The Homecoming

I owe my readers a blog post for July (and for that matter, I ought to be publishing every two weeks- or fortnightly, as I have done for several years). Where have I been? I crossed the equator five times, boarding the ship at less than 10 degrees north and debarking at less than 10 degrees south. This is a public forum, so it's not advisable to blast the ship's whereabouts all over the internet. How long have I been gone? 90 days on the ship, and about a week of roundtrip travel?. What were you doing? "CONSOL" operations, or fueling from a tanker at sea. Specifically, I was not working in the engine room as I normally do, but closer to the ship's bridge to help coordinate fueling-at-sea events. Why were you doing this? I elected to take a half-year Mobilization with the US Navy Reserve. Who was with you? Contracted mariners who are civilian employees for the perroleum shipping company. When did you sneak away without anyone noticing? I thank starlink onboard the ship. It was seamless connectivity 90% of the time, so didnt miss out on news from home. As longtime mariners know, this is both good and bad. Good that you know whats going on, bad in the sense that you have limited ability to deal with matters on land. Indeed, when I returned home last week, there were a myriad of items I needed to address. I needed to replace my iphone screen, and was able to bring my laptop back from the fritz (it was a charging canle issue, resolved now). I needed to schedule home repairs. so, a lot to do, while maintaining an office work schedule as well.

Couldn't Stop Thinking: Gerry Connolly

What I’ve been looking up today: Gerry Connolly, the late representative from the Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC. I met him at a Kings Point Club event when I was a freshman (or soon to be freshman?) at the academy. Already a familiar local name from his service on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, his first two elections in 2008 and 2010 were competitive. In a place like Virginia, “safe seats” are earned, not given. He was likewise unflappable as boundaries changed again, Northern Virginia’s other representatives retired, lost re-election, or resigned to seek higher office. Just now, I learned that he was a key advocate for Information Technology modernization and accountability across the US government, and perhaps a reason why I had to trade in work laptops every two years. Gerry Connolly was a knowledgeable advocated for what mattered to his constituents: the civil service. Apparently, that was a major reason he ran for reelection in his twilight years: to guarantee his longtime staffers a federal retirement. Democratic Party internal policies were not kind to him, with their strict adherence to seniority in choosing who would serve as a ranking member on the House Oversight Committee. This year was “his turn”, and Mr. Connolly’s frail appearance juxtaposed with contender Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became a flashpoint in left-wing circles. Legacy is something that is often revealed after death. Congress must act on this year’s spending bill, and hometown realities mean that the most caustic disestablishmentarian ideas against the civil service have been removed. We expect that the new laptops will keep coming.

On Renaming Ships, Part II

If you can recall, several years ago I disagreed with renaming the USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) for several reasons: Firstly, there should be no opposition to honoring servicemembers who perish in a “losing” battle- instead, the argument was framed as “celebrating a Confederate victory”. Secondly, the ship CG-62 was already scheduled to be retired. Thirdly, Robert Smalls, an African-American Civil War privateer, deserved to have his name on a brand new ship- a capital vessel at that. Our military’s tactical strength is in making a decision and following through, rather than re-litigating the past. In this regard, the very recent- and apparently unilateral- proposal to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, a newly-built fleet oiler (T-AO 206), is a flyball. Before the ship’s keel was laid, it was the California congressional delegation that pushed for a ship named in honor of Harvey Milk, himself a Navy veteran. Among them was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Fears of a “gay ship” led to the compromise of giving Harvey Milk an auxiliary ship, crewed by “professional” civilians, rather than a combat ship crewed by often-teenage sailors. The issues were discussed and a decision was made. On what ground should it be reopened, now that the ship is now in service? Were civilian mariners requesting religious exemption from working onboard the USNS Harvey Milk? I have seen no evidence of this. Did our military allies (particularly in the Middle East or Southeast Asia) request renaming of the ship? I have seen no evidence of this. Did notorious sexual acts happen more frequently on this ship, than on other Navy ships? I have seen no evidence of this. And if “frociaggine” (using Pope Francis’ term) occurred on the ship, the UCMJ, with its prohibitions on fornication, does not apply to the civilian crew*. The Secretary of Defense’s goal is to reclaim a fighting spirit, with a focus on “lethality, readiness, and warfighting”. Are you sure that renaming a fleet oiler ship contributes to that goal? * There are restrictions on intimate relationships between supervisors and their subordinates; and implemented within the last three years, between maritime cadets and other crewmembers. Views expressed are solely those of the author, and not the official position of the Department of the Navy or any of its subordinate commands.

Tariff Talk

Tariffs; it's this year's inflation talk. I'm open to the idea of tariffs, particularly from imports on countries with lower labor protections and standards of living. I supported tariffs when Donald Trump was still a Democrat, reminiscing how import tariffs and excise taxes covered the full federal budget prior to 1913. Our import tariffs were, and still are, lower than those of most other countries; we were a total mercantile nation of shopkeepers, or more accurately, patrons of big-box stores. We were told as Americans that it was okay to import "low cost" goods, like plastic toys, kitchenware, and appliances; since we exported high-tech equipment like industrial engines and aircraft. Corporate greed, or the desire for greater profits, mean that imported goods aren't very cheap anymore, when it comes to big box retail. Bargains can still be found in marketplaces like eBay, where items are shipped factory direct to consumer. American manufacturers, in contrast to importers, carry the economic risk of capital equipment, and must expand their domestic market share, even at lower cost and profit margin. In leading export nations like South Korea and Japan, foreign goods are expensive. In Korea, M&M Candies, for example, are three times the price of the local Lotte brand, at similar quality. When we talk about reciprocal tariffs in the United States, and impose them, we're increasing the price of imports by fractions, rather than multiples- as we see in the retail shelves of other countries. I, being on a ship with room and board provided, may be protected from the direct costs of tariffs. I wonder, who is buying all those imports? It must be those Amazon Prime subscribers, the elite consumers, the upper-middle class bourgeoise who receive parcels of "stuff" every day to their doorstep. I eat American, my t-shirts and socks are made in America, so are my toiletries. Why worry about tariffs, I'll be fine! "Well, have you thought about people who shop at the dollar store? Prices are going to go up from $1.25 to $2.00, or something". This man at the dinner table was right, abrupt changes would hurt the economically vulnerable. Store shelves could be empty of moderate-priced goods; the Port of Seattle's containership terminal is eerily quiet. American capital must wait and see if this change in policy will be lasting. American manufacturing has been propped up by government purchases of cars, military equipment, and other items under Buy American clauses. There is less conviction, including among the Wall Street Journal set, that the protectionist policies will last beyond Trump's administration. Thus, no new factories at this time.

The Drive for Federal Efficiency

Happy Easter to all! *** Downsizing of the federal government occurred under Vice President Gore in the mid-1990’s. This was a Democratic administration that was willing to get tough on crime, bring efficiency to government, and “end welfare as we know it”. Washington, DC does not remember this downsizing. In fact, the city flourished and rejuvenated as federal agencies moved out of untaxed federal real estate and into leased office space; and income-constrained federal employees moved into contracting roles with generous payscales. In that era, the economy as a whole was bifurcated. In the Old Economy were massive corporations with significant physical assets (airlines, utilities, and manufacturers), often unionized, with administrative bloat worthy of the “railroad era”, as one business author put it. In the New Economy were nimble, fast-growing companies, that encouraged employee ownership and initiative (and not in a passive, DRIP-shares kind of way). Many of these businesses were in finance, technology applications, and retail. The federal government, which swelled in size during the 1960’s, was a creature of the Old Economy. Many federal employees, hired prior to 1983, were enrolled in defined-benefit pension plans. Federal job titles were, to a greater extent than today, were highly siloized; cross functional training didn’t exist then. Great Society initiatives had put large numbers of scientists, analysts and other thinkers on the federal payroll, employees whose job performance was hard to evaluate on a year-to-year basis, and whose productivity was just as difficult to ascertain. Under Al Gore’s scalpel, great efficiencies could be achieved. The cost of Research and Development, and the endless count of federal studies could be quantified by issuing contracts instead of paying general-scale (GS) employees to scintillate on topics of interest. The Federal Government hired smarter. President Obama’s “insourcing” drive during the Great Recession focused on hiring recent graduates, who had difficulty finding private-sector employment. In comparison to “career” feds, they were inexpensive and generally motivated. One thing that did not change was the bureaucracy involved in agency-based grants to the various states. Attorneys and compliance specialists were required both on the giving and receiving sides, and often at the local level, too. These stipulations applied even for miniscule grants of $20,000 or less. Indeed, the bureaucracy- the gap between Congressional appropriations and the funds being used to move dirt, was more stifling in more austere budgetary environments. Witness the number of smaller private colleges opting out of federal student loan programs; in addition to philosophical differences over issues such as Title IX, it was no longer cost-effective to accept federal money. The truth of “inefficient” federal employees got spun into “lazy” feds by politicians unhappy with the strings attached to their hometown grants, such as DEI requirements. Remember the author who criticized corporate bloat? One of his recommendations was to trust but verify; approve the travel vouchers and purchase requests, then let the audit process catch errors. Few politicians want to turn off the spigot of federal funds issued by the agencies in downtown DC. They just want to cut out the middlemen. Let’s retool those middlemen for new careers in the states (as New York, Maryland, and Virginia are encouraging) or in the charitable foundations of billionaires who benefit from this federal efficiency drive.

MARAD Report 1974

Did I miss a week (or two)? Forgive me, it's tax season, and also a crunch time on a data management overhaul I am working on for an arm of the Military Sealift Command. In national news, President Trump seeks to impose million-dollar port fees on Chinese-built ships calling in US ports. These fees are similar to Panama Canal charges. I suppose it is easier to quantify the user-fee basis of a singular infrastructure project, than it is to consider the large amounts of money invested by the federal government for port improvements in locations around the country. These include new port facilities and harbor dredging for ever larger containerships flying foreign flags. In contrast, American flagged ships in the Hawaii and Alaska trades, as well as those tramping government cargoes around the world, tend to be smaller than 650 feet in length, and never larger than the old Panama Canal locks (950' long and 106' wide). As part of the data management project, I broke open a 1974 Maritime Administration yearbook (then under the Department of Commerce, instead of Transportation) in hopes of finding information about the construction of the C7 ships- specifically the hull now known as SS Cape Intrepid. Among the lists of subsidies doled out to shipping firms were pictures of innovative technologies underwritten by the government and trialed on American ships. They included advanced autopilots, electronic monitoring, and ballast control. Another report on women in the maritime industry found them filling 2% of shipyard jobs, a celebrated increase from 0.2% in 1968. (Today, the number is 16%). The editors forgot to mention that women had begun to enter license-granting maritime academies in the summer of 1974. Nixon's maritime policy for the 1970s involved large subsidies from government coffers. It preserved, and maybe even increased the size of the maritime workforce, while giving opportunities to once-forgotten demographic groups. The ships built when the Boomer generation entered the workforce would continue to sail until their generation's time to retire, a span of about 40 years per hull. At present, it appears that President Trump will rely on sticks rather than carrots to handle multinational shipping groups. Under the plan, those companies, rather than Congress' purse, will be funding the American maritime renewal. Hopefully.

What Did You Do Last Week?

“What did you do last week?”, Elon Musk asked employees of the US Government. Many found the question to be patronizing, others found it to be revealing of an inefficient bureaucracy that needs reform and streamlining. This was the reason I left my position as a shoreside Electrical Engineer in 2022, in favor of a seagoing position as First Assistant Engineer. I was stuck in bureaucracy; I relied on other people to give me information, in order for me to analyze it and give recommendations to my supervisor. Oftentimes, I was waiting on the information from the field; or from supervisory decisions, which were made in a once-weekly committee. I feared that a performance review would leave the rater wondering what I was doing; instead, it was Elon Musk asking the question. I never got the email last week. I would have replied that “I activated an old cargo steamship for use by the US Navy”. I got something done last week. Venture capitalists (vulture capitalists) who perform, leveraged buyouts, Carl Icahn or Elon Musk, pride themselves on finding businesses with structural inefficiencies that they can correct, thereby releasing the full potential of its economic value. For example, Twitter (X) grew its workforce too fast, and found its headcount rife with what author David Graeber calls “BS jobs”. As the new owner, Elon Musk cut bureaucracy within the company, and applied shock treatment to its headcount, bringing it in line (and even less) with other tech companies of the same size. In reforming the civil service, a different approach must be used. The primary hallmarks of government employment are stability and public impact. Since the 1970s, federal employees have faced furloughs at every government shutdown. A private company would treat that period as a short-term layoff; however Congress has always proffered backpay in order to retain its workforce and keep the federal government’s role as a steady employer. Revoking work-from-home, at least on a temporary basis, is a good remedial step for a program that has become too gangly. Young federal employees feel disengaged when they can’t get facetime with mentors and supervisors. Shopping districts in suburban Washington, DC are suspiciously busy during core working hours. Falsified timecards are one of the ways to a quick removal from federal employment; pulling people back from the fire by bringing them back into the office, therefore, could be seen as a responsible act. It is also a soft form of a loyalty test: are you here with us hell and highwater, or are you a summer soldier? “Non sibi, sed patriae”: this is a Latin phrase which translate to “Not for myself, but for my country”. When federal hiring, in some agencies, has been about meeting minimum standards to fill seats, we lose the broader vision. One might call this “privilege” to think beyond the minutiae of “essential job functions”, but it is important to bring back a company culture to federal employment. Some of my neighbors in DC felt that we gave away the culture when the federal government ended defined-benefit pensions in the 1980s. I look to the Department of Defense, and its recent interest in the “warrior culture” (cue Jim Mattis and Pete Hegseth). In contrast are the bureaucrats who trained shiphandlers on CD ROMs (SWOS in a box) or impose byzantine policies that keep tradesmen from doing their jobs in a timely fashion. The “warrior culture” could be defined as “love of mission”, and at least for now, young people have been trickling back into recruiting offices for the armed forces. Ironically, soldiers do best when they are doing something; in peacetime, this includes innovative field exercises and humanitarian missions. Politically speaking, we understood that Trump and his supporters would want to “whack” the unelected bureaucrats who impose things like vaccine mandates. This was accomplished in high-profile firings. What I am concerned with is the across-the-board cuts in certain agencies, and among most first year (probationary) employees, which are taking place outside of the usual reduction-in-force plan. What I regret is the loss of a human touch. Would it really hurt the business objective if the Trump administration (the “You’re Fired” guy) to allow a few months’ lead time before layoffs, so that displaced employees can make suitable arrangements for their future employment, within the government or in the private sector?