MR. KOJO NNAMDIA big part of the debate in advance of the midterm elections centers on what the federal government should look like. We don't really know what we want. On the one hand, the budget's a sea of red ink and many people feel the federal government is part of the problem. We complain that it's too big and under the Obama administration, it's grown. On the other hand, we always want the government to do more, to deal with disasters like the Gulf oil spill, to take care of our veterans and the unemployed, to secure our borders, to prevent terrorist attacks.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIWe're obviously conflicted as to whether the federal workforce is bloated and inefficient or just employed in the wrong areas or not sufficient to handle all the essential functions it was created to do. So what are the options? Here to help us is Max S -- Max Stier is the president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Max, good to see you again.

MR. MAX STIERThank you very much.

NNAMDIAlso with us is Joe Davidson. Joe writes the Federal Diary column for the Washington Post. Joe, good to see you.

MR. JOE DAVIDSONI'm glad to be here. Thank you.

NNAMDIAnd you can join the conversation at 800-433-8850. Do you think cutting the federal government workforce is part of the solution to the deficit? 800-433-8850. Joe, the start of the fiscal year came and went this past Friday and Congress punted on passing a budget until December after midterm elections. What do you -- what part do you think the size of the federal government is playing in that debate?

DAVIDSONWell, I think it's going to be -- it will play an increasingly important position in the debate, particularly if the Republicans either win either House or increase their margin, increase the size of their minority. Because Republicans over the past few months have introduced a number of pieces of legislation designed to either freeze the salaries of federal employees or limit the size of the federal workforce. And to the extent that this can gain traction, you know, among voters and to the extent that more Republicans of that particular persuasion get in office, I do think that federal employees will have to be aware that there may be -- that some of these efforts could be successful after the election.

NNAMDIMax, the Pledge to America that Joe is referring to that Republican lawmakers rolled out recently addresses the side of the federal workforce, exactly what is that proposal and how much do they estimate it would save us?

STIERWell, there's a challenge because it's not very specific about what they actually call for. But in the most general terms, there is a proposition that we should see a freeze in federal -- in the federal workforce around non-security functions. And beyond that, there isn't much more. As Joe said, there's a lot of legislation that has been proposed that, you know, provides more detail around how that exactly would look. But, again, even on the financial side, there's really nothing very clear about how much money could or would be saved.

NNAMDIAnd then, the figure is used of $100 billion in a year. Is there any way to figure out exactly how that figure was arrived at?

STIERNot really. It's a -- again, I think there's a big difference between size of government and size of workforce. And probably the most -- biggest myth that's out there is that we've actually seen a big increase in the federal workforce. Today's federal workforce is approximately the same size as it was during the late 1960s. We haven't seen an explosion of federal workers. In fact, in proportional terms, there's been a decrease in that federal workforce.

STIERWe've obviously grown as a nation by over more than a hundred million people in that the same time span. But at the same time, obviously, the government budget has gone up a great deal. And, you know, in particular, I think it's worth noting that government contracting has moved from approximately 222 billion to 530 billion from 2001 to 2008. So, again, I think we have to be careful when we say size and being specific about what we're really interested in.

NNAMDIWe're going to get back to the contracting situation in a second. But, Joe Davidson, the federal deficit and the state of the economy, because of that, don't a lot of Americans seem to support this idea of reducing the size of the federal government?

DAVIDSONWell, I think you can get a lot of knee-jerk reaction perhaps to that notion kind of in the abstract. But if you ask people what services do you want to do without, then you definitely will get a different answer. And I think that's also true for some members of Congress because most of the increase has been in the security area, in places like the Department of Defense and Homeland Security. And now that those are off of the table, as these proposals suggest, then what is left to cut in terms of increase, in terms of the federal workforce?

DAVIDSONAnd there's not much left. And just to piggyback on what Max said, I have a chart here that my colleagues, Ed O'Keefe and Eric Yoder, produced. And it shows that in this year, the number of federal employees in the executive branch per 1,000 population is 8.4. And under Nixon, it was 14.4. Under Reagan, it was 11.9. So in those comparative terms, the number of federal employees per 1,000 population, we really are at one of the lowest levels in going back all the way to 1962.

NNAMDI800-433-8850 is the number to call. You can go to our website, raise a question or make a comment there at kojoshow.org. Do you think a hiring freeze is the way to go with the federal government right now? 800-433-8850. Max, I want to jump to the point that you were making earlier. Contractors, big issue in both defense and national security. Do we know what percentage of non-military government work is being outsourced to private contractors?

STIERWe don't. And, you know, to be clear, contracting itself clearly has an important role in our government and in providing services to the American people, but your question, I think, goes to the heart of it. We don't really know, you know, how much and what ought to be contracted out. And we're not really in a position to make sure that we have the people inside to hold those contractors accountable for providing best value to our government and to the American people.

STIERWhat we know is that there's been a huge increase in money spent on contracting and we can't really show the value that ought to be associated with it. This is an area where, if you are looking for efficiencies to be gained, there are no doubt real opportunities here.

NNAMDIBut, Joe, are there any studies that we're aware of comparing the cost of hiring a contractor to the cost of hiring a federal employee?

DAVIDSONWell, the difficulty is there have been various studies that can show different things. We certainly can say that the Obama administration is making an effort to significantly cut back on the contracting work for us because it grew by leaps and bounds under the George Bush administration. And so there is an effort to, well, the term of the day is insourcing, to bring those jobs back inside the government. And it's not as if every job would come back inside. But there are many jobs -- the definition is supposed to be, if a task is inherently governmental, then it's supposed to be done by a federal government worker.

DAVIDSONOf course, what is exactly inherently governmental, that, again, is hard to define. One thing that I think everybody agrees on is that the workforce, the contracting workforce, the federal government employees who manage contractors is woefully understaffed. Even contractors will acknowledge that. And it gets to the point, in some cases, studies have shown you have contractors managing contractors, which I don't think anybody considers to be acceptable.

NNAMDIContractors acknowledge that on their way to the bank?

NNAMDIMax, are there ways to measure the results comparing contractors to federal employees?

STIERNot enough is the answer. It's a real problem. And I think, again, we have a tendency to move to questions, like do we have too many federal workers or, you know, are we spending too much on contracting because we don't really have good measurements on actual performance. We can't really do what would be the right management move, which is efficiency. How do we get better performance by investing a similar or fewer resources in a task?

STIERAnd I think that's one of the great challenges for the public sector and, in particular, for our federal government, really figuring out a better way of measuring performance in real time. And, you know, one of the things that we've done is create our best places to work rankings, which are based on what federal employees have to say about their agencies as a proxy for performance. And we need more than that, but it’s a starting point and it provides some pretty interesting data.

NNAMDIJoe Davidson, the late chairman of the D.C. City Council John Wilson used to like to say, I never understand it when people say to me we need to be doing more with less. It doesn't make mathematical sense to me. Is that, in fact, what we are asking the government to do when we talk about cutting the federal bureaucracy? Are we essentially asking the government to do more with less?

DAVIDSONWell, I think Republicans want fewer people doing fewer things. I mean, the Republicans who promote this notion of a smaller government also would argue that government does too much. It's too much in the lives of the American people. And some people go so far as saying perhaps we don't a Department of Education, for example. Certainly that's been heard by some conservative members of the American public.

NNAMDIGoing back to the Reagan administration.

DAVIDSONThat's right. And so it's not necessarily a notion of doing more with less. It might be a notion of doing less with fewer people. But I think the truth is that if you cut back the federal workforce, you then have this problem that the American people don't necessarily, when it really gets down to it, don't want any one particular service cut. And so that might then result in the government trying to do more with less. That would result probably in really even more contractors so you really aren't -- you still have many -- a lot of people, it's just that maybe perhaps fewer of them would be on the federal payroll.

NNAMDIJoe Davidson writes the Federal Diary column for the Washington Post. He joins us in studio along with Max Stier. He is president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Here is Art in Washington, D.C. Art, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ARTGood afternoon, gentlemen, just a few thoughts. (unintelligible) was the chairman of a corporation that I help found, and I think the comments in regard to political situation, that is Bush versus Obama, are really off the mark. The real issue is the United States in 1900, I believe, spent 2 percent of its gross domestic product on the federal government. I think the figure is now 38 percent or so. We're in that range. So all these discussions about -- involves economics. You can't have the private sector carrying the burden of an ever-increasing federal government, whether it's people or programs. The bottom line is dollars. It cannot be afforded. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it and take this offline.

NNAMDIWell, before we go, Art, Do you think the country in 1900 was functioning beautifully when we were paying 2 percent of our GDP towards the federal government as opposed to now?

ARTNo, I disagree. That's not the point.

NNAMDIOkay.

ARTThe point always comes down to how much money you have to spend to operate a business. And now, you have the private sector and the United States economy is in very desperate condition by anybody's definition. And talking about government programs and these little clippings that's been here and clipping that's been there, and somehow we can make it all work out. I think we need a drastic overhaul of not only the personnel but the total budget that are spent on programs.

NNAMDIFirst you, Max Stier.

STIERGreat. Well, Art, I actually have no argument with you that we are in deep trouble as a country. And if you look at our finances, we have to do business in a different way. I think it's a mistake, however, to focus on headcount in the federal government. I don't think that actually gets you anywhere remotely close to the efficiencies we need. And in fact, I think it's likely, as Joe suggested, to create additional cost, whether they'd be outsourced or simply activities that you need to have happen and not getting done.

STIERSo I think if you need to be -- we need to be serious. And, in fact, I think that is part of what's driving this focus. It's just misplaced. If you want to cut back on the amount of money that is going to the public sector, it's really in the entitlement programs. It's in defense that you capture the bulk of the spending. And, you know, trying to focus on headcount will get you nowhere.

NNAMDIIn addition to which Art...

ARTIf I can respond to that, may I?

NNAMDIYes, Art, please do.

ARTSure, let everybody stay there. But since the present economy is suffering the pain of this economic downturn, reduce all the salaries of the elected officials and all the people who are in government, so they can share in the pain like everybody else.

STIERLook, I appreciate the sentiment there, but, again, I think that's counterproductive. In fact, in times of real challenge for our nation, sometimes you need more from the federal workforce. A good example of this is Social Security. The applications for disabilities have increased substantially as a result of the economic challenges that most people are facing.

STIERAnd you need more employees who are working harder in order to be able to serve the population that's suffering. So it isn't a one-for-one. It isn't, you know, some people are hurt so everybody needs to be hurt. I think we have to figure out how to help, not how to share the hurt, but actually how to increase the help.

NNAMDIArt, thank you very much for your call. I do have to move because there are other callers on the line and we have to get a number of other issues. Joe Davidson, Washington is seen as the bloated center of this growth, but it would appear that the majority of added jobs are outside Washington.

DAVIDSONWell, I think people would be surprised to find that I think the figure is only about 15 percent. Max might know this. Only about 15 percent of the federal workforce is actually in Washington, D.C. So you certainly have more than 80 percent of the federal workforce spread around the country. And so, while this clearly is a federal town and everybody knows a lot of people who work for the federal government, probably have some in your families and things like that, the fact of the matter is most of the federal employees are all around the country and all around the world.

NNAMDIDoes the number of federal workers give us an accurate picture of the size of government compared to 40 years ago, Max?

STIERNot at all. And I think, you know, Joe's numbers were quite good. And when you look at the relative size of government by headcount, it's actually going down. And that is, I think, as it should be to some degree because what it indicates is that, you know, government, in fact, is being more productive. We do need people to be more productive. We do have technology that allows people actually to get more done with less.

STIERAnd in the times we live in, we have to be able to figure out innovative and creative ways of making that happen. And I think that's really the critical thing to focus on. Let's demand more of government, but you're not going to get there by having artificial caps on headcount. We've tried that before in the '90s and wound up actually being a disaster. We need to look at the needs and we need to prioritize them. One of my, you know, I think the best example is what happened with middle management services. We obviously had an incredible economic and environment disaster.

STIERAnd when you started poking at it, what you found is that there were about a handful of inspectors responsible for investigating literally thousands of oil rigs. Now, is that the entire source of the problem? No, but it's a piece of it. Do we want a system that does not allow us to increase employment in an area which is so critically vital and really has long-term payoff? Of course not. But that's really what, you know, this debate is evolving into and that's not helping anybody.

NNAMDIOn to Roger in Annandale, Va. Roger, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ROGERHello. I was listening to the show. I worked for the federal government for many years and we used to do a lot of the jobs -- these were IT jobs. We used to do them in-house. And we were forced by the Bush administration, in particular, to move all -- to hire contractors to do all of this stuff and we ended up spending two or three times the amount of money to have contractors do this work than we spent when we did it ourselves. And it was a great deal more trouble for me as a manager to manage these contractors, you know. Anyway, we did it much more -- it was much more inefficient to get rid of government workers and to move these costs to the contractors. Well, anyway, that's what I have to say.

NNAMDICare to comment, Joe?

DAVIDSONWell, it gets back to the point I was making earlier about the really big increase in contractors during the Bush administration as Roger mentioned. During that same period, the number of contract managers, federal employees who manage these contractors, remained flat. And so the management of these contracts and contractors really suffered as a result. And that's how you got some of these situations with contractors managing contractors on behalf of the federal government.

DAVIDSONThat's how you got these examples of jobs that perhaps crossed the line of what is quote/unquote "inherently governmental work" that should be done by federal government employees being done by contractors. And so there have been a number of examples of where the contracting basically got out of control in this way, uh, and even the association that deals with contractors, they are among those who say contractors need good contract management and that has suffered.

NNAMDISpeaking of contractors, and thank you for your call, Roger, we got Florence in Arlington, Va. who wants to talk about contractors. Florence, your turn. Go ahead, please.

FLORENCEHi. I worked for -- I worked in the small purchasing department for the Army for many years. And I think one of the -- number one, you have to have fully trained contract specialists, whether it's doing large contracting or small. You have to -- you don't -- you not only -- you don't have to always go to the low bidder. You have to check the -- the contractor's qualifications, his references and look at the specifications on -- on what the end user wants and sometimes you have to go to a contractor that's charging $1,000 more because he has the qualifications and he's better. It doesn't -- you don't always have to go to the low bidder. You take the...

NNAMDISo you're suggesting that contracting can cost more than it would be to hire a government employee because you don't necessarily...

FLORENCEWell, you take the...

NNAMDI...go to contractors because they are charging less.

FLORENCEWell, what are you talking about when you're -- the person that I think is on your show talks about a government employee? Are you talking about people that work for non-appropriated funds, maybe work the in shops and so forth?

NNAMDIWell, Max Stier, who are we talking about?

STIERWhen we're talking about federal employees, we're talking about people that swear an oath to the United States Government to swerve the American people. We're talking about folks whose responsibilities are to the American people and not to the bottom line of the private corporation or some other private organization. And, you know, to your point, clearly the -- it's not necessarily the lowest cost. And I think, you know, as Joe Said, what we really need in government is the capacity not only to manage the contractors that we have, but also to do the analysis to determine what is the better approach for different activities in government.

STIERShould it be something that we go outside for or is it something that we need to develop the capacity inside for? And unfortunately, these decisions sometimes get made as been mentioned before by ideological reasons, or simply because it's the path of least resistance with, as an example, a hiring process that is convoluted and too difficult. There are many managers who make the very sensible choice of going to a contractor to bring in talent because to get it through the hiring process is too time consuming and too challenging.

STIERSo we really, you know, there is a lot that needs to be repaired in the federal system. Some of it is already on the table with the Obama administration, like the hiring process and reform, but there's a long distance to go.

NNAMDIGot to take a short break. When we come back, we'll continue our conversation on downsizing government benefits and pitfalls. 800-433-8850. You can call that number if you have a comment. Would you exempt national security from job cuts in the federal government? 800-433-8850 or you can go to our website kojoshow.org and raise a question or make a comment there. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDIWe're discussing downsizing government with Joe Davidson. He writes the Federal Diary column for the Washington Post. And Max Stier is the president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Max, is this a question of being efficient, something most people feel the federal government is not?

STIERI think there are two things that are going on here. One, you know, obviously, we face a huge number of challenges as a country and the economic concerns are paramount here. And we absolutely have to have a more efficient government. And I think that's true not to only deal with our current problems, but to keep up with our competitors globally. I also think, and this is equally important, that the government doesn't do a very good job of sharing its good stories.

STIERAnd so typically, the American public only hears about the problems, whether it's from the media or, you know, the various IG offices or GAO. That's part of the story, but they don't hear anything that countervails it that really describes what they're receiving in the positive column. And if they don't have that balance, then, of course, they're going to think that it's a bloated entity that's not really providing, you know, value for the money that's being given.

NNAMDIAnd all government agencies aren't the same when it comes to efficiency, Joe. What agencies have you been able to identify that are doing efficiency and innovation well?

DAVIDSONWell, you know, it's kind of hard to answer that except to say that I often refer to the Partnership for Public Services on the best places to work list.

NNAMDIYeah.

DAVIDSONThe reason it still can be difficult, though, is because there are so many agencies and sub agencies within the large departments. Uh, and you might have one agency that does very well and another that doesn't. I can tell you though, and certainly Max knows this list better than I do, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is always at the top of the list on the best places to work list. And that best places to work list, I think, is -- it tells you not just are the employees happy, but it does think -- I think, through the questions that are asked, it also gets to the issue of efficiency.

DAVIDSONAnd you do find others, for example the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration is often near the bottom. Now, and they've had a number of personnel issues. They just got a full-time director this year, some 18 months into the Obama Administration. Unions are attempting to gain collective bargaining rights for a workforce there that is often described as demoralized and very unhappy with their conditions.

DAVIDSONAnd so I think that list, which Max is certainly capable of promoting on his own, (laugh) ...

STIERYou're doing a great job, Joe.

DAVIDSON...is a good example of getting to that question of efficiency.

NNAMDIWell, why, Max? Why are people more interested in working at the Nuclear Regulatory Agency? Is it because of the efficiency of that agency, in fact?

STIERI think most people want to make a difference, who are in government, that's why they're there. And so they need to be in an environment which permits them to do that. And so what you see -- and again, I can't say it better than Joe did, but what you really see in the agencies that are on top of the list primarily is good leadership. That's the number of factor that creates an environment that allows employees to give other discretionary energy of their best.

STIERAnd it's fascinating if you look at the list, not only from who's ranked where, but also where the changes are occurring. So, like, on the plus side, I'm actually looking at a -- and we do a bunch of sub lists and one of them is a question about are creativity and innovation rewarded. And GSA, the General Services Administration, saw a 7.6 percent increase from last year on that question. As Joe said, the NRC is on top there with NASA.

STIERThe Office of Personnel Management saw a 13 percent increase. On the flip side, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, saw a 14 1/2 percent drop in that question and we've seen them go from the third to 24 in the overall list. So this is really very useful real time information from those who know the organization best, the employees.

NNAMDIOnto Mike in Rockville, Md. Mike, your turn.

MIKEYeah. I was wondering why I haven't heard anybody mentioning the -- or something I'm quite concerned with is that there's some of these contractors, like, say SAIC, who are involved in every aspect of government in every agency in every department. And is a private company and could, at the flip of a switch, almost shut down the federal government, including the defense department.

NNAMDICare to comment on that, Joe Davidson?

DAVIDSONWell, I can't comment on that particular contractor, but I do know that that is a growing concern, I think, among federal employees, certainly employee organizations, employee unions are very much on top of the contractor issue. And they have pushed Congress and members of Congress, such as senator Mikulski from Maryland -- Barbara Mikulski from Maryland, have been very much in the forefront of trying to make sure that the contractors do not, in a sense, take over some agency or encroach upon, you know, the rightful duties of any particular agency too much.

NNAMDIWe know about those contractors, especially because there's been some extensive reporting on them in terms of the military. And we know that the military and security have grown over the past decade, but what else has changed in the federal workforce? What areas has the Obama administration, for instance, expanded?

STIERWell, I think, you know, Joe had it exactly right. You know, this is an area on the contracting side where the Obama administration has really pushed hard to try to find places to save money, but also to do things more smartly. They have, I think, done some very creative things around IT issues. So whether it be the IT dashboard where they're really making publicly available information about all the IT projects across government and then allowing people to use that information and then to put it together in really important ways.

STIERThe focus, I think, in one of the more interesting places is on data centers where you have a proliferation of every agency and sub-agency wanting their own data center when that's incredibly inefficient, and there's a way to consolidate that and to have government be, you know, more efficient as the largest purchaser that we have in this country. You know, they are definitely moving in some very creative important ways, in the IT side. There's just so much to be done that we really need to see the field broaden.

NNAMDIWell, it's ironic because Max, as you have noted previously, the most highly valued organizations in the world are knowledge organizations and the government isn't producing or manufacturing anything. It's made up of knowledge workers.

STIERExactly.

NNAMDIThis e-mail we got from Katie in Arlington, Joe Davidson. "I recently moved here and I was wondering about the different types of federal workers. For instance, can they explain how a NEF, non-appropriated funds, I think, is different than other types.? A friend of mine always he's a NEF and they get treated differently than other federal workers." Don't you just love Washington?

DAVIDSONWell, I tell you when I write my column, I try to stay out of those weeds, you know, because I think that gets to be -- it just gets to be too much….

NNAMDIInside baseball.

DAVIDSON…and too kind of, in a sense, off of the point for the kind of stuff that I work on. You know, there are -- and one thing about Uncle Sam, he doesn't do anything in a simple way. And so everything, from my point of view, is much too complex. And if Max wants to get into it further, it's all his. (laugh)

NNAMDIMy NEF employee.

STIERYeah. I actually don't believe that there's a difference between an employee who is being paid a salary from non-appropriated funds versus appropriated funds. They are differences for the organization because, you know, if you're dealing with appropriated funds, then you may have less certainty about what's happening to you. So we've got a continuing resolution right now because Congress hasn't passed an appropriation bill for government. But in general, I think, you know, agency management, when you have non-appropriated funds, that gives you some greater certainty typically about where the money's coming from.

STIERIt shouldn't matter for your rights or the way you're treated as an employee ,to my knowledge, but...

DAVIDSONOr the service you provide the public.

STIERThere we go, yes.

NNAMDICouple of questions. Given the huge wave of retirements now and in the future of baby boomers, isn't there, some would say, an easy way to downsize the federal government attrition?

STIERLook, I think that, again, we're focused on the wrong thing. There is an opportunity for change with the folks leaving in increasing numbers. There's also a risk that we lose a lot of critical knowledge and skills. So I think we have to be paying more attention because of the retirement of baby boomers. There's legislation that would permit, you know, more easily phased retirement so people can actually move out of their job on a -- and move to a part-time basis and not have to take a financial hit to do it.

STIERThat's real smart. And there is an opportunity to bring new skills into the government, and allow folks that are in government to move up and offer more in different positions. But I think, again, thinking about this as a head count game is going to get you to the wrong place. Our goal has to be how do we create more value for the American people, how do we maximize the resources that are being devoted here. And you won't get there if you're metric is the number of people who are working in the government.

NNAMDIJoe, by exempting security personnel as the GOP proposal suggests, would a hiring freeze or cuts have much effect on the budget?

DAVIDSONWell, that's the point. Most of the increases have come in the security area, defense, homeland security, that sort of thing. And so that means you have some other areas where there have been increases in personnel, in many cases, to reduce backlogs, where if you go back to the 2008 levels, as was suggested by the Pledge to America -- the Republican Pledge to America, then you run the risk of really increasing those backlogs again.

DAVIDSONFor example, in the Veteran's Affairs department, they said that if you go back to the 2008 levels, they would lose about 3,400 workers and their claims backlog would double by fiscal 2011 and triple by fiscal 2012. And we're -- everybody, certainly all politicians, profess to be very concerned about our veterans. But this is one example of what could happen because I don't think the Veteran's Affairs department is considered a security agency.

STIERCan I just underscore one thing there?

NNAMDIPlease do.

STIERSo, you know, you talk about where can you can cut, and also the idea that Joe put on the table that's been floated, can we get rid of a whole department, the Department of Education? Well, the Department of Education is the smallest cabinet agency. And I may get this wrong by a couple thousand, but it's about 4,000 to 5,000 employees. So even if you cut out the entire Department of Education, you're talking about, you know, really nothing much against the 2 million person workforce.

STIERYou got 6 to 700,000 at the Department of Defense. You know, 300,000 at VA or something in that order of magnitude. So it really -- this is not an argument that has real impact on the challenges that we have to face and so it's the wrong argument.

NNAMDIMax Stier is the president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Max, thank you for joining us.

STIERThank you for having me here.

NNAMDIJoe Davidson writes the Federal Diary column for the Washington Post. Joe, always a pleasure.

DAVIDSONMy pleasure, thank you.

NNAMDI"The Kojo Nnamdi" show is produced by Diane Vogel, Brendan Sweeney, Tara Boyle, Michael Martinez, and Ingalisa Schrobsdorff. Diane Vogel is the managing producer. The engineer today, Timmy Olmstead. Dorie Anisman has been on the phones. Thank you all for listening. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.