How to reduce cost of government[W:155]

ocean515 · Jun 21, 2016

Govreducer said:
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?

In a broad sense, this is a good plan. It's done in business all the time. The idea is to maintain pace, with as few people as reasonable.

The GAO has pointed out in annual studies for years how to save taxpayer money by addressing the massive duplication and wasted effort of the government.

U.S. GAO - 2016 Annual Report Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits

When one considers how bloated and inefficient champions of big government have created, attrition may be a reasonably effective approach to reduce the bloat.

Consider the following:

https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a

James972 · Jun 21, 2016

How to reduce the cost of govt is very very easy. Whats hard is to get our libsocialists to agree to reduce the cost of govt. If they agreed a Balanced Budget Amendment would be a great start toward making Democrats honest and frugal politicians.

mmi · Jun 21, 2016

Govreducer said:
When you say "the public sector" what do you mean?

Gubmint, at all levels.

>>Is it a sector of the economy that produces goods and services which increases the economic activity of the nation?

Well, I'd say that's part of what it accomplishes. We have

troops fighting in Iraq to defend our interests and bring freedom and self-government to residents of cities like Fallujah and Mosul
public health officials working hard to control the spread the Zika virus, both here and overseas
police, fire, and EMT service personnel protecting lives and property in every community
physicians, psychologists, nurses, and other professionals providing health services to veterans
inspectors ensuring that our food is not contaminated with harmful bacteria and chemicals and that our medicines are safe and effective
teachers, administrators, and service personnel working hard to provide an education to students in our public schools and universities
regulators seeking to make our transportation systems and our vehicles safe and reliable, our financial sector protected from fraud and abuse, and our environment clean and healthy
diplomats and foreign service officers representing us around the world and advancing our national interest and the cause of human rights
scientists and researchers innovating, inventing, and developing technologies that will help make our lives more secure and more enjoyable

The list goes on and on. We even have lowly field representatives collecting economic data.

>>who are the investors for that sector?

Taxpayers and all those who contribute in other ways to the operations of our various gubmint institutions, right?

mmi · Jun 21, 2016

Kobie said:
I see you still haven't learned anything in your time here.

Blinded by ideological bias. We'll just have to struggle on without any help from him and others who have that attitude.

Govreducer · Jun 21, 2016

ocean515 said:
In a broad sense, this is a good plan. It's done in business all the time. The idea is to maintain pace, with as few people as reasonable.

The GAO has pointed out in annual studies for years how to save taxpayer money by addressing the massive duplication and wasted effort of the government.

U.S. GAO - 2016 Annual Report Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits

When one considers how bloated and inefficient champions of big government have created, attrition may be a reasonably effective approach to reduce the bloat.

Consider the following:

https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a

Ocean 515
You hit it right on target. I have a plan to reduce the number of government agencies and department (federal) and still provide the same services. The analysis of the services may come later.
I have combined the twelve or so department to fit into about six or seven by attrition and reduction od duplication of services by all departments and agencies.

ocean515 · Jun 21, 2016

Govreducer said:
Ocean 515
You hit it right on target. I have a plan to reduce the number of government agencies and department (federal) and still provide the same services. The analysis of the services may come later.
I have combined the twelve or so department to fit into about six or seven by attrition and reduction od duplication of services by all departments and agencies.

Any plan is better than the one followed by the current administration, and certainly evidenced by the actions of presumptive Presidential candidate of the Democratic Party.

Govreducer · Jun 21, 2016

mmi said:
Gubmint, at all levels.

>>Is it a sector of the economy that produces goods and services which increases the economic activity of the nation?

Well, I'd say that's part of what it accomplishes. We have

troops fighting in Iraq to defend our interests and bring freedom and self-government to residents of cities like Fallujah and Mosul

public health officials working hard to control the spread the Zika virus, both here and overseas

police, fire, and EMT service personnel protecting lives and property in every community

physicians, psychologists, nurses, and other professionals providing health services to veterans

inspectors ensuring that our food is not contaminated with harmful bacteria and chemicals and that our medicines are safe and effective

teachers, administrators, and service personnel working hard to provide an education to students in our public schools and universities

regulators seeking to make our transportation systems and our vehicles safe and reliable, our financial sector protected from fraud and abuse, and our environment clean and healthy

diplomats and foreign service officers representing us around the world and advancing our national interest and the cause of human rights

scientists and researchers innovating, inventing, and developing technologies that will help make our lives more secure and more enjoyable

The list goes on and on. We even have lowly field representatives collecting economic data.

>>who are the investors for that sector?

Taxpayers and all those who contribute in other ways to the operations of our various gubmint institutions, right?

You are absolutely correct. Those are the services that the government provide for us. And they are all needed and wanted by most citizens. But it is my opinion that those services can be provided with a lot less people and a lot less money than presently spend.
Don't you agree. Less people in the government to provide those services, the more people employed in the private sector, and the more money available to the government to provide the same services with less people. Do you see the logic? The private sector is the only source of revenue for the government, barrying horrendous ammount of meoney borrowed by the government. That borrowed money must be paid by the private sector.
Agree?

Helix · Jun 21, 2016

Govreducer said:
When you say "the public sector" what do yuo mean? What is the pubic sector? Is it a sector of the economy that produces goods and services which increases the economic activity of the nation? And if so, who are the investors for that sector?

the public sector is the not for profit part of the economy which is funded by tax revenue. public schools, the NIH, the DoE, etc. the private sector's first priority is to make a profit, and that's fine. we have the public sector to pick up the slack when it comes to performing essential functions which might not always be immediately profitable.

Govreducer · Jun 21, 2016

Helix said:
the public sector is the not for profit part of the economy which is funded by tax revenue. public schools, the NIH, the DoE, etc. the private sector's first priority is to make a profit, and that's fine. we have the public sector to pick up the slack when it comes to performing essential functions which might not always be immediately profitable.

You are correct Helix.
What I am saying is that the government can provide those services with less people and less costly. And I propose to reduce the number of government employees by making the government more efficient. The number of federal employees can be reduced without firing or laying off one single employee. Simply do not replace government employees when they leave their employment. An make the government provide the same services with less people. Federal employees retire everyday. Make the remaining employees provide the same services. For examples, a lot of agencies and departments provide the same services, duplicating services that do not help the poor or the rich. These services are produce by different agencies or departments just to employ people. But we, the tax payers pay for those jobs to provide services that another agency already produces.
Does this make sense to you?

cpwill · Jun 21, 2016

Govreducer said:
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?

Generally that is not a bad way to reduce the federal workforce. It can be problematic, however. For example, the people whose job it is to respond to terror threats are government employees, as are the people whose job it is to hunt down organized crime, etc. Phasing out those positions might not be terribly wise.

Additionally, the people most likely to leave government positions are those who retire. Simply not replacing them means that senior positions in our government (for example, the Secretary of the Treasury) go unfilled.

So, applied flatly across the federal workforce, this idea would be stupid and disastrous, but done in such a way as to trim staffs over time, it can be effective.

However, the size of the workforce is an imperfect metric - the way to reduce the cost of governance is to reform their largest driver - our support structures.

Govreducer · Jun 21, 2016

ocean515 said:
Any plan is better than the one followed by the current administration, and certainly evidenced by the actions of presumptive Presidential candidate of the Democratic Party.

We need to keep this forum onest and without party afiliation. We are all tax payers. Even government are tax payerr even if their salaries are paid by tax payers.
We need to solve the problem of government wastwfull size.
Dont you agree?
Let's attack our problem. We are paying too much for the services the government provides. That is what I am saying.
When you buy anything you want the best product or service there is for the money you have. Sometimes you borrow to pay for something like a house, but in a month or so you have to start paying the lown or the morgage and begin to reduce your debt. The government paid by us should act and function the same way.

ocean515 · Jun 21, 2016

Govreducer said:
We need to keep this forum onest and without party afiliation. We are all tax payers. Even government are tax payerr even if their salaries are paid by tax payers.
We need to solve the problem of government wastwfull size.
Dont you agree?
Let's attack our problem. We are paying too much for the services the government provides. That is what I am saying.
When you buy anything you want the best product or service there is for the money you have. Sometimes you borrow to pay for something like a house, but in a month or so you have to start paying the lown or the morgage and begin to reduce your debt. The government paid by us should act and function the same way.

I agree the waste in government is a very big problem.

I think your plan would be difficult to accomplish, or even flesh out, without first acknowledging ideological differences people have towards the role of government. Without doing so, nothing can be accomplished. There is a large group of people who don't think government is big enough, and are anxious to see their candidate elected to the Presidency. They stand a good chance of getting that done. If so, any chance of reducing government waste will have to wait for many years.

Govreducer · Jun 21, 2016

cpwill said:
Generally that is not a bad way to reduce the federal workforce. It can be problematic, however. For example, the people whose job it is to respond to terror threats are government employees, as are the people whose job it is to hunt down organized crime, etc. Phasing out those positions might not be terribly wise.

Additionally, the people most likely to leave government positions are those who retire. Simply not replacing them means that senior positions in our government (for example, the Secretary of the Treasury) go unfilled.

So, applied flatly across the federal workforce, this idea would be stupid and disastrous, but done in such a way as to trim staffs over time, it can be effective.

However, the size of the workforce is an imperfect metric - the way to reduce the cost of governance is to reform their largest driver - our support structures.

I agree with you completely. We cannot eliminate critical positions in the government. But we do not have to replace the rank and file who's jobs can be fulfilled by others.
I visualize this reduction in government size by attrition to take many years, decades maybe. It will be a slow process. It will be something the american people must agree and draft the proper laws to attain the goal. If it take 50 years, we kanow that some day our taxes will match the services we pay in taxes. That is all I am saying. Nothing drastic but firm. Our future generations will know when they have the correct size of government.

Govreducer · Jun 21, 2016

ocean515 said:
I agree the waste in government is a very big problem.

I think your plan would be difficult to accomplish, or even flesh out, without first acknowledging ideological differences people have towards the role of government. Without doing so, nothing can be accomplished. There is a large group of people who don't think government is big enough, and are anxious to see their candidate elected to the Presidency. They stand a good chance of getting that done. If so, any chance of reducing government waste will have to wait for many years.

But we must begin from the premise that we want the present number of services from our government. No ideological differences or calling out. If we all agree that we want to pay less for the government services, that will be the most important start point. No ideolgic differences. Just agree on the reduction of the cost of our government without changing the servicesq.
Is that possible?

ocean515 · Jun 21, 2016

Govreducer said:
But we must begin from the premise that we want the present number of services from our government. No ideological differences or calling out. If we all agree that we want to pay less for the government services, that will be the most important start point. No ideolgic differences. Just agree on the reduction of the cost of our government without changing the servicesq.
Is that possible?

You wrote in a previous post:

I have a plan to reduce the number of government agencies and department (federal) and still provide the same services.

I don't personally believe it is possible to get agreement on the first step of your process - reducing the number of government agencies and departments - when a large percentage of the population believes there are not enough government agencies and departments.

It is my opinion that ideological differences would have to be included in order to address the reason some think this way, so a solution can be found to alter this belief.

JohnfrmClevelan · Jun 21, 2016

Govreducer said:
But we must begin from the premise that we want the present number of services from our government. No ideological differences or calling out. If we all agree that we want to pay less for the government services, that will be the most important start point. No ideolgic differences. Just agree on the reduction of the cost of our government without changing the servicesq.
Is that possible?

What makes you so sure that government workers don't have enough work already? In my experience, most of them are greatly overworked. And a lot of that came from the Republican push to reduce government come hell or high water. In less than 10 years, my wife has had to deal with hiring freezes (basically attrition, because nobody gets replaced), wage freezes, outsourcing (and no, they don't do it any better or cheaper), and large increases in individual workloads.

Much of the waste that I see comes from any nexus with the private sector. Instead of the government owning a building, they now often rent privately owned buildings. Instead of having a dedicated staff to coordinate travel, they now go through a private company. Instead of low-level government employees, they hire contract workers. In each case, it's wildly expensive. And the contract workers, with nothing to lose and no career to build, are less than worthless.

And although I have no direct experience with the military, from what I have read the military outsources some really basic stuff to KBR and Halliburton, along with some mercenary outfits. And it's expensive as hell. I know the tired old argument about the private sector being so much more efficient than the government, but why is that being applied to the military, too? Because it doesn't have anything to do with efficiency - it has to do with making money off of Uncle Sam.

Helix · Jun 21, 2016

Govreducer said:
You are correct Helix.
What I am saying is that the government can provide those services with less people and less costly. And I propose to reduce the number of government employees by making the government more efficient. The number of federal employees can be reduced without firing or laying off one single employee. Simply do not replace government employees when they leave their employment. An make the government provide the same services with less people. Federal employees retire everyday. Make the remaining employees provide the same services. For examples, a lot of agencies and departments provide the same services, duplicating services that do not help the poor or the rich. These services are produce by different agencies or departments just to employ people. But we, the tax payers pay for those jobs to provide services that another agency already produces.
Does this make sense to you?

i'm generally for making things more efficient, but i'm not really supportive of firing a lot of public sector workers. in our economic model, it's pay people to work or pay them not to. i prefer the former, and there are plenty of things that we need to get done domestically. the public sector by definition doesn't need to be profitable. there are other real benefits to maintaining / expanding it, but we actually have to pay for it rather than putting it on the credit card.

cpwill · Jun 21, 2016

mmi said:
How would Pell grants and student loans be administered?

Good point. They shouldn't be.

How would grants to public schools serving low-income and special needs children be funded and administered?

Block grants back to the States.

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?

The same way they are now - by suit.

How would national statistics on education be collected?

If only there was some kind of "Stanford Achievement Test Series" that we could use....

James972 · Jun 21, 2016

Helix said:
but i'm not really supportive of firing a lot of public sector workers.

why not ?? the more of them you fire the more of them have to get real jobs that contribute to our society rather than leech off our society.

cpwill · Jun 21, 2016

Govreducer said:
I agree with you completely. We cannot eliminate critical positions in the government. But we do not have to replace the rank and file who's jobs can be fulfilled by others.

Many of those rank and file are critical. Many are not. The trick is to differentiate by task, not apply a "welp no more hiring for this position".

I visualize this reduction in government size by attrition to take many years, decades maybe. It will be a slow process. It will be something the american people must agree and draft the proper laws to attain the goal

I think DOD is already using it, actually.

If it take 50 years, we kanow that some day our taxes will match the services we pay in taxes.

No it won't. Reducing the size of the government workforce in order to reduce government spending is like raising beer to your lips with proper curls to get into shape. Transfer payments and support structures take up the vast majority of public expenditures, and until we get those under control, little things like reducing the size of the government workforce won't really be anything other than window dressing.

That is all I am saying. Nothing drastic but firm. Our future generations will know when they have the correct size of government.

We have long since moved past the point of "nothing drastic", if your intent is to reduce the size of government to its correct size, or even to an affordable one.

Helix · Jun 21, 2016

James972 said:
why not ?? the more of them you fire the more of them have to get real jobs that contribute to our society rather than leech off our society.

read the part of my post that you chose to omit from your response.

mmi · Jun 22, 2016

ocean515 said:
a large percentage of the population believes there are not enough government agencies and departments.

Any evidence to back that up? I doubt it. I'm confident that only a very small percentage feels that way. Just more RW nonsense.

cpwill said:
Good point. They shouldn't be.

Public colleges and universities could survive without those programs, and the well-endowed private ones would of course stay in business as well. But many other private schools would shut down. Are you ready to accept that?

>>Block grants back to the States.

So you want programs that serve the interests of low-income and special needs students administered through fifty state gubmints, and you think that they would then operate more efficiently. Why not keep going and have county gubmints do the work, or even better, move it all down to a municipal level? Hell, let's have each individual school handle them. None of that awful "duplication" that right-wingers are always complaining about for you, right?

>>The same way they are now - by suit.

Do you think that's how all that oversight and enforcement is handled? Every time there's an issue related to a possible violation of civil rights law related to education, it ends up in court?

>>If only there was some kind of "Stanford Achievement Test Series" that we could use

There's a lot more data than standardized test scores collected.

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Much of the waste that I see comes from any nexus with the private sector.

My sixteen years experience as a federal employee leads me to agree. My agency expends considerable resources in an effort to get some businesses and individuals (you can guess what their ideology is) to comply with legally mandated requirements to provide information.

>>they hire contract workers … it's wildly expensive. And the contract workers, with nothing to lose and no career to build, are less than worthless.

That's also a problem in the work we do. And there are always rumours that more of it is coming. I'm a fiercely dedicated public servant. I go more than the extra mile every freaking month to get complete my assignments and I always underbill on hours worked.

I was a field operations supervisor in the 2000 Census. I was paid for a forty-hour week with zero benefits and no position open to me when the work was completed, and yet I often worked fifty hours a week or more. One day I worked from eight in the morning until four o'clock the next morning, then slept for a few hours and started work at eight again. That's a twenty-hour day. I worked one afternoon at the local airport in a bad snowstorm offloading materials we needed for an operation that we were supposed to have already started.

I'd say I've been an excellent employee since I started working as a dishwasher when I was fifteen, but that level of dedication was not likely to come from me in the private sector. Only when I loved the boss as much as I love America, which was not typical.

James972 said:
why not ?? the more of them you fire the more of them have to get real jobs that contribute to our society rather than leech off our society.

Ya see, Govreducer, this is kind of worthless RW garbage that gets posted around this forum all the time. It's representative of the juvenile, ignorant, anti-American crap that pours out of the mouths of millions of teabugger morons. The good news is that there are sixty-five to seventy million voters that can and will toss this nonsense back into the sewer it leaks out of when the election is decided in November.

Nothing partisan or ideological out of me.

cpwill said:
Transfer payments and support structures take up the vast majority of public expenditures

And those "transfer payments" are mostly Social Security and Medicare, totalling $1.37 trillion, about 37% of federal spending in 2015. The rest is Medicaid ($350 billion), federal civilian and military retirement ($160 billion), disability insurance ($144 billion), veterans benefits ($92 billion), EITC, child care and other tax credits ($85 billion), SNAP ($76 billion), SSI ($55 billion), and the wonderful "other" category of around $100 billion. Altogether about two-thirds of federal spending.

It may or may not be a good idea to hack away at that pile, but you won't reduce it by lowering personnel costs.

JoeTheEconomist · Jun 22, 2016

Govreducer said:
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?

Employees aren't the problem. It is entitlements. Interest and entitlements are projected to grow to 100% of revenue.

Moderate Right · Jun 22, 2016

Govreducer said:
But we must begin from the premise that we want the present number of services from our government. No ideological differences or calling out. If we all agree that we want to pay less for the government services, that will be the most important start point. No ideolgic differences. Just agree on the reduction of the cost of our government without changing the servicesq.
Is that possible?

No. And I am on your side.

ocean515 · Jun 22, 2016

mmi said:
Any evidence to back that up? I doubt it. I'm confident that only a very small percentage feels that way. Just more RW nonsense..

Why yes I do have that evidence. But you've indicated you will refuse to read it. So, do you have any evidence to prove it's only a small percentage that feels that way? Just more LW blather and unsupported opinion.

Hint: How many millions voted for BS? He's a small government guy, right?

Too funny.

You are dismissed.

How to reduce cost of government[W:155]

ocean515

James972

mmi

mmi

Govreducer

New member

ocean515

Govreducer

New member

Helix

Govreducer

New member

cpwill

Govreducer

New member

ocean515

Govreducer

New member

Govreducer

New member

ocean515

JohnfrmClevelan

Helix

cpwill

James972

cpwill

Helix

mmi

JoeTheEconomist

Moderate Right

ocean515

How to reduce cost of government[W:155]

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency