How to reduce cost of government[W:155]

[The Thinker]

oh so why so afraid to present your best example??? What does your fear teach you?

That comment makes no sense. I presented several examples.

 

[mmi]

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

I agree, Joe. When you add the sixteen percent for the military and the six percent for interest on the debt to that two-thirds for transfers, yer up to around 82% of 2015 spending. That leaves about $660 billion on the table.

We were talking about the Department of Education, so I'll point to a few items in its $67 billion 2015 discretionary budget. Ya have Pell grants at $31 billion, school nutrition programs cost $16.5, and
Head Start is $8.6 billion. That's $56 billion, 84%. Now some of those costs are for personnel, especially in Head Start. But my point is that when you go department by department, a considerable portion of those budgets goes to the cost of facilities, equipment, and materials. How much is left? Enough to make much of a dent in federal spending?

Uncle Sam employs 2.1 million civilian workers, and in 2015 their wages and benefits totalled $260 billion, seven percent of the federal budget. So cutting those costs by one percent this year would save $2.6 billion. If you do that every year until you've cut the workforce by, say, a fourth, yer talking about $65 billion, 1.8% of the budget. That is indeed a lot of money, but you'd then arguably be seriously understaffed without a whole lot being gained.

Why yes I do have that evidence. But you've indicated you will refuse to read it.

Hilarious. When have I indicated that I will not consider evidence? I certainly have said, and I will continue to say, that I will not accept lengthy reading assignments from RW morons who refuse to summarize or offer relevant excerpts from material published online. I'm dumb enough to expend a considerable amount of my time arguing with those idiots, but I'm not that dumb.

>>do you have any evidence to prove it's only a small percentage that feels that way?

Well, I'm not at this point going to put much effort into this, but I'll at least start.

Here's an increasing percentage, now up to 62%, saying they are at least somewhat dissatisfied with the size and power of the federal gubmint. I will acknowledge that this doesn't indicate whether they want it smaller/less powerful or larger/more powerful, but I'll let readers draw their own conclusion.



Several years ago, when the economy was in a crisis and people were looking to gubmint to resolve it, the percentages on preferring a larger or smaller gubmint were about equal. Now, smaller is up by fifteen points.



Now, none of this speaks directly to the question of whether or not Americans think there are "enough government agencies and departments," but I'm satisfied at this point and invite you to post the evidence you claim is in yer possession. Why you didn't just post it is anyone's guess.

>>Just more LW blather and unsupported opinion.

As opposed to yer unsupported RW blather claiming that "a large percentage of the population believes there are not enough government agencies and departments." Large, eh? Good luck with that. Thirty-eight percent is arguably "large," I suppose, but in a vote it would lose badly to fifty-three. So how is that a serious impediment to cutting, cutting, cutting the number of federal agencies and departments?

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

Thanks for the hint. BS? I figure yer somehow referring to the president. Ah yes, Barry Soetoro.

I think it was around 65 million in 2012. And of course yer dead wrong, as you almost always are. As I've noted here repeatedly, real federal spending dropped by eight percent 2009-14. I suppose the RW counter is that it was Republicans in Congress that prevented him from implementing the BIG expansion he prefers. But of course, as I have again noted repeatedly, Congress authorized one percent less than he requested over those years, and then his tight management practices reduced actual outlays by another five percent.

>>You are dismissed.

Nah, ya can't do that here. I'm shoving my evidence right in yer face or down yer throat or however you'd like to take it. Are you still laughing?

 

[joG]

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

Where's the problem? Just borrow whatever you need.

 

[James972]

Where's the problem? Just borrow whatever you need.

exactly, why should the Feds have to be bothered with balancing a budget the way families, businesses, states, cities, counties, and school districts do !! It's so much easier to borrow the money and let the next generation pay it back!!

 

[joG]

exactly, why should the Feds have to be bothered with balancing a budget the way families, businesses, states, cities, counties, and school districts do !! It's so much easier to borrow the money and let the next generation pay it back!!

Brilliant: spend! Spend!! SPEND!!!

 

[fmw]

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?

Not only a good idea but probably necessary in the long run. The federal government should retain the defense, state, treasury and justice departments. Everything else should go to the states, the private sector or the trash can.

 

[fmw]

How would Pell grants and student loans be administered?

They would no longer exist or be sent to the states if the states want them.

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?

The source of most corruption in federal government is in the process of bribing the states to do what it wants. The practice should be banned forever.

 

[Govreducer]

Not only a good idea but probably necessary in the long run. The federal government should retain the defense, state, treasury and justice departments. Everything else should go to the states, the private sector or the trash can.

But how can we the people petition for a government reduction?

 

[Govreducer]

Brilliant: spend! Spend!! SPEND!!!

Do you think there are enough people thinking like us to petition for a referendum on government reduction?

 

[joG]

Do you think there are enough people thinking like us to petition for a referendum on government reduction?

If we promise them fun and fantasy? Of course! Just don't call it socialism, though, even that captivated an astounding number. Free Cinnamon-rolls for all!!!

 

[fmw]

But how can we the people petition for a government reduction?

By stopping the practice of reelecting the cretins that are in office. We have to replace them with people that have some sense of the common good. They won't change by themselves. We have to change them. All that from someone who no longer votes because he understands that it doesn't fix anything. Get the people interested in true government reform and I'll return to the polls.

 

[Govreducer]

Do you think there are enough people thinking like us to petition for a referendum on government reduction?

How can we find out?

 

[Govreducer]

By stopping the practice of reelecting the cretins that are in office. We have to replace them with people that have some sense of the common good. They won't change by themselves. We have to change them. All that from someone who no longer votes because he understands that it doesn't fix anything. Get the people interested in true government reform and I'll return to the polls.

I have put some thought to this and the following can be done over a period of 10 or 20, or 30 years, whatever it takes:
These are the current federal department:

1. Agriculture
2. Commerce
3. Defense
4. Education
5. Energy
6. Interior
7. Health and Human Services
8. Homeland Security
9. Housing and Urban Development
10. Justice
11. Labor
12. State
13. Transportation
14. Treasury
15. Veteran Affairs
16. Environmental Protection Agency
17. Small Business Administration
18. National Science Foundation
19. Social Security Administration

Now, lets combine some of these which we feel can provide the same services combined as they each provide now.

1. Interstate Commerce and Agriculture can do the services of the following current agencies and departments:
a. Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Small Business, etc.
2. Education, Labor, and Health can do the services stated plus
a. Housing and Community Services, etc.
b. Environmental Protection, etc.
3. Defense, can do also services such as
a. National Intelligence, Space (NASA), Homeland Security, etc.
4. Justice
5. Veterans Administration
6. Social Security
7. Treasury
8. State, can do also other services done now by numerous agencies.

Maybe we can stretch these and make them ten departments, maybe.
The first department above may be called "Commerce and Interior Department"
The second may be named "Labor and Health Department
The third may be called "Defense" which is one we need for sure to keep our democratic system of government

 

[cpwill]

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?

Those programs make purchasers of college education price insensitive, but provide large sums of easy money for the purchase. Ergo, we get skyrocketing tuition, fueled by skyrocketing administrative bloat (Right wing concurrence Left wing concurrence). We may see a few shut downs. A more common effect, however, would be reductions in tuition, as colleges were forced to compete for price-sensitive students.

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?

:shrug: that would be up to the State. Some states would probably want to retain centralized control, while others may wish to federate it down so as to allow the district to shape solutions that best meet the particular needs of their student body.

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?

Certainly not. The threat of suit, then as now, would additionally be a restraint.

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

And what of it do we need that cannot be collected by the States?

sixteen years experience as a federal employee leads me to agree.

As a government employee, I was sent on an all-expenses paid, week-long trip to Hawaii. The reason? The end of the fiscal year was coming up, and we needed to make sure we spent all of our budgeted funds, or else we might not get as much the next year. Oh, technically the reason was to "liaise and build relationships", but no one cared who I did that with. Waste in government expenditures comes largely not from exposure to the private sector, but because of the incentives inherent in spending other people's money.

contract workers, with nothing to lose and no career to build, are less than worthless.

Contractors can be fired - government workers generally can't (or the amount of effort that is required to fire them is prohibitive).

Example: there was a GS-13 at my last place of employment who, due to a series of DUI's, was no longer able to even access the building. Unfortunately, they failed to appropriately handle the paperwork. As a result, this guy was stuck in a sort of administrative limbo where he couldn't work, but couldn't be fired. His job was to hang out at home and collect just shy of 6 figures. They had been trying to solve this problem for about two years by the time I left. We had a contractor who wouldn't stop goofing off in the office. He was warned twice, and then let go.

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...

Nothing partisan or ideological out of me.

:roll: certainly not.

Government employees do not produce. We are direct drains on the system. What we can, do, however, is protect and enable the structures that allow production to occur. When we do this, we are indirectly net positive. A police officer, for example, does not produce, transport, or sell any products - but his provision of a security guarantee and contract enforcement allows others to do so. The cop himself is a net cost of $45,000 to the system, but that expenditure enables more than $45,000 of economic activity to take place.

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.

Yup.

It may or may not be a good idea to hack away at that pile

:shrug: I don't think we really have a choice. Either we choose how to reduce expenditures going forward now, or those choices will be made for us in a less controllable manner later.

 

[James972]

All that from someone who no longer votes because he understands that it doesn't fix anything.

you sound very very confused!

Voting Repubican gets us a very very different Supreme Court. Do you understand??

Voting Republican gets us debt ceilings, shut downs, caps , and Balanced Budget Amendments. Do you understand?

 

[mmi]

We may see a few shut downs.

First, those programs are not going to end. If they did, what makes you think there wouldn't be a lot of private colleges and universities going out of business?

>>A more common effect, however, would be reductions in tuition, as colleges were forced to compete for price-sensitive students.

What makes you think those schools wouldn't simply lose out to public institutions?

>>Some states would probably want to retain centralized control, while others may wish to federate it down so as to allow the district to shape solutions that best meet the particular needs of their student body.

I'd say yer missing the point. How would programs for low-income and special needs students function more efficiently with dozens of state and local agencies responsible for their administration? Don't very large corporations have a lot of centralized control? Does each McDonald's franchise handle its own purchasing and distribution processes, menu development and planning strategies, and quality control programs?

>>The threat of suit [to enforce civil rights laws related to education], then as now, would additionally be a restraint.

But it would, then as now, be rarely employed.

>>what of it do we need that cannot be collected by the States?

In the first place, there would be a very confusing assortment of fifty different data sets. How could those be integrated effectively? And again, a tremendous amount of inefficiency would result from all that … duplication. Isn't that one of the things you guys love to complain about?

>>The end of the fiscal year was coming up, and we needed to make sure we spent all of our budgeted funds, or else we might not get as much the next year.

Then that agency was very poorly administered in that respect. I haven't seen it happening in the work I'm involved in. Every August and September in recent years, there's been a lot of turmoil as funds are shifted from those areas that still have some money to those that are about to run out.

>>Waste in government expenditures comes largely not from exposure to the private sector

And this is true … because you say it is.

>>but because of the incentives inherent in spending other people's money.

In my experience, we're barely able to squeak by with the money that's being appropriated. And in my twenty-five years in the private sector, I saw plenty of waste, inefficiency, and stupidity. Those who worship at the alter of Private Sector Enterprise like to say that that can't happen because those companies get put of business by more effectively managed competitors. I didn't see that happening. They just didn't operate as well as they would have otherwise.

What makes you think consumers are so judicious in their purchases as to force businesses to do everything properly? You talk about "incentives inherent in spending other people's money." What effect do heavily taxpayer-subsidised national television advertising campaigns have on private sector spending decisions? As the price of gold has dropped twenty percent over the past five years, I've been told many, many times that I need to be buying it every chance I get. You see all that private sector activity as providing a greater social benefit than the work done by the FTC?

>>Contractors can be fired - government workers generally can't (or the amount of effort that is required to fire them is prohibitive).

Nobody on my team is even close to deserving to be fired. Every damn one of them is a god damn patriotic public servant who cares very deeply about the work we're involved in. Fwiw, I didn't see that level of dedication in the private sector. Were the men in yer Marine unit operating inefficiently and indifferent to the quality of their performance because they were "spending other people's money"?

>>Government employees do not produce. We are direct drains on the system.

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference that's based entirely on ideology. Imo, I am producing statistics that are used by private and public sector analysts. Cops produce public safety. How is that "a drain on the system"? What about public school teachers and administrators? NIH and CDC researchers?

>>Either we choose how to reduce expenditures going forward now, or those choices will be made for us in a less controllable manner later.

Real federal spending fell eight percent 2009-14, so it looks like you should be happy with Obummer in that regard. Perhaps we should continue to benefit from that kind of management skill and leadership.

 

[mmi]

Voting Republican gets us debt ceilings

The debt ceiling was first instituted in 1917, with a Democrat in the WH and Democrats in control of both houses of Congress.

>>shut downs

Yep, and the last one cost us $24 billion and proved to be very unpopular with voters, with 39% blaming Republicans and 19% holding Democrats responsible. Last fall, Mr. Boehner cut a deal to allow the gubmint to continue to operate until next March — "cleaning the barn," as he put it. We'll see if Mr Ryan will decide to again defend America's credit worthiness rather than surrender to the destructive demands of the Eff Up caucus.

>>caps

Congress has failed to meet those requirements, and the resulting sequestrations have damaged our military.

>>Balanced Budget Amendments

Not ever gonna happen.

>>Do you understand?

I know you sure as hell don't.

 

[fmw]

you sound very very confused!

Voting Repubican gets us a very very different Supreme Court. Do you understand??

Voting Republican gets us debt ceilings, shut downs, caps , and Balanced Budget Amendments. Do you understand?

Of course I understand. If only I had seen republicans do something to fix something in the past I would believe they would the same in the future. Same with the democrats.

 

[James972]

Of course I understand. If only I had seen republicans do something to fix something in the past I would believe they would the same in the future. Same with the democrats.

totally stupid!!! when the electorate sends equal numbers from each party to DC of course nothing gets done. This is something a child could grasp. What is wrong with you? Do you think SCOTUS appointments are similar from each party? Republicans were 100% against Obamacare and Stimulus. 1+1=2

 

[James972]

The debt ceiling was first instituted in 1917, with a Democrat in the WH and Democrats in control of both houses of Congress.

dear, in 1917 Democrats were responsible like Republicans are today!! Do you understand?

 

[James972]

>>shut downs

Yep, and the last one cost us $24 billion and proved to be very unpopular with voters, with

subject is not what was popular but what Republicans did to control govt!!Now do you understand?

 

[James972]

>>caps

Congress has failed to meet those requirements, and the resulting sequestrations have damaged our military.
.

subject is not what congress did but what Republicans did( opposed by Democrats) to control govt growth. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

>>Balanced Budget Amendments

Not ever gonna happen.

>>Do you understand?

I know you sure as hell don't.

dear, subject is not whether it will happen but what Republicans did to try to control govt and how Democrats opposed. FYI Newts BBA passed House and fell 1 short in Senate thank to evil Democrats. Todat debt would be $0 not $20 trillion, Catching on now?

 

[mmi]

dear, in 1917 Democrats were responsible like Republicans are today

little darling, I once again showed yer tripe to be what it is — a steaming pile of it. You said that Republicans created the debt ceiling, which of course is a very stupid legislative concept and so one you approve of, and you respond with nothing but more worthless blather. Total evasion.

subject is not what was popular but what Republicans did to control govt

Popularity isn't really the issue, sweetheart, it's the $24 billion dollar price tag taxpayers got stuck with to pay from Scruz Loose's temper tantrum.

subject is not what congress did but what Republicans did( opposed by Democrats) to control govt growth. Do you understand?

It all took place in Congress, precious. What is it about that that you can't understand? All of it, I'm sure.

dear, subject is not whether it will happen but what Republicans did to try to control govt and how Democrats opposed. FYI Newts BBA passed House and fell 1 short in Senate thank to evil Democrats. Todat debt would be $0 not $20 trillion

honey boo-boo, all the debt resulted from policies you support. And the national debt was already five trillion when that amendment was voted on. The deciding vote against came from Mark Hatfield (R-OR).

He and another WAR HERO, George S. McGovern (D-SD, volunteered and flew thirty-five combat missions over Nazi-occupied Europe, awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross and an Air Medal with three clusters) introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill in 1970 that would have ended all US military operations in Vietnam by the end of that year, a blessing, as it would have been, for the 3304 American service personnel who were subsequently killed there. There aren't many Republicans like Hatfield (a landing craft officer at Iwo Jima and Okinawa) in the Congress these days.

>>Catching on now?

I caught on to the material you peddle right from the start. It's all very easily swept away and dismissed. For example, are you even aware that constitutional amendments require thirty-eight states for ratification, and that a BBA would never get that many? And how could the Bush tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq, which combined to add $2.134 trillion dollars to the debt 2002-08, have been funded if the amendment had been ratified? Get a clue, pet.

 

[Moderate Right]

totally stupid!!! when the electorate sends equal numbers from each party to DC of course nothing gets done. This is something a child could grasp. What is wrong with you? Do you think SCOTUS appointments are similar from each party? Republicans were 100% against Obamacare and Stimulus. 1+1=2

There used to be a lot of moderates in both parties and things could get done. Those moderates are now pretty much gone, leaving only the far left and the far right. I, for one, long for more moderates in both parties instead of the two extremes so that we can get things done. I don't want either extreme to have full power and neither do a lot of others. That's why the electorate votes half and half.