- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,440
- Reaction score
- 47,479
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You're also short on details. You come off as liking him because you're desperate and want to have your own personal status back again. Which I get.
In the interest of full honesty, as much as I detest the man and his candidacy, there are issues that even I agree with him. He says he wants to eliminate baseline budgeting, for example. *I* want to eliminate baseline budgeting. Might seem like a step toward The Donald, right? Even if he could eliminate baseline budgeting, would that alone be worth alienating our staunchest allies? The domino effect from that would be huge. No, it wouldn't be worth it.
in another thread, this was posted [color edited to address the topic of this thread]:
my recollection is, carley fiorina was the first candidate to publicly object to baseline budgeting
many have echoed her objection
but i have seen no explanation why baseline budgeting is a government practice that needs to be ended
and neither have i seen anyone identify what budgeting method should replace baseline budgeting ... assuming that we all recognize that good government does necessitate a budgeting system
so, if you oppose baseline budgeting, share with us why it is a practice to be abandoned
and please also tell us what budgeting system should be used to replace it ... and why
i missed the portion of your post where you identified the accounting system that would replace baseline budgeting ... and why that alternative system would prove to be superior
I will try one an analogy,
A guy, gets out of college, and is a good employee.
For the first 3 years of his employment, he gets a 10% raise every year.
During year 3, he buys a home which is more than he can afford, but with a 10% raise coming,
he should be fine!
To his surprise, in year 4, he only gets a 2% raise,
but claims his budget got cut by 8%.
Now his pay was not cut, it just did not increase as fast as he expected.
I think the government should treat the peoples money as carefully as they would treat their own.and as i have asked others, what alternative budgetary system does the government use instead ... and why is that system found to be superior
i missed the portion of your post where you identified the accounting system that would replace baseline budgeting ... and why that alternative system would prove to be superior
in another thread, this was posted [color edited to address the topic of this thread]:
my recollection is, carley fiorina was the first candidate to publicly object to baseline budgeting
many have echoed her objection
but i have seen no explanation why baseline budgeting is a government practice that needs to be ended
and neither have i seen anyone identify what budgeting method should replace baseline budgeting ... assuming that we all recognize that good government does necessitate a budgeting system
so, if you oppose baseline budgeting, share with us why it is a practice to be abandoned
and please also tell us what budgeting system should be used to replace it ... and why
I think the government should treat the peoples money as carefully as they would treat their own.
Limit the Government operations to only that which is chartered in the constitution,
and function within their means.
Why don't you allow common sense to take over. Project the budget based on needs. If more is needed then allocate more. If less is needed for god sake spend less. Near the end of each budgetary period you have unnecessary military expendentures to make sure that they don't face budget cuts to the next period. I think it's ironic that we decried this very same spending policy that bankrupted the soviet union and then proceed to do the same damn thing.
baseline budgeting assumes automatically that they will spend what they did last year + interest + inflation.
Sorry, I think the government should only allow growth, when that growth can be justified,you quoted me, and the question i asked about an alternative system to baseline budgeting; however, you offered no alternative budgeting system to replace the presently used baseline system
I think the government should treat the peoples money as carefully as they would treat their own.
Interest? I don't understand.
>>they should justify all of what they spend instead of making assumptions.
First, let me note that the hero of the Right, JEC, brought ZBB to the federal gubmint after using it as the chief executive in the state of Georgia. It was immediately dropped by RWR, perhaps because it had that liberal Democratic stench on it.
Imo, ZBB can be effective, and it's important to recognize and distinguish programmatic environments in which it's more likely to be useful. Anytime yer seeing a lot of change, either in the area of society an agency deals with, in the tools available to get that work done, or in the amount of money being expended (up or down), a careful examination of "just what heck is it we're trying to accomplish" is gonna be a good idea.
ZBB can create problems if it's not employed properly. It can lead to very destructive in-fighting. It can seriously delay and complicate the budgeting process. And it can be expensive. There typically isn't much money spent on putting together a budget, and staff time can be very limited, so those resources must be marshaled carefully.
More than anything, I'd say, the people involved need to buy into the process. Yer trying to make important decisions, often under difficult circumstances with limited information. The old "changing a tire on a moving car" problem.
My answer to the question of which system works best is that it depends on a number of factors. Effective use of ZBB requires the proper circumstances, sophisticated judgements, and a high level of institutional flexibility.
Interest? I don't understand.
>>they should justify all of what they spend instead of making assumptions.
First, let me note that the hero of the Right, JEC, brought ZBB to the federal gubmint after using it as the chief executive in the state of Georgia. It was immediately dropped by RWR, perhaps because it had that liberal Democratic stench on it.
Imo, ZBB can be effective, and it's important to recognize and distinguish programmatic environments in which it's more likely to be useful. Anytime yer seeing a lot of change, either in the area of society an agency deals with, in the tools available to get that work done, or in the amount of money being expended (up or down), a careful examination of "just what heck is it we're trying to accomplish" is gonna be a good idea.
ZBB can create problems if it's not employed properly. It can lead to very destructive in-fighting. It can seriously delay and complicate the budgeting process. And it can be expensive. There typically isn't much money spent on putting together a budget, and staff time can be very limited, so those resources must be marshaled carefully.
More than anything, I'd say, the people involved need to buy into the process. Yer trying to make important decisions, often under difficult circumstances with limited information. The old "changing a tire on a moving car" problem.
My answer to the question of which system works best is that it depends on a number of factors. Effective use of ZBB requires the proper circumstances, sophisticated judgements, and a high level of institutional flexibility.
Interest? I don't understand.
>>they should justify all of what they spend instead of making assumptions.
First, let me note that the hero of the Right, JEC, brought ZBB to the federal gubmint after using it as the chief executive in the state of Georgia. It was immediately dropped by RWR, perhaps because it had that liberal Democratic stench on it.
Imo, ZBB can be effective, and it's important to recognize and distinguish programmatic environments in which it's more likely to be useful. Anytime yer seeing a lot of change, either in the area of society an agency deals with, in the tools available to get that work done, or in the amount of money being expended (up or down), a careful examination of "just what heck is it we're trying to accomplish" is gonna be a good idea.
ZBB can create problems if it's not employed properly. It can lead to very destructive in-fighting. It can seriously delay and complicate the budgeting process. And it can be expensive. There typically isn't much money spent on putting together a budget, and staff time can be very limited, so those resources must be marshaled carefully.
More than anything, I'd say, the people involved need to buy into the process. Yer trying to make important decisions, often under difficult circumstances with limited information. The old "changing a tire on a moving car" problem.
My answer to the question of which system works best is that it depends on a number of factors. Effective use of ZBB requires the proper circumstances, sophisticated judgements, and a high level of institutional flexibility.
i would not be surprised if you were in a federal government leadership position
king of acronyms
and how would your 'common sense' budgeting system work. share with us how it would be implemented throughout government
I think you need to stop being obtuse. What does the government need to spend vs what is the budget to spend. It's not hard and I think you should take a step back and breathe a little.
Military Begs Congress To Stop Buying Equipment It Doesn't Need.
It should spend it all on beer?
+1
Line-item budgeting approval is tedious. In my little town of 6,000 and an annual budget of less than $2M (in which the police department uses up more than half), our budget book is about 6 inches thick for the 36 various departments.
I can't imagine how many man-hours would be required to line-itemize, say, the FBI's budget.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?