what would you cut?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

must be a fun place  i didn't know they allowed that  the idea of section 8 was to avoid creating a "project"

[KD5NRH]

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.

[sanglant]

it's, different.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[longeyes]

Is that Section 8 as in "mentally unfit?"

[Jamie B]

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

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[Jamie B]

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!

[Regolith]

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.

[dm1333]

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?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Absolutely! Good call!

upd et al don't want to do the dailry mail service to every house in the usa   guess why?

[longeyes]

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.)

[Jamisjockey]

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.

[longeyes]

The Iron Butterfly?

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Huh?

The process that brought us where we are today was mostly "amicable".  There is no reason we couldn't reverse that process amicably.

[longeyes]

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.

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.

[Jamisjockey]

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.

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. 

[longeyes]

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.

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[AZRedhawk44]

Nope, never been in the mil.

Okay, the 10 year versus new recruit is not completely accurate... but 10 year versus 1-2 year?

[dm1333]

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.

[KD5NRH]

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.

[Regolith]

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. 

[dm1333]

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.