Depressing Chart Is Depressing

[Boomhauer]

If you try to trim each department, you get the Washington Monument Defense. Tell Interior or Park Service to cut, and they'll cut their highest visibility and most essential services FIRST instead of LAST. "You have fifty billion tiny 'parks' that cumulatively cost a lot and serve no purpose. - You're right, so we'll shut down the Washington Monument, so idiots will clammer for you to halt any budget cuts!"

Speaking as someone who has worked for both the NPS and state park systems, the NPS should not even exist. My state, for example, runs 47 state parks. We could EASILY absorb the 7 national parks that are within this state into our system and run them, and do it far better. We run our park service with MUCH higher efficiencey than the NPS. Since most of the NPS funding comes from taxpayer dollars they don't care about wisely spending budgetary money. My state's park system gets as much as possible of it's funding from revenue generation and we are at something like 80% self sufficiency at this point. Completely different attitudes towards running parks than the NPS and it works better.

[RevDisk]

Speaking as someone who has worked for both the NPS and state park systems, the NPS should not even exist. My state, for example, runs 47 state parks. We could EASILY absorb the 7 national parks that are within this state into our system and run them, and do it far better. We run our park service with MUCH higher efficiencey than the NPS. Since most of the NPS funding comes from taxpayer dollars they don't care about wisely spending budgetary money. My state's park system gets as much as possible of it's funding from revenue generation and we are at something like 80% self sufficiency at this point. Completely different attitudes towards running parks than the NPS and it works better.

Plus it'd be nice not to hear of "NPS tactical teams", which is a serious WTF. Our game wardens are armed, but I've yet to hear of them doing helicopter commando raids. Aside issue is that our game wardens are claiming, and the courts have backed them up, that they have a legal right to trespass on nearly any private property that is not walled off.

[Tallpine]

Spending on "defense" isn't really the problem.

Spending on offense is a problem. 

[slingshot]

Cuts have to take place even if taxes are increased.  I would like to see the cuts first.  I also think that every department should be subject to actual budget cuts this year and then again next year and again the year after.

I would direct agency heads to make recommendations to cut 10% off their budget immediately and where precisely they would make the cuts based on their experience.  I would also tell them if they don't recommend cuts, they are subject to termination.

I would also look at cutting salaries somewhat.  What are these people going to do about it?  They will continue to work and hope that things get better in the future just like many of the rest of us.

[Ron]

The time has come to start taking the government off of baseline budgeting assumptions.

Freeze the Federal budget first.

Then start the process of using real world budgeting practices.

[Fitz]

The time has come to start taking the government off of baseline budgeting assumptions.

Freeze the Federal budget first.

Then start the process of using real world budgeting practices.

Yes

And stop the practice of "spend it or lose it"

I resist this as much as I can, and have cancelled purchases on many occasions.

[dogmush]

I would also look at cutting salaries somewhat.  What are these people going to do about it?  They will continue to work and hope that things get better in the future just like many of the rest of us.

At some point we'll look for other jobs or do other things. And we will take with us years of technical expertise not easily regained. Just like the rest of you. Except that the military will be less mission capable for it.

Don't get me wrong, my employer is running out of money and needs to make cuts. I understand that. Hell since I'm the one getting furloughed (probably) next month i probably have a better understanding then most. But try to remember some of your money actually pays for things and people that you actually want.

  and stop the practice of "spend it or lose it"

As a purcasing officer that spends more then $200k of your money per annum..... wurd.

[MechAg94]

Cuts have to take place even if taxes are increased.  I would like to see the cuts first.  I also think that every department should be subject to actual budget cuts this year and then again next year and again the year after.

I would direct agency heads to make recommendations to cut 10% off their budget immediately and where precisely they would make the cuts based on their experience.  I would also tell them if they don't recommend cuts, they are subject to termination.

I would also look at cutting salaries somewhat.  What are these people going to do about it?  They will continue to work and hope that things get better in the future just like many of the rest of us.

First, just tell them all to cut 10% exclusively off administration, middle management and up.  That number should likely be 25%.

[slingshot]

There will be some pain regardless.  It has to happen or the government is going to fail.  Try working in private industry.  The cuts would have happened years ago in private industry.  Years back, when I lost my job working for a company contracted with a Federal agency, I was at first indignant and felt I was worth what I was paid.  I passed up jobs paying 30% less that were offered even before I lost my government supported job.  I was looking for a higher paying job and believed at that time that I was well worth it.  Reality sets in when you burn through all your savings trying to maintain and finally you accept the job at a 30% reduction in pay and believe you're doing okay.  At that point, you're "fighting" to get the job at a 30% reduction because there are people willing to do it for less.  Tis the way it works.

The end result is I burnt through all of my savings.  I had nothing to fall back on.  The savings could not be replenished from the new job salary.  Time goes on and something else happens...  over time you prove yourself at the new job and eventually are again one of the guys making the highest salaries in the company and you get cut again to save money....  but the new job salary only generally increased at about the inflation rate... so you never recover and you're dead meat when the next cut happens.

All this happens as you age as well and eventually the age factor kicks in and you are not even considered for a new job because there are people half your age willing to work for what they consider is a good salary in private industry.  Few companies are going to hire a new employee for any significant position when they have less than 10 years of effective employment life left... they go with the younger person just about every time unless you have special talents.  This is life.

[seeker_two]

Instead of arguing about spending more or spending less, I'd rather see us argue about spending wisely.....

[Ron]

I would be happy if they froze spending at current levels and just adjusted SS at the published inflation rate they use to lie to us!

Congress would have to have oversight on where the cuts take place, no saving bureaucratic positions on the back of cutting services.

[MechAg94]

Instead of arguing about spending more or spending less, I'd rather see us argue about spending wisely.....

People (and govts) tend to spend more wisely when they have less to spend.