The upcoming election is important — as we say every four years — for all of us, as a nation and as individuals. We are deciding the future of our children. And grandkids. And as yet unborn puppies.

Yada yada yada …

Sorry. Don’t mean to sound unenthusiastic! Certainly not horrified either.

But whether you think your choice is the best person ever, or you will hold your nose while voting, what is going to happen will happen on Tuesday, Nov. 8. In the past, many people — from rookies to media experts — have told federal workers what to expect if Candidate X is elected over Candidate Y. The fun part is how often the experts are wrong. Sometimes totally, completely wrong. So take this test:

Weeks before his inauguration a major Washington newspaper predicted that the federal workforce would be decimated (as in wiped out, not just a 10 percent cut) and Washington would be the equivalent of a ghost town just a couple of years after the Jan. 20 inauguration. So who were they talking about? Was it:

• Jimmy Carter

• Ronald Reagan

• Vlad the Impaler

• Bill Clinton

• Franklin D. Roosevelt

• George W. Bush

• George H.W. Bush

Well, they were talking about Ronald Reagan, who they believed was going to privatize the government and downsize the workforce. An interesting guess, based on some solid reporting. But it was dead wrong. Although during the campaign he talked about gutting the EPA, the Department of Education and parts of the FDA, the government got bigger, not smaller. Much of the buildup came in Defense — both in uniformed and civilian employees — but it came. Washington did not become Mayberry. Or even Cleveland.

The President who “gutted” the government turned out to be Bill Clinton, who was the hope and choice of most, if not all, of the federal and postal unions. They predicted a new era of prosperity for federal workers. He had promised little or nothing, but they read (or so they thought) the tea leaves. Wrong as it turned out. One of Clinton’s first acts as president was to recommend a zero pay raise for federal workers, citing economic problems. That despite the fact that a Republican president (George H.W. Bush) and a Democratic Congress has passed a new law, designed to automatically increase federal pay each year until it reached comparable levels in the private sector. The pay “gap” at the time was put at about 23 percent. The law never was fully implemented (G.W. Bush) continued Clinton’s legacy of recommending smaller raises than those projected in the FEPCA pay law. Today, 16 years later, according to some federal unions the pay “gap” is about 23 percent.

The pay “gap” at the time was put at about 23 percent. The law never was fully implemented (G.W. Bush) continued Clinton’s legacy of recommending smaller raises than those projected in the FEPCA pay law. Today, 16 years later, according to some federal unions the pay “gap” is about 23 percent.

Oh, and he eliminated 250,000 to 274,000 (depending on who’s counting) federal jobs through a series of buyouts, some reductions-in-force and the privatization and consolidation of what were deemed “overhead” federal jobs. He succeeded in bringing the government employment level to its size in the early 1960s.

Who knew?

Maybe Reagan was right. And maybe Clinton was too.

The point is that predicting what a person will do, based on what they say as a candidate vs. what they are going to learn after sitting down in the Oval Office is tougher than you think. Unless you are a media expert with a short-term memory. Then it’s a piece of cake, provided your audience also has a short attention span.

So where do you think we’re heading? And who’s gonna be our new leader?

Nearly Useless Factoid

By Michael O’Connell

Fish do not have eyelids.

Source: Great Fish for Great Kids

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.