HHS Director Quits Job, Leaves Scathing Letter That Exposes Big Gov’t for the Circus That It Is

 

Top U.S. Scientific Misconduct Official Quits in Frustration With Bureaucracy(Photo) ORI - H/T Science Insider

 


Screen Shot 2014-03-14 at 8.22.21 PM

David Wright, director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the Department Of Health And Human Services, just quit his job in a big way. Wright wrote an insanely blunt resignation letter that was recently published by ScienceInsider. In it, he exposed the dysfunctional bureaucratic red tape that limited him from doing his job more than half of the time.

We’ve compiled some of the most entertaining parts below. Of course, feel free to read the full letter yourself, though I must warn that it’s loaded with various acronyms (common with government work).

He was only able to actually do his job around 35% of the time:

This has been at once the best and worst jobs I’ve ever had…Working with members of the research community, particularly RIOs, and the brilliant scientist-investigators in ORI has been one of the great pleasures of my long career. Unfortunately, and to my great surprise, it turned out to be only about 35% of the job.

 

The rest of my role as ORI Director has been the very worst job I have ever had and it occupies up to 65% of my time. That part of the job is spent navigating the remarkably dysfunctional HHS bureaucracy to secure resources and, yes, get permission for ORI to serve the research community…What I was able to do in a day or two as an academic administrator takes weeks or months in the federal government, our precinct of which is OASH.


http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/121506-hhs-director-quits-job-leave...

Views: 780

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This is just the tip of the Iceberg.  Multiply this by the 2.4 million who work for The USG.  This a major flaw in the US.  All Gov employees come under the Executive Branch.  This means they all work for Obama.  So don't wonder why so much is wasted, or why we are 17 Trillion in debt.  In the private sector bad leaders are fired by the board.  Folks, we are the board under the Constitution.  Like if you think this CEO should be fired and jailed for gross mismanagement!

Well said William. I agree with you and hopefully if the Senate is taken our of the control of the Dumocrats in the next election, we can impeach Obummer and fire his corrupt administration.

here....here, William and Velma

And how many years did he suck the taxpayers dry for NOT doing his job, why didn't he expose them early on.  He is among the 500,000 (at least) tht. suck up the pay and then say oh poor me and look at what is going on, to hell him these folks!

Chris, that is why when a voter lazily doesn't bother with the details of current events, or vetts a political candidates background, or votes for a candidate because he "seems OKAY",  the voter doesn't just exersize his voting right (for which he claims total discretion), but he makes a decision with your pocketbook contributed revenues. Blithely ignorant voters are contemptible. They put Obama in office. TWICE!

I agree, however, the obummer voters had ONE end in mind: free stuff! They do not care about obummer's character, intentions or qualifications.

I agree. There are not only ignorant voters there are people who go to the voting booth and vote a straight Republican or Democrat ticket. They do not care about the person, issue, etc, all they care about is the Party concerned! I call these people lazy voters.

Here is the reason I believe Obama gets away with whatever he wants to do:

http://www.whale.to/c/an_examination_of_obama.html

If one has never worked in the Fed Gov they can not begin to understand how the bureaucracy functions. If I was in a position and experienced the same situation I would want to do something about the dysfunction but I need more time to determine who I can go to and there may NOT be anyone I could go to. It sounds like this situation was not one where one could walk into a supervisor's office and complain or quit. Some Government positions require one to remain in in the position 1-2 or more years when accepting an appointment. One just does not "leave" a position in the Fed. Gov. The same with certain State jobs. It is more complicated than one could determine from the timeline here. Besides it takes months to process any business in the bureaucracy. Fore instance: take the VA. It may take years for a simple claim to be processed.

Their is absolutely no difference in HHS and the German Gestapo, just ime and location.

Kinda reinforces the old saw, "If you don't want to get anything done just give it to a group."  The communist utopia is doomed because of it...Semper Fi Nam 66-67

Finally, someone who has some integerity!  And not afraid to talk about it!

There is a mind set in the Federal Government that there is a time given to do a job and if you get it done before the time lotted the funds will be cut next year in the budget. There is so much waste of funds through government it would make most people with any command sense and respect for their country or job sick each day at work. It's No wonder that federal workers have to have sick leave and annual leave they just have to get away from the sickness.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

 Will  Tea Party Hand The Liberals Their Ass On Election Day? 

It was this week two years ago that Hillary Clinton’s victory looked assured, when the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault appeared all but certain to end his campaign.

Jesse Ferguson remembers it well. The deputy press secretary for Clinton’s campaign also remembers what happened a month later.

It’s why this veteran Democratic operative can’t shake the feeling that, as promising as the next election looks for his party, it might still all turn out wrong.

“Election Day will either prove to me I have PTSD or show I’ve been living déjà vu,” Ferguson said. “I just don’t know which yet.”

Ferguson is one of many Democrats who felt the string of unexpected defeat in 2016 and are now closely — and nervously — watching the current election near its end, wondering if history will repeat itself. This year, instead of trying to win the presidency, Democrats have placed an onus on trying to gain 23 House seats and win a majority.

The anxiety isn’t universal, with many party leaders professing confidently and repeatedly that this year really is different.

But even some of them acknowledge the similarities between the current and previous election: Trump is unpopular and beset by scandal, Democrats hold leads in the polls, and some Republicans are openly pessimistic.

FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 76.9 percent chance of winning the House one month before Election Day. Their odds for Clinton’s victory two years ago? 71.4 percent.

The abundance of optimism brings back queasy memories for Jesse Lehrich, who worked on the Clinton campaign and remembers watching the returns come in from the Javits Center in New York.

“I was getting texts after the result was clear – including even from some political reporters and operatives – texting me, you know, ‘Are you guys starting to get nervous?’ or ‘What’s her most likely path?’” he said. “I was like, ‘What do you mean, starting to get nervous? What path? They just called Wisconsin. We lost.’”

“People were so slow to process that reality because they just hadn’t considered the possibility that Donald Trump was going to be the next president,” he continued.

Lehrich said he sees similarities between 2016 and 2018. But he said he thought Democrats were cognizant of the parallels and determined not to let up a month before the election, as many voters might have two years ago.

Other Democratic leaders aren’t so sure. Asked if he thought his party was overconfident, Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton responded flatly, “Yes.”

Democrats could win a lot of House seats, he said, or could still fall short of capturing a majority.

“The point is that we’ve got to realize that this not just some unstoppable blue wave but rather a lot of tough races that will be hard-fought victories,” Moulton said.

If Democrats are universally nervous about anything after 2016, it’s polling. The polls weren’t actually as favorable to Clinton and the Democrats as some remember, something 538’s Nate Silver and some other journalists pointed out at the time.

But Clinton’s decision not to campaign in a state she’d lose, Wisconsin, and the failure of pollsters everywhere to miss a wave of Trump supporters in red areas are mistakes Democrats are still grappling with today.

“Clearly last cycle, polling was off,” Ben Ray Lujan, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters last month. “There were a lot of predictions that were made last cycle that didn’t come to fruition.”

Lujan emphasized in particular how pollsters missed the rural vote, calling it a “devastating mistake.” He said the DCCC has taken deliberate steps since 2016 to get it right this time around, but underscored a congressional majority still required a tooth-and-nail fight.

“So I’m confident with the team that’s been assembled, but I’m definitely cognizant of the fact we need to understand these models and understand the data for what it is,” he said.

One Democratic pollster said the data he’s seen makes plain that the party is favored to win a majority — but that it’s still not a sure thing. He said even now it’s unclear if the political environment will create an electoral tsunami, or merely a good year where Democrats might still fall short of a House majority.

“We’ve all learned a lesson from 2016 that there are multiple possibilities and outcomes,” said the pollster, granted anonymity to discuss polling data one month before the election. “And if you haven’t learned that lesson, shame on you. That 20 percent outcome can happen. That 30 percent outcome can happen.”

This year, Democrats have history on their side: The incumbent president’s party historically struggles during midterm elections. That wasn’t the case in 2016, when Democrats were trying to win the presidency for three consecutive terms for the first time in their history since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The GOP accomplished the feat only once in the same period, with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.)

Some Democratic leaders say the reality of Trump’s presidency — unlike its hypothetical state in 2016 — changes the dynamic entirely.

“Democratic energy is at nuclear levels,” said Steve Israel, a former DCCC chairman. “Democrats would crawl over broken glass to vote in this election.”

Israel said he still has concerns about November (political operatives always have concerns about the upcoming election). But he waves away the notion that the party might fall short of a House majority.

“Most Democrats and a heck of a lot of Republicans I speak to believe that Democrats will have the majority,” he said. “The real question is, by how much?”

Ferguson is, of course, of two minds: He thinks the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the day-to-day reality of Trump’s presidency fundamentally changes how voters will see this election.

But he’s also gun-shy about what could change in the next month, after the multitude of surprises that occurred during the last month of the 2016 race, whether the “Access Hollywood” recording or then-FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the investigation into Clinton’s emails was re-opened.

Many Republicans argue the 2018 election has already seen its October surprise, with the confirmation fight over Brett Kavanaugh finally motivating conservative voters to vote.

“I don’t know what the October surprises will be,” Ferguson said. “But we make a mistake if we assume that what we’re seeing today is what we’ll see for the entire month. We lived through it two years ago.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service