How to reduce cost of government[W:155]

[Govreducer]

We may reduce the cost of our federal government by reducing the number of excecutive departments by attrition, that is, when government employees leave they are not replaced. This may be done untill our federal government is reduced to serve our (its citizens) needs and to cost what we can and want to afford. Of course, all this must be done by obtaining the voters consensus.
Do you think this is a good idea?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

We may reduce the cost of our federal government by reducing the number of excecutive departments by attrition, that is, when government employees leave they are not replaced. This may be done untill our federal government is reduced to serve our (its citizens) needs and to cost what we can and want to afford. Of course, all this must be done by obtaining the voters consensus.
Do you think this is a good idea?

Way too vague a plan for me to support or oppose, although I'm not inclined to support already.

 

[Govreducer]

For example, it is my opinion the Federal Department of Education can be reduced and abolished without any detriment to our children education. We already pay for the state, county and city government for this service. By atrition this federal department could be abolish. It goes without sayn rhese measure need the consensus of the mayority.
Why would anyone desire to pay taxes for a service more than once?

 

[mmi]

How would Pell grants and student loans be administered? How would grants to public schools serving low-income and special needs children be funded and administered? How would civil rights laws related to education such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 be enforced? How would national statistics on education be collected?

 

[Sparky2]

I agree with the original poster's premise and broad solution.

Because here is the plain and simple truth, and it is the proverbial 800 pound object sitting in the middle of the room, the one that nobody (in the US government anyway) wants to talk about:

Government Servants have a reputation problem, and it is a reputation that has been earned by the 1/3rd of all government workers who rarely come to work for more than 25 hours a week, but claim 40 to 50 hour work weeks on their time card, and do virtually nothing in support of the mission, laughing all the way to the bank.

No slight to you top-notch Government Servants (the top 1/3rd) who actually work hard, and work with integrity. You truly do work with integrity, and with a responsible stewardship of the taxpayers dollars in mind.
My hat is off to you, and many of you are my trusted friends.

But face it;
You are carrying the load for the aforementioned bottom 1/3rd, and the middle 1/3rd as well. (The middle 1/3rd who technically show up for the hours they are paid, but do little more than the bare minimum, and care more about their vacation days off and their eventual retirement than they do the anything else.)

The federal government needs to fix things at all levels and in all cultures, and it should start with the Government workers, the federal employees themselves. They need to police within their own ranks, and eventually overcome that bad reputation.

This bad reputation is a cultural thing.
Look left and right. Many of our government workers are stealing a paycheck. Many of our middle-managers and upper management are inept and apathetic.
And what do we do with the Government Servants and managers who do a lousy job?
Fire them? Discipline them?

Heck no.
We move them around like so much dusty furniture, and we frequently promote them to get them out of the shop, so they can be somebody else's problem.
And if they have learned the trick of the 'strategic grievance', then oh my God.
We promote them twice as fast, and move them around twice as hard.

Because the Government Service has become a vast welfare state of sorts.
We don't (or won't) fire lousy Government workers, and because they know that they are virtually un-fireable, there is no incentive to step up and become somewhat productive workers like the middle 1/3rd, or really hard working superstars like the top 1/3rd.

We CAN make things better, and we CAN fix things, but it has to start from within.
And that starts with:

* Admitting the problem exists
* Implementation of a sweeping and profound purge, the systematic retirement of (approximately) 1/3rd of the federal work force, with no back-fill.

Trust me, once you get rid of the slackers, the entire operation will be much more efficient, and the number of required employees will be much smaller.

 

[Helix]

the sequester resulted in me being kicked me out on my ass when my boss lost his grant. for that and other reasons, i don't support shrinking the public sector. i definitely support reprioritization, though. for example, we should not be wasting money on Middle Eastern wars.

 

[Govreducer]

the sequester resulted in me being kicked me out on my ass when my boss lost his grant. for that and other reasons, i don't support shrinking the public sector. i definitely support reprioritization, though. for example, we should not be wasting money on Middle Eastern wars.

Helix,
That is the biggest problem that a government reduction faces: How to maintain the same services.
My solution is to maintain the same services, but provide the services with less people and less burocracy. To do that we simply do not replace a government employee when she or he leaves for whatever reason. So nobody looses itheir job and we pay less taxes.
Is there anyone who likes to give their earned money to the government?

 

[Govreducer]

The sequester was an extreme cut of funds.
The government can be reduced by attrition so nobody looses their job. Does that makes sense?

 

[Govreducer]

The government can provide the same services with a lot less people than it currently has.
Anybody agrees?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

The government can provide the same services with a lot less people than it currently has.
Anybody agrees?

Maybe. But why? What are all of those people going to do for a living? The private sector can't supply nearly enough jobs for everybody as it is.

 

[Govreducer]

Maybe. But why? What are all of those people going to do for a living? The private sector can't supply nearly enough jobs for everybody as it is.

That is what I mean by attrition. Nobody looses their job. We just do not replace them when they leave the government. Nobody gets fired.

 

[Govreducer]

Maybe. But why? What are all of those people going to do for a living? The private sector can't supply nearly enough jobs for everybody as it is.

Why reduce rhe size of government?
So we can reduce the taxes we have to pay.
Is that not a good reason?

 

[Govreducer]

Implementation of a sweeping and profound purge,
In order to obtain the lawmakers (your representative an senator to Washington), to pass the required laws to reduce the size of government we must ask for the reduction in a way that we do not step on any toes. That is why I think the lawmakers may go along with the attrition method, so nobody is out of a job.

 

[Helix]

Helix,
That is the biggest problem that a government reduction faces: How to maintain the same services.
My solution is to maintain the same services, but provide the services with less people and less bureaucracy.

eh, i'm for hiring people to do something. give them the educational tools that they need without putting them into serious debt, and then let the public sector fill the gaps. it's basically either that or safety net programs. i see a lot of roads that need to be built and energy infrastructure that needs a massive upgrade.

To do that we simply do not replace a government employee when she or he leaves for whatever reason. So nobody looses itheir job and we pay less taxes.

yeah, but then what about the next generation of kids?

Is there anyone who likes to give their earned money to the government?

i used to get pissed about it, but i give a lot more to anticompetitive corporations in the course of paying my bills. what still bothers me, though, is that any of my earnings go to perpetual war and drug war nonsense.

 

[Govreducer]

Maybe. But why? What are all of those people going to do for a living? The private sector can't supply nearly enough jobs for everybody as it is.

The private sector produces goods and services that people buy. I belive when we pay less taxes (to the government), we buy more things (from the private sector). Therefore, the econmy progresses and employ more people.

 

[The Thinker]

We may reduce the cost of our federal government by reducing the number of excecutive departments by attrition, that is, when government employees leave they are not replaced. This may be done untill our federal government is reduced to serve our (its citizens) needs and to cost what we can and want to afford. Of course, all this must be done by obtaining the voters consensus.
Do you think this is a good idea?

You can diligently seek out waste, fraud and abuse and tackle it by cutting it. This can be done across all departments, especially the military.

 

[Govreducer]

Way too vague a plan for me to support or oppose, although I'm not inclined to support already.

Do you want to pay more taxes?
Do you pay taxes at all?
What is rhe problem with paying less taxes?
Is it too vague to keep more money in your pocket? Instead of letting the government take it from you?

 

[Govreducer]

How would Pell grants and student loans be administered? How would grants to public schools serving low-income and special needs children be funded and administered? How would civil rights laws related to education such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 be enforced? How would national statistics on education be collected?

Pell grants and student loans can be paid with less government employees. There will be less poor people when the economy progresses and more people are employed and people buy more and companies can pay for more employees.
Does that make sense?

 

[Govreducer]

How would Pell grants and student loans be administered? How would grants to public schools serving low-income and special needs children be funded and administered? How would civil rights laws related to education such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 be enforced? How would national statistics on education be collected?

How do you use "National statistics on education?
Does that help your child to learn more? Does it help youl child to get better grades?
Does it help you to educate your child any better?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Do you want to pay more taxes?

maybe, depending upon what they're using them to fund

Do you pay taxes at all?

yes

What is rhe problem with paying less taxes?

less services.

Is it too vague to keep more money in your pocket? Instead of letting the government take it from you?

yes.

 

[Govreducer]

You can diligently seek out waste, fraud and abuse and tackle it by cutting it. This can be done across all departments, especially the military.

Thinker,
Please see the attrition plan as a long term solution.
We will be reducing slowly (by attrition) the government in a way to force the government to function more efficiently and the fraud and abuse will disapear because there will be less people in the government to fraud and abuse.

 

[Govreducer]

maybe, depending upon what they're using them to fund

yes

less services.

yes.

That is what I am proposing:
Same services for less taxes.
Does that make sense?

 

[eohrnberger]

Maybe. But why? What are all of those people going to do for a living? The private sector can't supply nearly enough jobs for everybody as it is.

Where does government get the money to pay their federal employees?
Isn't that money better spent by the private sector in the private sector?

Government, especially the federal one, has become a bloated, under performing, over expensive, over interceding, excessively intrusive, bureaucrat protecting, bureaucracy, without any sort of spending controls or spending discipline, with little more than an culture of excessive spending and corruption, and frankly, needs to have a very large budget axe taken to it for multiple years in a row before it's going to be the size that it satisfactorily justify being.

Government, and it's associated costs, are the overhead for having the self-governing society that we have, and everyone always needs to be mindful that overhead isn't any sort of advantage in anything. It's a cost that steals from everyone and everything else, and ought to be minimized at every turn, and who's expenses should be tightly managed to worthwhile deeds done as cheaply, as efficiently, and as effectively as possible.

I doubt that there's a single nation in human history that grew to greatness by increasing their governmental overhead costs, but I'd imagine that there are probably many that have collapsed because they didn't. Just look at Venezuela. Is that where you want to end up?

 

[mmi]

Pell grants and student loans can be paid with less government employees.

Perhaps. But you said you want the department eliminated, right?

Oops, that's right, you simply want it to shrink over time through attrition. Well, I figure the work won't be done as effectively that way.

>>There will be less poor people when the economy progresses and more people are employed and people buy more and companies can pay for more employees.

Don't think I'm being pedantic, but it should be "fewer" people and "fewer" employees, as humans are discrete units.

There will be people requiring financial assistance to cover the cost of higher education for the foreseeable future.

How do you use "National statistics on education? Does that help your child to learn more? Does it help youl child to get better grades? Does it help you to educate your child any better?

Yes to all three.

"What is the importance of statistics in education?," reference.com

 

[James972]

Maybe. But why? What are all of those people going to do for a living? The private sector can't supply nearly enough jobs for everybody as it is.

those people would have to get real jobs wherein they were contributing to society rather than leeching off it. Supply equals demand so there are always enough jobs and apples in a free market. If we wanted higher wages we could always ship 20 million illegals home to create huge upward pressure on wages and create 20 million new jobs here or we could end the corporate tax to get back 20 million more jobs that liberals shippped offshore.