Across-the-board cuts in federal workplace may not be wise or safe And there is little doubt that budgetary pressures will prevent the federal workforce from growing in the future as it generally has for several years. Many members of Congress and others believe the workforce should shrink. Mitt Romney, the leading Republican presidential hopeful, is among those calling for a 10 percent cut in staffing, achieved by hiring one worker to replace every two who leave. "The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a "1-for-2" system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service," Romney's Web site says. If the former Massachusetts governor does become the top federal employee, he will need a policy toward co-workers that is smarter and more nuanced than that reflected in his brief campaign statement. For the sake of discussion, let's assume cutting the workforce by 10 percent is a good way to deal with the nation's financial problems. But without an intelligent approach, such a cut could be counterproductive and hazardous to the health of certain staffers. An across-the-board cut would be a bad idea, as recent developments involving the Bureau of Prisons and the Internal Revenue Service have demonstrated. "Across-the-board reductions can achieve savings, but they not only shave off fat but can potentially nick agency bone and muscle as well," said Dan G. Blair, president and chief executive of the National Academy of Public Administration. "Making Smart Cuts," a September report by the Partnership for Public Service (which has a content sharing relationship with The Washington Post) and the Booz/Allen/Hamilton consulting firm, says it's better for Congress "to set cost-reduction targets and allow agencies flexibility in determining the best way to meet those targets." Cutting federal correctional officers and tax collectors probably isn't the best way. If the nation had a more just and rational criminal justice system, fewer correctional officers would be needed. But given the reality of the focus on incarceration, union officials understandably complain about too few prison officers for the nation's inmate population. Already in this new year there have been two violent attacks against correctional officers - one in Seattle, the other in Coleman, Fla. - that the American Federation of Government Employees says could have been avoided with better staffing. "It seems like in many instances we have not had the staffing that would give us enough supervision to deter an assault," said Dale Deshotel, president of the American Federation of Government Employees" Council of Prison Locals. He laughs at the thought of reducing the number of correctional officers by 10 percent - which is not to say he finds that funny. Let me find the words. Critical. Dangerous," he said. If you take 10 percent of the workforce . . . you've reduced the number of people who can respond if there is an incident. . . . Because the incidents are increasing, there is a possibility of a major disturbance. On Jan. 3, at the Sea Tac Federal Detention Center between Seattle and Tacoma, two inmates assaulted an officer who was working alone, according to AFGE. "If you cut this any more, then the success level of everything falls, from recidivism to the safety of staff," Deshotel said. Cutting staff at the IRS to save money is a good way to cause Uncle Sam to collect less of it. As my colleague Lisa Rein reports, the national taxpayer advocate, Nina Olson, says underfunding the IRS means it "cannot keep pace with its workload." In a report listing the most serious problems with the IRS, Olson said, "The IRS, as the nation's tax collector, should generally be exempt from any budget freeze or reduction." Spending "a little extra money to bring in a lot of extra money," as Olson puts it, seems like a no-brainer - but that hasn't stopped the brains in Congress from cutting IRS funding. "The IRS lacks the resources to maximize revenue collection," Olson said, "thereby exacerbating the federal budget deficit." If the cost of across the board cuts to the IRS would be high, the impact on prison officers could be fatal. "You might save a few dollars by doing that," Deshotel said. But suppose we have a major incident or a riot. . . . Is a federal law enforcement officer's life worth that much money? For previous columns by Joe Davidson, go to www.washingtonpost.com.