The Foreign Service Journal, February 2013

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | FEBRUARY 2013 11 our money, peanuts or not, ought to be spent? Maybe you could take a page from Governor Romney’s book and reward the chief of mission who cuts the deepest. “A real ‘right-sizing’ exercise needs to take place at every mission worldwide. By real, I mean that the starting point is an X-percent cut in U.S. direct-hire staff and offices across the board. But at the same time, we need to move toward a functional training float, ensuring that people get the training they need, pri- marily between assignments. “In order to do this, adequate staff- ing needs to be available so folks aren’t forced to go straight from one mission to the next. And in making this happen, please do not exempt the Bureau of Dip- lomatic Security. Embassies that used to have one security officer, if that, typically have three or more today. “You can imagine that in the wake of Benghazi, there’s not a single ambassa- dor out there who will cut security unless you tell them that it’s OK. And it is OK. It’s a dangerous world, and stuff’s gonna happen. Having more security officers won’t stop that. In fact, the single most effective way to expose fewer people to security risks is to put fewer people in harm’s way. “The other topic I’d like to raise is less weighty, but could result in substantial savings across the government. We need to change the way we handle official travel. “The complex and obtuse rules we’ve crafted make the costs of administering travel exceedingly high, and give us very little in return. Monetizing travel would save us gobs of money. “By that, I mean that a trip’s cost is estimated in advance and a payment is made to the traveler. Then it’s done— over. Maybe the amount you’re given for a taxi from the airport doesn’t match up with what you spent. Who cares? That’s how per diem generally works now. So you stay in a cheap hotel or at your auntie’s place instead of a five-star hotel—what’s the big deal? There is no additional cost to the taxpayer. “Aside from the occasional risk-averse functionary who will say that the internal controls provided by following all the nutty rules are somehow critical, the big- gest obstacle is that the Internal Revenue Service might view these payments as income. Well, the IRS is part of the Trea- sury Department that writes these rules, and they work for you. “Besides, the tax issue doesn’t seem like a showstopper—particularly if we’re interested in saving money vice being bureaucratic. For those who would argue that our current processes ensure that folks don’t cheat, etc., it would not be dif- ficult to set up audit protocols. “Thanks (staff member) for taking the time to read this. Best wishes for a suc- cessful second term.” Tom Schmitz FSO, retired Deadwood, S.D . n Have something to say? Write us a letter. Send your thoughts to journal@afsa.org