I have been certain since the beginning of his campaign that George Bush does not possess the depth of knowledge and mental fortitude that we need in our president.
I have been certain that I am in complete disagreement with his policy priorities. One of the basics you learn as a student of public administration is that a budget is a statement of policy. It is clear, then, that George Bush's number one priority is the very wealthy of this nation. They will be the beneficiaries of his tax cut, and the primacy of providing that tax cut overrides investment in the critical institutions that support the rest of us. (But here's what I'm just not getting - if they are already the wealthiest 1 percent of our society, why do they need more money? Why are they at the top of his list? I suppose this is an example of "a promise made is a promise kept.")
In short, Gov. Bush has never been in danger of receiving my vote. However, his performance in the first debate causes me to set fingers to keyboard and express my anger at his willingness to bash the federal work force without benefit of the facts or an appreciation of his need to lead that work force were he to become the president.
I know of what I speak. I recently resigned after several years as the state director of a portion of the U.S. Department of Agriculture known as USDA Rural Development. In January of 1993, upon taking office, Al Gore got going on reinventing government, and the USDA needed it. When I took office in June, USDA comprised 42 separate agencies. When the 1995 Reorganization Act passed, USDA contained just 29 agencies organized into six cohesive mission areas.
Over the years since 1993, the department has reduced its employees by over 300,000. Gore led the reinventing government process, he energized it, he told federal employees, "I believe in you, I know you can show us a better way" and they have.
My employees and I went through three major reorganizations in those seven years, at the same time as we added to our traditional work appropriate concerns about fair housing, civil rights, preservation of cultural resources, and outreach to remote and ethnic minority populations. Still productivity in terms of loans, grants and mortgages made soared because we had a quality mission to fulfill, committee leaders who demanded excellence of us and because the federal employees are outstanding professionals willing and able to rise to those demands.
For Bush to say that Gore will build up and bloat the bureaucracy is ridiculous on its face. President Clinton and Vice President Gore have successfully led us in just the opposite direction, through the budgets they submitted to Congress. Further, the federal work force is going to be significantly impacted by retirements in the next five years, hugely impacted in the next 10 years. The work force, due to political will and to attrition, is going to continue to shrink.
For Gov. Bush, perhaps the logic is simple. If you don't care about clean water, if you don't care about affordable housing and the success of rural communities, if you don't care about the quality and safety of federal roads and highways, then you don't care if the work force feels threatened and unappreciated.
Federal employees will leave and take their expertise with them, but at what cost to the protection of our nation's critical human and natural resources?
For voters, I recommend taking a simple test:
1. Are you in the wealthiest 1 percent in America?
2. Do you flourish in an atmosphere of contempt for your work and for you?
3. When a candidate's command of the issues only extends to the point that he can repeatedly accuse the other of "fuzzy math" does that inspire confidence in you? (Fuzzy math - is that the son of voodoo economics?)
Care about your democracy - get out and vote. Care about the environment, pay down the national debt, support seniors and the middle class. Vote for Al Gore.
SARAH MERSEREAU-ADLER
Former State Director of USDA Rural Development
Carson City
