Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 13, 2010, 09:35:56 PM
-
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/Web/2010/052010/youcut-cantor/index_html
-
That's a majestically wimpy site. Even if you cut all of these things, the deficit wouldn't even budge.
-
It's not about cuts, it's about amputation. Better a one-legged Republic than a gangrenous socialist slave-state.
-
Completely disband all Departments and all the the agencies that fall under them except for the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Treasury, and Interior. Implement a flat tax and reduce the size of the IRS to roughly 5-10% of its current size, and keep them only for the purpose of collecting the flat tax, nothing else. That would be a good start.
-
or get rid of the irs and let the states collect taxes like the founders intended.
-
The presidential election fund ($260 million over five years).
Tax-subsidized union activities ($600 million over five years).
HUD stipends for doctoral research ($1 million over five years).
Certain welfare spending to states ($2.5 billion a year).
Reducing the income cutoff for communities receiving community block grants ($2.6 billion over five years).
One-tenth of a good start. Others may argue, and insist that it's only 1/100th of a good start. Ah, but what's an order of magnitude between friends?
I think Congress' depth of understanding is that a quadrillion is just four rillions, a trillion is only three million, and a billion is only two.
Terry, 230,000,000,000,000,000RN
"A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." - Dirksen (paraquoted)
-
What you will need to cut is not the Federal government but that swath of the American people that cannot and will not do without its plenary presence buoying them up. And what percentage is that? The problem is the culture, not the government per se. Frankly, I think hopes of "reform" are otiose. More plausible is collapse.
-
How about cutting....
Presidential Election Fund
Taxpayer Subsidized Union
HUD
Welfare
Community Development Block Grant program
Congress
....completely and entirely?....
-
or get rid of the irs and let the states collect taxes like the founders intended.
Suppose one year California, New York, Texas, and Florida decided not to give any money to the Feds. Then the following year (insert superpower here) invaded. What you're describing is the system spelled out in the articles of Confederation. The Continental Army almost starved to death because of that.
Completely disband all Departments and all the the agencies that fall under them except for the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Treasury, and Interior. Implement a flat tax and reduce the size of the IRS to roughly 5-10% of its current size, and keep them only for the purpose of collectjavascript:void(0);ing the flat tax, nothing else. That would be a good start.
It seems that under your plan veterans would not be looked after (V.A.), states would not get federal money for their schools and have to massively increase property taxes (Dep of Ed), meat packing plants would not be inspected (Dep of Agriculture), the FDA would cease to exist (Dep of Health and Human Services), and the Coast Guard and Border Patrol would cease to exist (Homeland Security.) That's overkill.
Cutting out wasteful spending and programs is a noble thing. Our nation is very complex. The idea that the government can get away without dealing with the economy, consumer safety, and basic social welfare has been proved wrong by history.
As for the flat tax: I see no reason why those who make more money should not pay more. That said, taxing the rich excessively would cause massive income tax fraud and a loss of revenue. The flat tax would also cause a loss of revenue we can't afford (as would tax cuts). Remember, there is no right to not be taxed when you are still being represented.
-
You'll all ask for what I want cut, but I'll have to post that later.
-
But we want you to tell us NOW!!!
-
Interesting idea. The programs in question are all small enough (and stupid enough!) that a bit of public involvement may actually be able to sway the Democrat leadership to implement the cut.
-
That's overkill.
Nope, just a good start.
I see no reason why those who make more money should not pay more.
Under a flat tax, those that make more DO pay more. Because they make more. See how that works?
-
states would not get federal money for their schools and have to massively increase property taxes (Dep of Ed),
Dude.
Do you know when the Department of Education was created? 1979. I.E. America got along just fine without it for 203 years.
Its entire budget (as of 2009) comprises of 159.4 billion dollars, of which 90 billion are emergency funding related to the recovery attempts. Before the economic 'crisis', the budget was about 70 billion. State and private spending on education composes 902 billion dollars. The state governments could not get on without these 70 billion? Really?
The idea that the government can get away without dealing with the economy, consumer safety, and basic social welfare has been proved wrong by history.
False dichotomy.
The Federal Government is not the only level of government existing in the United States. State governments and private individuals dealt with consumer safety and a degree of social welfare since 1776. There's never been - unlike what some people think - a reality where the poor and indigent starved in the streets willy-nilly. There had always been mechanisms, private or public, of dealing with the truly poor.
-
Dude.
Do you know when the Department of Education was created? 1979. I.E. America got along just fine without it for 203 years.
And DHS didn't exist until 2001. That could also be cut without a problem; just fold its various sub-agencies back into the departments they existed under before (Coast Guard back into DoD, border patrol back under the Justice Dept(?), ATF back into treasury [or disband entirely, which is my preferred solution to that particular entity], etc).
Quite frankly, it seems to me that all the DHS did was, instead of cutting through bureaucratic turf wars like it was designed to do, just created another layer of it.
Ragnar's list of cabinet departments is pretty close to the ones I'd keep as well. The rest are pretty much just money sinks.
-
Cutting "non-essential" departments is a facile theoretical exercise. Imagining a Republic with the leadership and voting constituency to cut ANYTHING substantive is the task at hand. How do we get THERE?
As we post Obama is encouraging a massive bail-out of "at-risk" public school teachers--aka Obama voters--and again stepping into a realm that is none of the Federal government's business.
To get back to a society where it's not okay to write blank checks that are bound to "bounce" down the road is about more than just politics and electioneering. Someone write that roadmap.
-
longeyes, I'm afraid what I think is on our horizon before we get to that point will probably get me a few tin foil hat smilies. To be completely and totally honest, I think that before our nation can get to the point where the vast majority of people really care about self-sufficiency, individual liberty, and justice, we're gonna go through some very dark times. And I don't mean "double digit unemployment" and low stock market numbers dark times. I mean cars burning in the streets and looting on a national scale dark times.
-
Ragnar, you will get no arguments from me. There is a phase in the transition from caterpillar to butterfly when the organism de-constitutes itself genetically. I suspect we are on the verge of that kind of convulsive historical period.
-
Coast Guard back into DoD,
Coast Guard back into DOT, not DOD! The Navy doesn't want us there, we make them look bad! [popcorn]
-
What you will need to cut is not the Federal government but that swath of the American people that cannot and will not do without its plenary presence buoying them up. And what percentage is that? The problem is the culture, not the government per se. Frankly, I think hopes of "reform" are otiose. More plausible is collapse.
otiose? Looked it up and like it, hurray a new word to use!
Good word, thanks!
(Ron likes words :P )
-
Coast Guard back into DOT, not DOD! The Navy doesn't want us there, we make them look bad! [popcorn]
You guys still have a height requirement so if your boat sinks you can wade back to shore? =D
After seeing the treatment of some HUD homes and hearing the horror stories, I think I'd cut that program first. Then again, I'd probably cut the bulk of the social/welfare programs and others things such as foreign aid, and a major overhaul of the military procurement system.
-
what have you seen with hud homes?
-
what have you seen with hud homes?
Gross disrepair and destruction in short order (months) upon occupation of the residence to the point that the structure is no longer habitable and the HUD program being left to expend tens of thousands of dollars more to repair the structure after the occupants leave.
-
what hud program is that?
-
Gross disrepair and destruction in short order (months) upon occupation of the residence to the point that the structure is no longer habitable and the HUD program being left to expend tens of thousands of dollars more to repair the structure after the occupants leave.
I saw the same fairly often when I worked pest control; filthy house, holes and stains in the drywall, (sometimes not much drywall left if the drug task force had been in before us) burns and stains in the carpet, appliances ripped out, trash everywhere, and yet there was a clean spot where the entertainment center had been. Usually at that point, the housing agency was paying for us to come out and kill off enough roaches and rats for the remodeling crews to come in.
Often, these houses had started out quite a bit nicer than mine. It's quite a testament to the skill of the remodeling crews that they didn't just mysteriously burn down, and actually looked habitable after a couple of weeks' work.
-
what hud program was it?
-
The HUD homes I've personally seen/been inside were in Montana, Colorado and Oregon.
ETA: Though I've also seen some of the worse parts of Virginia as well, I can't assert if those were also HUD subsidized homes or not.
-
hud has a variety of programs were they foreclosed fha homes? section 8 homes?
-
hud has a variety of programs were they foreclosed fha homes? section 8 homes?
I'll have to get a hold of PTK and see if he still has the info sheets from the homes in MT (the most recent I've looked at) for that info. I just scratched those right off the potential purchase list after seeing the condition so I didn't keep the sheets for myself.
ETA: Got that info - Section 8.
-
hud has a variety of programs were they foreclosed fha homes? section 8 homes?
How is it relevant which acronym they were filed under?
-
most curious. how familiar you with how section 8 works? is it your belief/contention that the gov was paying for fixing a section 8 property?
-
I saw the same fairly often when I worked pest control; filthy house, holes and stains in the drywall, (sometimes not much drywall left if the drug task force had been in before us) burns and stains in the carpet, appliances ripped out, trash everywhere, and yet there was a clean spot where the entertainment center had been. Usually at that point, the housing agency was paying for us to come out and kill off enough roaches and rats for the remodeling crews to come in.
Often, these houses had started out quite a bit nicer than mine. It's quite a testament to the skill of the remodeling crews that they didn't just mysteriously burn down, and actually looked habitable after a couple of weeks' work.
what type of program were these in?
-
I saw the same fairly often when I worked pest control; filthy house, holes and stains in the drywall, (sometimes not much drywall left if the drug task force had been in before us) burns and stains in the carpet, appliances ripped out, trash everywhere, and yet there was a clean spot where the entertainment center had been. Usually at that point, the housing agency was paying for us to come out and kill off enough roaches and rats for the remodeling crews to come in.
Often, these houses had started out quite a bit nicer than mine. It's quite a testament to the skill of the remodeling crews that they didn't just mysteriously burn down, and actually looked habitable after a couple of weeks' work.
That seems to be a common theme. I used to deliver pizzas, and as such could often see inside someone's house from the front door. It seems that the worse the neighborhood, and the more run down the house, the better entertainment center or car the family owned. It was not uncommon to deliver to section 8 housing only to see babies crawling around piles of beer and liquor bottles, trash, old McDonalds, doors falling off the hinges, stains on the ground, drywall ripped out of the wall, and an odor of cigarettes and rotten food pouring out the door. And then a 42" plasma TV in the living room, all 3 next-gen consoles, and a Cadillac in the driveway.
-
That seems to be a common theme. I used to deliver pizzas, and as such could often see inside someone's house from the front door. It seems that the worse the neighborhood, and the more run down the house, the better entertainment center or car the family owned.
One of the first pest control calls I assisted on was at the tech's least favorite house; we put on the full chemical gear outside, then went in and did a standard-but heavy treatment, which normally requires no PPE other than normal clothing.
Puppy farm, poop everywhere, holes in the walls, dead puppies in various states of decay in the kitchen and utility room, food rotting in the bedroom, beer bottles full of cigarette butts on every flat surface, brand new big screen TV, state-of-the-art computer with a >21" flatscreen, latest game consoles. The owner was grumbling about how our fee was going to clean him out because the "damn gubmint ain't got this month's check to me yet."
-
....and it's because of people like that, that I currently 100% refuse to get HUD assistance, even though I am more than eligible because of very little income and extensive health issues. =|
-
That seems to be a common theme. I used to deliver pizzas, and as such could often see inside someone's house from the front door. It seems that the worse the neighborhood, and the more run down the house, the better entertainment center or car the family owned. It was not uncommon to deliver to section 8 housing only to see babies crawling around piles of beer and liquor bottles, trash, old McDonalds, doors falling off the hinges, stains on the ground, drywall ripped out of the wall, and an odor of cigarettes and rotten food pouring out the door. And then a 42" plasma TV in the living room, all 3 next-gen consoles, and a Cadillac in the driveway.
how were you able to tell the section 8 homes from the others?
-
I wish HUD assistance weren't so widely abused. It makes people who actually need it rather hesitant to apply, in my experience, and in my personal opinion.
Sorry to be basically restating that, I'm just so damn frustrated about this issue. :(
-
since the squirrel hasn't maybe you could answer for him?
most curious. how familiar you with how section 8 works? is it your belief/contention that the gov was paying for fixing a section 8 property?
-
Familiar enough, in that I worked for a large firm that accepted vouchers for their apartments. As for government, etc. paying for anything maintenance-related, I have no idea. I just fixed the places up after they were torn to bits, which happened all the damn time. Disgusting, overall. :(
-
really? and why did your complex allow that? who was dropping the ball?
and i can take that as a no for the gov picking up the tab for fixing stuff? that would seem to be at odds with some others impression
-
Why does ANY business "allow" crime? You've lost me entirely.
-
i hear a lot about "section 8" from folks who make me wonder if their understanding overlaps reality . i've lil experience in multi family dwellings but a fair amount with rental homes and my experiences are not lining up with some folks rants. in fact some of the rants make my bs meter go off. i think folks have a mental image of how they believe things work and then don't inconvenience themselves with looking at the reality. lots of reasons for that some benign some not so
-
Well, please explain what I saw, then. I saw HUD housing, paid for via tax money, being trashed time and again by subsequent tenants (who were then stripped of their HUD benefits).
You can't say I didn't see that. I didn't imagine it. I've seen it all over the country, everywhere I've worked or lived. Mind, I'm not saying that every single HUD beneficiary trashes every single home, just that it's shockingly and disturbingly common. :(
-
so they were stripped of their benefits? that is more typical in my world. one of the myths i hear often is that they do it over and over. you can lose your benefits pretty easily. i've seen em taken when a boy moved in for a while to assist momma after surgery. he stayed past the number of days allocated for a visit and they tried to take moms benefits and boot her. the tenants i've has that were section 8 were very concerned about not losing there voucher. they were less trouble on the whole than my regular tenants. i was surprised, you see i'f heard the regular line about section 8 and i had low expectations for them. a section 8 tenant is subject to much more monitoring and control than a "plain" tenant.as much as it pains me much of the trouble with section 8 that i run into is a result of the slumlords who have leaned how to game the system. they buy garbage maintain it a hair above code take anyone with a pulse as tenants and then don't monitor their properties or maintain em. then they do a pretend flip and start over again. lots of money made. my biggest gripe about section 8 is when the wrong folks get it. you know how i see that happen? social workers/enablers. they act like they get commission for getting folks vouchers and in many cases ultimately they do their client a disservice. they mean well do much harm. lifes hard its supposed to be sometimes, you are supposed to work and struggle to succeed. they seem to feel that amounts to social injustice . i had a young man i counseled that had some issues. he struggled but he got better lil by lil and was proud of that. and he shoulda been that kinda change and achievement is what its all about. enter the social worker. she helped him get section 8 and his own apt. prior to her help he lived in a group home with 6 or 7 other guys who were also in recovery and they treated him like a lil brother. he thrived in that environment. he worked and did what he was supposed to do. this all happened during a window in his life when he was sans social worker after he was sexually exploited by the person supposed to be helping him. this kid had a social worker since birth and the quality , or lack thereof, of his life reflects in part their work. as soon as the system returned to rescue him his life went to heck again. the system made him worthless by rewarding worthless behavior and telling him nothin was his fault. i've not seen that as much in section 8 when its run right, and to run right the landlord needs to be involved many of them just game the system
-
....when its run right,
There's the rub.
So how much of HUD's $30,000,000,000 is wasted by those gaming the system, both landlord/worker and tenant?
-
hard number to uncover take a look at some places like dc and you will not be happy. but on the other hand how many folks own houses today who otherwise might not? that first time homebuyer worked well for myself and many others
-
First-time home buyers reached the highest market share on record during the past year, according to the latest consumer survey of home buyers and sellers. The study was released here today at the 2009 REALTORS® Conference & Expo.
The 2009 National Association of Realtors® Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers is the latest in a series of large national NAR surveys evaluating demographics, preferences, marketing and experiences of recent home buyers and sellers. Among national surveys, NAR’s Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers is unprecedented in size and scope.
Paul Bishop, NAR vice president of research, said several factors have been at play. “Tax incentives, record high affordability conditions and a pent-up demand brought a record share of first-time home buyers into the market,” he said. “These buyers are critical to housing and a general economic recovery because the market always heals from the bottom up – they absorb inventory, free existing owners to make a trade and stimulate related goods and services.”
The number of first-time home buyers rose to 47 percent of all home sales from 41 percent of transactions in last year’s study, and was the highest on record dating back to 1981. The previous high was 44 percent in 1991. “It’s interesting to note the last cyclical peak of first-time home buyers was during the last noteworthy economic downturn, with first-time buyers starting the chain reaction that led the nation out of recession,” Bishop said.
The profile shows the median age of first-time buyers was 30 and the median income was $61,600. The typical first-time buyer purchased a home costing $156,000, down from $165,000 in the 2008 study, and plans to stay in that home for 10 years.
Fifty-five percent of entry level buyers reported they financed their purchase with an FHA loan, while another 8 percent used the VA loan program.
First-time buyers who made a downpayment used a variety of sources: 61 percent used savings and 22 percent received a gift from a friend or relative, typically from their parents. Six percent received a loan from a relative or friend, 6 percent tapped into a 401(k) fund, and 6 percent sold stocks or bonds. Ninety-six percent chose a fixed-rate mortgage.
First-time buyers often make financial sacrifices to purchase a home: 39 percent cut spending on luxury items, 38 percent cut back on entertainment and 30 percent cut spending on clothes.
Only 12 percent said financing their first home was more difficult than expected, but 13 percent of successful buyers said they had experienced a purchase agreement that was canceled, terminated or fell through; and 8 percent had been rejected by a lender. “This raises the question of how many potential buyers were unsuccessful because of problems with appraisals or loan qualifications,” Bishop said. “The market would be even stronger without these problems.”
-
how were you able to tell the section 8 homes from the others?
in NC there in a complex(apartments) with a sign out front. :facepalm:
-
the whole complex is section 8?! or the sign says they accept section 8?
-
the whole complex.
-
must be a fun place i didn't know they allowed that the idea of section 8 was to avoid creating a "project"
-
must be a fun place i didn't know they allowed that the idea of section 8 was to avoid creating a "project"
That's exactly what they did here, too. It's giving the college's off-campus housing a real run for the "most arrests in a single block" title.
-
it's, different.
-
apparently hud has
'project based " section 8 housing. you can get financing to build a project. that does blow. not sure its worse than student apts though
-
Is that Section 8 as in "mentally unfit?" =D
-
OK, I'll play
All federal workers immediate wage freeze.
Immediate federal hiring freeze.
All federal departments 25% budget cut, across the board, no exceptions.
Just a start.
Jamie
-
I own my house now due to HUD, but I bought it purely to get what I figure to be a rightfully earned tax refund anyways. Another $6700 (I was only partly eligible for the $8000 credit) made my tax burden less last year, and the mortgage interest will make my tax burden less next year.
I probably would not have bought this year, if the tax credit was not available. No big deal, I would have qualified with/without it and would have been just fine renting a house instead of buying... I basically raped the system for one of "us" instead of "them" this time.
I'd cut HUD, even if it meant cutting it last year and I didn't get my big tax rebate. Entirely.
I'd cut DOE, entirely, too. And DHS. And scale back HHS quite a bit, too, so it was pretty much just the CDC and maybe the FDA, but no more "human services." I'd whack the FCC across the pee-pee, also. It's going down the "march of dimes" path where it has outlived its usefulness and now needs to morph and attempt to assert authority over the internet, which needs no "communication commission" moderation since everything you do on the internet is a request-oriented form of traffic rather than broadcast bombardment.
I'd eliminate government pensions entirely. And forbid more than 10 years of service in a federal position. Excluding officers in the Armed Services, only.
I'd scale back the DOT so that it was merely half a dozen lawyers and transportation engineers that worked with the AG to force States to work intelligently together to make their own road systems gel together, rather than being a rat-trap of pork-bloat opportunities.
I'd spin off the Post Office just like the CMP has been spun off. Let it sink or swim on its own. And give UPS/FedEx/DHL/etc the opportunity to compete directly against them for regular post business.
-
I'd spin off the Post Office just like the CMP has been spun off. Let it sink or swim on its own. And give UPS/FedEx/DHL/etc the opportunity to compete directly against them for regular post business.
Absolutely! Good call!
-
I'd eliminate government pensions entirely. And forbid more than 10 years of service in a federal position. Excluding officers in the Armed Services, only.
Just curious, but why spare the armed forces? If it's for the reason I think it is (experienced officers being more effective), why do you think that the same doesn't apply to civilian federal employees? You'd be essentially making sure every federal employee is an amateur. I can't see that making things better at all.
Better to just cut the do-nothing positions that are simply a waste of tax dollars, and make it easier to fire layabouts.
-
I'd eliminate government pensions entirely. And forbid more than 10 years of service in a federal position. Excluding officers in the Armed Services, only.
Actually, with the way this reads us poor enlisted folk don't get a pension. What about the Border Patrol and Customs? Do you let go agents at ten years and let them take their experience elsewheres?
-
Absolutely! Good call!
upd et al don't want to do the dailry mail service to every house in the usa guess why?
-
OK, I'll play
All federal workers immediate wage freeze.
Immediate federal hiring freeze.
All federal departments 25% budget cut, across the board, no exceptions.
Just a start.
Jamie
Or: Mandate total salary and benefits for Federal workers to no more than the average for private sector workers. (Right now that's about 50 per cent less.)
-
Ragnar, you will get no arguments from me. There is a phase in the transition from caterpillar to butterfly when the organism de-constitutes itself genetically. I suspect we are on the verge of that kind of convulsive historical period.
Don't wish too hard for that phase, as it may be the final death knell of the republic, and we very well likely may emerge a social dictatorship.
-
The Iron Butterfly? =D
I'm not wishing for it, just observing what may be its inevitable playing-out. The idea that things get resolved positively and amicably is another of those "liberal" ideas that do not bear historical scrutiny. Convulsion is the rule, not the exception.
-
Huh?
The process that brought us where we are today was mostly "amicable". There is no reason we couldn't reverse that process amicably.
-
Yes, if you subtract the Revolutionary War and The Civil War and the rambunctious settling of the West and the hurly-burly of the industrialization and two World Wars you are most certainly right. Just sweetness and light, the lot of it. =D
We didn't get here from the days of the Magna Carta and on through The Enlightenment by sidestepping conflict.
There IS a reason we can't just snap our fingers and resolve our current issues amicably, and that is the fact that we radically disagree about many fundamental things and see our respective survivals at stake. I don't know where amity comes into it historically.
-
Yes, if you subtract the Revolutionary War and The Civil War and the rambunctious settling of the West and the hurly-burly of the industrialization and two World Wars you are most certainly right. Just sweetness and light, the lot of it. =D
We didn't get here from the days of the Magna Carta and on through The Enlightenment by sidestepping conflict.
There IS a reason we can't just snap our fingers and resolve our current issues amicably, and that is the fact that we radically disagree about many fundamental things and see our respective survivals at stake. I don't know where amity comes into it historically.
I think the left finally found the biggest wedge issue of our time in the Immigration debate. I don't expect that one to be settled amicably.
-
I agree with you, but it's not really about immigration, it's about IDENTITY and national VALUES and the redistribution of wealth. Immigration is just the tip of the spear.
Illegal immigration is about theft, theft of our identity and of our treasure. Assimilation means Becoming One of Us, anything else means you're a stranger who can't be trusted. Without trust there's no society. This is all visceral, deeply so, and Americans will not be talked out of it, not even by the silver-tongued pretender to the Presidency.
-
Just curious, but why spare the armed forces? If it's for the reason I think it is (experienced officers being more effective), why do you think that the same doesn't apply to civilian federal employees? You'd be essentially making sure every federal employee is an amateur. I can't see that making things better at all.
Better to just cut the do-nothing positions that are simply a waste of tax dollars, and make it easier to fire layabouts.
I'd be discouraging the concept that social and bureaucratic jobs are safe places to work for the rest of your days, that you can't ever be fired, and that your job is 100% guaranteed forever onward. Any bumps caused by the incompetence of inexperience are more than made up for in the reduction of incompetence due to laziness and self protectionism.
Actually, with the way this reads us poor enlisted folk don't get a pension. What about the Border Patrol and Customs? Do you let go agents at ten years and let them take their experience elsewheres?
Yep.
Can you present an argument to the American people that a 10 year enlisted veteran can do something that a new recruit can't?
I'll probably get jumped on for this stance, on this forum... but our budget is long past gentle correction. I thought long and hard about the officers, too. I don't want a 30 year old 4-star general, though. Nor do I want inexperienced pilots in charge of expensive air craft and/or extremely hazardous cargo.
At the enlisted level, the experience is valuable, to a point. After awhile, you get "institutionalized thought" just like any other bureaucracy. There are inefficient and lazy parts of the Army, just like the IRS or other bureaucracies. Younger people tend to make more mistakes... but they do their work faster and with greater enthusiasm, on average.
The number of sensitive systems that DEMAND the attention of an enlisted man with more than 10 years service in the Army pales alongside the number of sensitive systems that DEMAND the attention of an officer.
Those of you pointing to vehicle maintenance... you might have a point. But then, I'd suggest that vehicle maintenance can be done by someone entering the armed services at age 30 after working on a factory floor for 10 years, learning to build the machines when they were new.
I'll admit it is an unpopular and different way of thinking about government... but the Army was never meant to be a long term lifestyle, complete with pension and lifelong medical care, by the founders of this country.
Anyone injured in service I do not begrudge them health care at all. But, guys who did 20 years peacetime service and leave with 1 pension to go and get another government job and start earning a second pension, while retaining their TriCare, really irk me.
-
Can you present an argument to the American people that a 10 year enlisted veteran can do something that a new recruit can't?
You've pretty obviously never been in .mil have you? I'm not mad at you, but you're laughably wrong.
-
Nope, never been in the mil.
Okay, the 10 year versus new recruit is not completely accurate... but 10 year versus 1-2 year?
-
Yep.
Can you present an argument to the American people that a 10 year enlisted veteran can do something that a new recruit can't?
Sure. I'm a Surfman, BMCS(E-8) and Officer in Charge of a Station in the Coast Guard. I have just about 20 years of active duty and another 6 years of reserve time. Most of that is in the Coast Guard but I also served in the Navy and the Army Reserve. Depending on whether a Seaman or Fireman goes to "A" school or strikes the rate of Boatswains Mate it takes anywhere from 1 to 3 years to become a BM3(E-4) in the Coast Guard. It takes about 1 month to certify them as a watchstander, 6 months after that to certify them as crewman on the two boat types we have, and another month after that to certify as a Boarding Team Member. Once that person gets certified as a crewman they start breaking in as a Coxswain, the driver of the boat. That will take six months to a year. After that they start breaking in as a Heavy Weather Coxswain and then as a Surfman. It took me from 1994 to 1999 to get certified as a Surfman, with some time off for an injury. Right now it takes anywhere from 5 to 6 years to certify a Surfman.
In addition to all of the experience that person is gaining driving a boat in heavy weather, they are also gaining experience with training and leading the crewmen and engineers on the boat. They are learning to maintain, repair and inspect the boats so that they are ready for sea. They are learning the training program, how to procure supplies, going to school to become a Boarding Officer and enforce all of the federal laws and regulations that we have to enforce. All of that is directed towards preparing that BM to become the Officer in Charge (OIC) of a station or cutter.
Enlisted people get called OIC to differentiate us from a Commanding Officer but the responsibilities are the same. At the ten year mark most BM's are just getting to the point where they have both the technical expertise and the leadership to pass their Officer in Charge Review Board, screen successfully for a command, and then take command of a unit. My OIC review board was two hours long. There were seven or eight people sitting on the board ranging from Master Chiefs, Warrant Officers, a civilian employee, and a Captain (O-6).
During that board they fired question after question at me for about two hours straight on everything from SAR policy, General Salvage policy, training programs, galley management, policies such as sexual harrassment, DADT, Tuition Assistance, maintenance of the boats and stations, how to deal with personnel issues such as rape, sexual assault, drug or alcohol problems, etc. etc.
My board was pretty short because I did well. The board can go up to three hours. The success rate for the boards is pretty low, very few people pass the Sector or Group pre board and then pass the District Board on the first try. Somebody with one or two years in the Coast Guard couldn't possibly answer any of those questions or have a good working knowledge of all of those programs. I also bring a lot more knowledge and experience to my job than an officer would ever be able to, because they have not been driving small boats for their whole career. That isn't a dig at officers in the Guard, we just have different jobs. I also happen to be cheaper to pay, train and feed than commissioned officers.
If I were to leave the Coast Guard today and go to work as a commercial salvor or take my expertise and go to a company like Sea Ark or SAFE Boat I could expect a pretty substantial payraise. Go to work as a cop because of my law enforcement experience? My pay would be about the same as now with the potential for a lot more earnings. I can only advance one more time in the Coast Guard so my pay is pretty close to being maxed out right now. If the Coast Guard were to discharge every enlisted person who had more than 10 years service we would come to a grinding halt. If we tried to contract that work out? Good luck on keeping your costs down. Try getting Sea Tow or Tow Boat US to come out in the weather that we go out in. Not to mention the chances of contracting out jobs like Rescue Swimmer in a helo, diver, etc.
I haven't even touched on the knowledge of our Machinery Technicians (MK) and all of the stuff that they know about the boats, engines, PMS, and the fact that most of them are great boatcrewman because of the experience they have. I know plenty of MKs who left the Coast Guard and went to work for Detroit Diesel, Honda, Cummins or Paxman facilities and started earning some serious cash.
I have also worked closely with the Border Patrol in the past. Border Patrol Agents are pretty damn impressive with the knowledge and professionalism that I have seen them demonstrate, but that all comes from experience. Some of them have been stationed in the same area for 8 or 10 years and know those places like the back of their hand. They are the ones who pass that knowledge on to the newer agents. If they were let go all that experience would be going with them. Same thing with Customs. I would bet that most of the LEO's on here would echo what I am saying about both of those agencies.
-
Can you present an argument to the American people that a 10 year enlisted veteran can do something that a new recruit can't?
Get promoted to any of the highest enlisted ranks, for starters. There's a reason for E-8 and E-9s, and you want somebody in there who's been in for a long time, and will continue for a long time.
-
I'd be discouraging the concept that social and bureaucratic jobs are safe places to work for the rest of your days, that you can't ever be fired, and that your job is 100% guaranteed forever onward. Any bumps caused by the incompetence of inexperience are more than made up for in the reduction of incompetence due to laziness and self protectionism.
Not really. What you would be doing is getting rid of the most experienced and most efficient employees just as they start getting really good at their job. I would say overall costs would actually go up, due to inefficiencies generated by having a relatively inexperienced workforce, as well as all the man hours spent hiring replacements. Not to mention the fact that you're going to have a harder time hiring anyone at all because of severely decreased job security. Highly educated people will avoid public service because they can't make a career out of it, and you'll end up hiring the least educated and the least motivated.
Like I said, it'd be far easier to accomplish your goal if you simply make it easier to fire layabouts and non-performers.
-
Like I said, it'd be far easier to accomplish your goal if you simply make it easier to fire layabouts and non-performers
This is the problem with teachers unions. I think in this case (teachers) a union is a necessary evil but they have grown too powerful. Look at the situation in the Washington, D.C. school system and the problems that Michelle Rhee has been trying to confront, and the road blocks that the teachers union has thrown in her path. If I remember correctly the head of the union was convicted of embezzling money from the union and spending it on china and silverware. It may have been a former head of the union who has since been fired. Again, subject to my faulty memory, teachers in D.C. have been getting tenure at the two year mark. As far as I am concerned at two years they are still learning their job and should be subject to scrutiny up until at least 5 or 10 years. I wrote a lot more about this subject but deleted it. Suffice it to say that I am taking classes in education to get ready for a second career and I get a little fired up about the issue.
If it were up to me there would be a freeze on the federal budget followed by a review of every single part of the fed gov and a plant to cut costs, programs, and even people if necessary. Raises for federal employees and military members? Not right now. I think most of us in the military would agree to that, we are here to serve the nation and taking a pay raise right now (vs. me advancing to E-9 and getting a new pay scale) would make me feel slimy. If there was a way for me to turn down any raise during the next fiscal year I would. I would do everything in my power to cut costs and avoid raising taxes.
Some federal agencies wouldn't feel much pain at all. The Border Patrol is one, for example. Some would disappear. The BATFE is one example. New entitlement programs like health care? Gone. I would also pass a law (or amend the Constitution) requiring that the budget be balanced every year and that if there is a deficit that immediate steps be taken to get rid of the deficit. One thing I would throw money at is a comprehensive energy program that will help wean us off of foreign oil. You can all start in on me right now.
If there is one thing I would subsidize or put more money into it would be making us energy independant. That includes nuclear power, wind, solar, clean coal - including the company in Linden, N.J. that seems to have made a lot of progress towards really reducing carbon emissions and other nasty byproducts that come from burning coal, more drilling here in the U.S., figuring out how we can safely and cleanly use shale oil, and the biggest of all, alternative fuels from algae, photosynthesis, etc. Money going overseas to help prop up Hugo Chavez or others? Gone. Would I still buy oil from Canuckistan? Yup. Mexico? Not until they address the border issue. After that, sure.
You guys can now start laughing and taking pot shots at my ideas now and AZRedhawk can thank me for taking the spotlight off of him for now. :laugh:
-
I'd be discouraging the concept that social and bureaucratic jobs are safe places to work for the rest of your days, that you can't ever be fired, and that your job is 100% guaranteed forever onward. Any bumps caused by the incompetence of inexperience are more than made up for in the reduction of incompetence due to laziness and self protectionism.
Yep.
Can you present an argument to the American people that a 10 year enlisted veteran can do something that a new recruit can't?
Sure.
I was a better operator of the nuclear reactors onboard the TR at the end of my enlistment than I was upon arriving onboard the ship. Heck, even after qualifying onboard ship.
In technically-complex matters, of which there are a multitude in the military, experience matters.
-
I would also pass a law (or amend the Constitution) requiring that the budget be balanced every year and that if there is a deficit that immediate steps be taken to get rid of the deficit.
Make the members of Congress responsible for the most spending work off the debt.