by Zach Bigalke

Created on: December 19, 2007

Since there seems to be no negative debate on the side of this argument, I will take a stab at a critical viewpoint - as follows:

There are a diverse number of people working for the federal government. From the President down to a clerk at the capital or a Park Service ranger or a receptionist at the Department of Energy, there are 2.72 million people employed by the federal government at any given time (as of July 2007 - statistics @ http://www.opm.gov/feddata/ ) - nearly one percent of the total American population. Banning these employees from seeking private-sector jobs in their fields of greatest expertise goes against both law and the spirit of American governance. While it would seem reasonable to abridge or eliminate the rights of federal employees to seek jobs with companies regulated by their former agency, the truth remains that far more people would be injured by such a decision than would benefit.

Working for a corporation after working for a regulating agency can have many benefits. First, time spent in the government familiarizes one with the laws by which the corporation is regulated. Knowing the government's expectations for the company will place an employee in a better position to work efficiently and legally. Not all government employees who go to the private sector, remember, become lobbyists...

The threat of such conflicts of interest is minimal. A few will slip through the cracks, but the beauty of our system is that our leaders, for the most part throughout history, have weighed all scenarios and have cast a broad historical view on their decision-making. A capitalist, democratic society is bound to have some healthy private/public transfer of employment - and banning such movement would set a dangerous precedent which effectively handcuffs the resumes of all government employees...

Learn more about this author, Zach Bigalke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.