribbean Sea, headed straight for Florida. The Coast Guard is alerted and the chase begins.

As the drug smugglers speed through the water, a helicopter aircrew is deployed from a nearby Coast Guard cutter setting off at speeds up to 160 mph with clear directions to stop the boat before it can reach the US. Aware that a helicopter is in hot pursuit, the smugglers have two choices: give up now or attempt to evade authorities and make it to shore.

Unprepared to surrender, the criminals flee, ignoring all orders from the aircrew. That's when the helicopter crew readies the RC50 laser-sighted, .50 caliber precision rifle. One, maybe two shots fired and the chase is suddenly over. The only thing wounded onboard is the boat's engine.

Scenes like this have played out over and over again since the Coast Guard Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron (HITRON) was introduced in 1998 to prevent illegal South American cocaine shipments from reaching American shores. A specially trained US military unit, the Jacksonville-based HITRON is the only military unit authorized to fire on civilian boats in order to shut down their engines.

HITRON patrols everything from the eastern Pacific to the Caribbean with a small fleet of only eight helicopters. They also help provide security for national events like the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

"When the orange flag goes up, we get deployed all over the place," Petty Officer 1st Class Rick Stuteville, a HITRON gunner's mate, told the Pacific Area Public Affairs. "We've been everywhere from Florida to Alaska to the South Pacific, back to New York."

Some HITRON crewmembers say that the area they protect is too large for just eight helicopters, especially when some of the helicopters are being repaired.

"It's like having two cops to give parking tickets for the whole nation," a HITRON crew member told Men's Vogue.

But the fleet has been extremely successful preventing drug smugglers from reaching American shores. Since 1998, HITRON has intercepted approximately $9 billion worth of cocaine, which amounts to between 10 and 20 percent of all cocaine seized by federal officials in the past decade. In 131 cases, HITRON has only been outrun by one boat, and only one smuggler has ever been injured (from shrapnel) during a chase.

Their success can be partly attributed to guidelines that the Justice Department enacted to direct the helicopter gunmen who receive extensive training. Targeted boats must be moving, suspected of smuggling drugs and cannot have a flag. Following these rules helps the Coast Guard protect innocent boaters and its own reputation.

Of course, enthusiasm for one's job is always an indicator of success. And HITRON team members certainly enjoy the challenge of their work.

"I love going out on drug interdiction operations," Stuteville said. "My adrenaline runs through the roof when we're chasing a go-fast vessel, but when it's time to shoot I calm down and relax."

Traffickers have the opportunity to surrender before being fired upon, but some smugglers, familiar with HITRON, instead use their bodies to shield the boats' engines, knowing that gunmen won't shoot at them. HITRON crew members explained that these tactics rarely work in high speed chases and usually result in the smuggler getting launched into the water.

They also said that traffickers are much better off not opening fire on HITRON helicopters. Coast Guard pilot Dan Roberts told Men's Vogue that no smugglers have ever fired back at him, since he began flying with HITRON. "If they downed a chopper, the wrath of hell would be upon them," he said.

Roberts's job may not be a walk in the park, but it isn't bloodbath either. As long as they can shoot out an engine, apprehending the criminals and cocaine is the easy part.

"The driver just threw his hands up," Roberts said about one capture. "Mission complete, no one was hurt, and the cavalry is on the horizon to take the bad guys into custody. This is a gentleman's war."

For counter drug operations, HITRON aircrews forward deploy aboard Coast Guard cutters for 30-60 day deployments, and aircrews are typically deployed about 120 days a year total. Crewmembers represent a small (around 70), elite group of Coast Guard members. Those interested in the mission must first enter the Coast Guard.

Also Interesting:

10 tips for landing a federal job
Government Job Spotlight: Meteorologist
Government Job Spotlight: Intelligence Officer (Defense Intelligence Agency)
Think You Have What it Takes to be an FBI Agent?

Federal employees go AWOL

Andrew B. Einhorn — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:40:00 GMT

If you are a federal employee, you may be reading this from home - at least according to a new federal report about the number of federal work absences.

The report, entitled "Missing in Action: AWOL in the Federal Government," tracked the number of absent workers who did not take sick or vacation hours to account for their absences across 18 government agencies from 2001 to 2007. Amazingly, the investigation found that federal workers missed nearly 20 million hours of work in the last six years that was not paid for by sick or vacation time. Put another way, 2.8 million hours of work are lost per year due to AWOL absences - the equivalent of 1,458 full-time employees simply being paid not to work.

"People have just flat not shown up for work," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) who commissioned the report. "My question is: If people aren't showing up for work, why are they still employed by the federal government?"

Senator Coburn blames bureaucratic inefficiencies that allow such absences to take place without proper supervision. But that's just one part of the equation. One must look at the motivations of federal employees to get the full picture.

Due to the incredible difficulty involved in removing a federal civilian employee from a job, many employees simply bet on their supervisors not being willing or able to file enough complaints and paperwork to get rid of them. As a result, some simply do whatever they choose.

"There's no management consequence for them not showing up for work," Coburn said. "And what that does is undermine the effectiveness of any organization."

Federal union workers passed blame onto the Bush administration for "being asleep at the wheel" when it comes to serving as CEO of the 2.7 million federal workers.

So what's the cost to the American taxpayer for such workplace truancy? Take a gulp: a loss of productivity of $7 billion to $10 billion a year.

INFANTS IN PRISON

Briana Kerensky — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:33:00 GMT

A dozen residents at the Ohio Reformatory for Women don't fit the profile of the average inmate. They were never arrested, never charged with a crime, and in fact, aren't even women. They are babies, and are living at the prison as part of a program that enables inmate mothers to raise their children in their cells.

The Achieving Baby Care Success program (ABCS) at the Ohio Reformatory for Women is one of only a handful of in-house nursery programs in the United States, designed to meet the unique needs of mothers who are locked up.

Women are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. prison population. At the Ohio Reformatory, the warden estimates that 75 percent of the 2,300 inmates housed there are mothers.

In 2006, according to Women and Prison, a website dedicated to making women's experiences in the criminal justice system visible, there are more than 1.3 million female inmates, parolees and probationers in the U.S. Two-thirds of women incarcerated are the mothers of minors.

Although research on the effect of mother-child relationships within prisons is limited, a small study conducted in Nebraska several years back suggests that prison nurseries may make mothers less likely to commit another crime and end up behind bars again. The effect on the child is even lesser known, though sociologists and psychologists contend the infant is less likely to exhibit personality or social problems if it properly bonds with and receives tactile attention during infancy.

But not every mother gets to keep a crib in her cell. To be eligible for ABCS, which started in May 2001, an inmate must be a nonviolent offender that is either pregnant or with an infant child and serving a "relatively short sentence" (less than 18 months) that is typically for drug use.

Members of ABCS reside in a special wing of the jail. Between roll-calls, mothers take their children to a colorful prison nursery for scheduled activities and parenting education courses.

In September 2006, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) evaluated ABCS for the first time. And while they said that "the desire to continue to allow female inmates who meet the eligibility criteria to keep their newborns with them in prison for a limited amount of time are laudable," ABCS lacked the focus it needed to be truly successful.

The Ohio DRC also reported that there were no clearly stated goals of the program, or a way to evaluate inmates' progress. In fact, the DRC wasn't even sure who the program was supposed to benefit: the mothers or the children. In addition, minority women were underrepresented in the program, despite maintaining a majority (53 percent) in the prison system.

Before evaluating the moral and social efficacy of allowing imprisoned mothers to take care of their children while they are incarcerated, it's necessary to know that 70 percent of women are incarcerated for non-violent drug, property or public order offenses. The statistic begs the question: should new mothers be sentences to prison in the first place?

One the one hand, 30 percent of women incarcerated were sentenced due to a drug addiction and prison may allow them to sober up. On the flip side, many of these women, if properly motivated by a judge and social worker, could kick their soft drug (e.g. marijuana) habit on their own. But statistics say the majority would not be able to, leaving the options of rearing a child in a drug-induced state or using the prison system like a drug treatment center.

When deciding whether or not to allow a convicted mother to keep her infant in prison, the options are limited. Putting the child up for adoption is a difficult process, both legally and logistically. Laws typically side with the mother's right to keep her child, but unless the child can be left with relatives, an incarcerated mother wouldn't otherwise be able to exercise such a right.

Clearly, in certain cases, allowing a mother the time to care for and bond with her child under supervision and while being taught parenting skills seems not only laudable, but also practical. However, before these programs are offered on a wider scale, more research on their overall effect on the mother and child is needed. In the meantime, greater resources should be allocated to educating women how to avoid unplanned pregnancies and to making contraceptives free for those most at risk of unplanned pregnancies, STDs, and incarceration.

Also Interesting:

Are 80 dead dogs enough to warrant a new law?
NEED TO KNOW: Per diem rates increase across country
TOP STORY: Report Reveals Dissatisfaction and Mistrust with DoD's New Personnel System
Decline in driving to cramp government revenues