About unemployment due to layoff of Federal Bureaucrats.....

[dorminWS]

......That would obviously be a GOOD thing.

I think we ought to start a letter writing/email campaign urging our legislators (especially our newly elected ones) to take certain immediate actions (a 10-point plan, if you will) required for the good of the country and its people:

(1) Impose a 10% real budget cut across the board for all parts of the Federal Government. No exceptions except Defense and Veterans Affairs - include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury,the EPA , and the Department of Justice ; all of said cuts to be made at the national or regional offices and not at local ones.
(2) All federal agencies to give their employees (ALL EMPLOYEES) one day's unpaid furlough per two week period.
(3) All beneficiaries of civilian federal health and retirement benefits to be signed up on a Bluc Cross/Blue Shield Key Care 15 or other commercially available plan.
(4) Departments of Health & Human Services, Energy, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, State, Transportation, Treasury, and and Environemtal Protection Agency to be cut between 25 and 50%. Leave them just enough money to perform their duties that are clearly delineated by Congress, but not enough to engage in any activity undertaken by agency fiat such as Administrative Rulemaking or pursuant to Executive Orders.
(5) Hold immediate Congressional Hearings into Department of Justice's selective enforcement of Voting Rights Act under Eric Holder
(6) Department of Homeland Security to be completely reorganized. Hire the Israelis to set up our Airport, seaport and border security.
(7) Give the United Nations 10 days' notice that the USA is pulling out, and won't be paying that 20+% of their budget or those tens of billions of dollars into their military budget.
(8) Give the United Nations 90 days' notice to get their nest of spies out of New York City and the USA.
(9) Require drug testing for welfare, subsidized housing and unemployment benefits. Allow payment of partial benefits if a person takes a temporary job at less than half of his/her former salary or wages. Cap total federal and state subsidies a person can receive at 40 times the minimum wage.
(10) Require Congress, before it passes any law or regulation, to file an economic impact state ment showing the impact on the economy. Require that any Act whose impact varies by more than 10% from what is predicted is rendered null and void, and cannot be re-passed without a 2/3s majority of both houses.

That would be an honest start at saving our heritage and our country.

[gunderwood]

1. It should include defense IMO. There are a great number of defense programs which are kept around only to spend money in certain districts. This gets to the root of the problem I have with flat cuts like the 10% you suggest. There are plenty of programs which provide significant value and are Constitutional. Why would I cut those 10% at the same time as I cut pork or unConstitutional programs? The same is true of defense. There are programs the Pentagon brass practically beg to shutdown, but aren't allowed because it is money and jobs for an important elected official. Why would I cut say body armor shipments to troops 10% and that other program 10%? Why not just cut the wasteful and unConstitutional spending. The real answer to that is because it is hard.

It is hard because it is viewed as unfair. When everyone has to cut 10%, there is less complaining because it is "fair." Furthermore, it is hard because to say I'm going to kill or significantly cut budget X and not budget Y and I'm doing it for the following reasons requires someone make a real decision...it requires real leaders. However, IMHO, it's the only way we will ever get spending under control again. As long as we are unwilling to make real cuts to wasteful or unConstitutional programs we really aren't interested in changing the status quo. Band-aids at best.

2. I don't like furloughs because they hide the real issues. A furlough makes it look like you solved the budget crisis, but you haven't because the workers weren't doing their work either. I.e. you didn't save money, you just delayed the work that must be done. Usually is creates a backlog of work, especially if it is more than a day, so future increases in government employee's are assured.

Make work schemes never work. I could throw several books your way explaining why they not only don't work, but are actually harmful the economy at large. While it isn't pretty, layoffs are a much better mechanism. I'm sure someone will cry foul, but it is true. The labor needs appropriated to a different market.

3. Agreed on principle. The Federal government should not be making promises to some citizens for future cuts of the tax revenue or making "unlimited" promises of benefits such as retirement and healthcare. If the plans are economically viable the force of government isn't needed to provide alternatives.

4. See #1. IMO, the right answer isn't what percentage, but rather what is Constitutional. Again, that requires difficult decisions and real leadership. In the extreme, some departments may not get cut at all, some may not exist at all. Blanket cutting requires no wisdom.

5. There are a lot more hearings that are needed besides just the voting. Whole administrative branches need called to account for their misdeeds. Got to start somewhere though, but I have not faith in Congress actually slapping their own hands which is what amnesty, voter fraud, etc. are all about. It is a game to them and they both "cheat" at it. Within limits both parties look the other way so as to not delegitimize themselves in the process.

6. Homeland Security is anything but what its name suggests. Yes, there are good parts of it, but for the most part it is just another bureaucracy looking to spend its money. Perhaps a more important question is what is the appropriate level of security which the government is Constitutional required to provide. E.g. there is a difference between "security" and the rule of law.

7. No complaints here except 10 days is too generous.

8. Same as #7; 90 days is too generous. If you have cancer you don't wait 90 days for treatment...

9. The government was never given power to require that of her citizens. That makes them subjects, not citizens just as much as gun registration does. Furthermore, the Constitution provides no such powers for the programs you are defending.

American's use to be a proud, self-sufficient and free people. Yes, life is never perfect, but no amount of government can provide it either. We use to be willing to die to preserve freedom, now we give it all up if some bureaucrat says they need it. We are sacrificing liberty for an illusionary security. The people who built this country and made it the greatest in the world were not interested in asking others to bear their risk, nor were they willing to give up liberty to reduce risk. They recognized that to be free required great responsibility on their individual part. US social policy can be summed up in one simple statement:

American's today are only interested in reducing their risk to the extent that they are willfully accepting a sophisticated form of slavery in exchange for the promise of safety.

The safety is illusionary though because what they are asking for can not be sustained, nor is there such a thing as life without risk...which is what safety implies and what our rulers promise us. A study of the laws of human action and social cooperation (praxeology) prohibit such a system from sustainment. In time it has no choice but to collapse.

10. They can not know this, it is impossible. The reason why is the same reason why centrally controlled economic systems always fail. The impact, as you define it, of any decision can not be known ahead of time. What we can say is that principles and the study of praxeology say we should organize society according to certain ideals if we wish it to succeed. American use to be founded around them, specifically the Constitution, but it is not anymore. I can build a model and estimate what you are asking, but the model is highly variable based on the assumptions. The most important part of a model or simulation is not the results, but rather the assumptions and methods. I'm certain I could make a model which shows that Obamacare will have a less than 10% impact as you require. People find a way around any petty regulation to do what the want.

However, that is exactly why we must first fix ourselves first. We the people are broken. We don't know what liberty and freedom are anymore. We don't know what it means to not fear the sword of government in every aspect of our lives. We gave government the sword to keep in check unethical behavior, but they have misused it and now dictate morally and trivial aspects of our everyday lives. The system won't be fixed by minor tweaks about term limits or arbitrary rules against earmarks or 10% impacts etc. It can and will only be fixed when we the people relearn the lessons of our forefathers and quit demanding the other guy sacrifice while we continue to receive the spoils of unchecked power.

Our system is broke because no system can check a immoral and unethical citizenry. Our Constitution was not made for such people, nor can liberty flourish in such a society.

We don't abide by the Constitution, what makes anyone think some new rule will fix it and we will honor it?

[zephyp]

I think there are better quicker ways to save money...however I agree with most of your 10 point plan

- eliminate all (all) foreign aid, grants, loans, etc immediately
- eliminate the department of education totally...give them 6 months if needed to get themselves out of states business
- Require drug testing and a physical for welfare and food stamp recipients, if they are physically able they work or no benefit no exceptions
- Require proof of citizenship for all government subsidized programs, not a citizen then no benefits no exceptions
- Implement a hiring freeze across all federal agencies until a 10% reduction is realized via attrition by retirement or voluntary separation
- eliminate fru fru departments like Public Endowment for the Arts, etc...
- Eliminate all social security payments except for those receiving retirement benefits based on 10 or more quarters
- Eliminate all medicare/medicaid support except for those who actually contributed via payroll deductions

Many many means to save money rather than axing the government...yes, alot of it is fat but lets start with the grossly obese stuff first...

For the record I and others here are federal employees and there are many contractors too. Most of us defense related. It doesnt bother me that there was no raise this year. What does bother me tremendously are the untrue talking points being propagated. Contrary to popular belief our salaries were not "ran up" over the last 2 years and we do not make 2-4 times more than our private counterparts. This is bull. Moreover, we have a retirement system which is based on age and length of service.

Some pundits would have you believe we can retire at age 50 with full benefits. Simply a lie. A maximum benefit for CSRS employees is 80% of their high 3 average. That percentage is based on 30 years service and is reduced 2% per year for every year you are under 62.

Moreover, some of us have real jobs and work hard. And, there is no comparison for what I do to that in private industry.

So, lots of myths, lies, and BS out there about us. I'm all for cutting the fat and BS out of our government but let us base it on facts - not patent falsehoods...

[gunderwood]

What does bother me tremendously are the untrue talking points being propagated. Contrary to popular belief our salaries were not "ran up" over the last 2 years and we do not make 2-4 times more than our private counterparts. This is bull.

Like most stats there is some truth to it. I noticed that they were comparing the average federal employee with the average American. Simply put, most federal jobs are in big city centers were the cost of living is much higher, while the average American is spread out. It really depends on the contractor and the required skills. I know of situations both ways. Honestly I think a lot of federal employee's are paid far more than they are worth. The private sector would not hire them on at their government wages because the private sector cares about performance, while the federal system is a lot about time served. However, there are definitely some who are paid sub-standard for their skills too, but that isn't the normal case.

Second, you must include your entire compensation. Just as CEOs can't claim they only make $100K a year because they get $100M in stock options, you must consider the whole cost. Once you do that federal employee's are paid rather nicely. The cost projections for those pensions and other benefits are always on the low end for government for budgetary reasons. They never want to admit just how much they really are going to cost.

IMHO, the problem is less about how much they are paid and more about the system which rewards time served and a benefits package which no private sector company would willfully consider because of the real costs. No, your paycheck you take home today probably is smaller than your private counterparts, but you will be collecting it for many more years than they will.

Moreover, some of us have real jobs and work hard. And, there is no comparison for what I do to that in private industry.

Some do, but most are just part of the bureaucratic system. Their job would never willfully exist in a private company because they bring no real value.

[zephyp]

Yeah right. My entire compensation. Is about 55% of my gross pay. And like any private company the government subsidizes part of my benefits. Here's a clue for ya...I converted from a contractor back to federal employee in 2005. The government was really nice. They matched my base pay but I took an ass kicking in loss of benefits. Why did I do it then...I wanted to be back in the inner circle.

Lets face it...federal employees are an easy target. Just like several years ago when the target was you couldnt give away a federal job because of the low pay. Only thing going for it then was job security. The problem was if you were a GS-12 you made the same amount of money no matter where you worked...Po Dunk Iowa or San Fransisco...Now we have a cola for where we live. Makes it kinda like working for private industry. An engineer in Po Dunk gets paid less that here in DC doing the same job...

And the "truth in the stats..." We all know that there is a little truth mixed in with a bunch of crap so it tastes better and sounds good to the public.

By the way Garrett...you're an engineer right...got a good education. If what the pundits say are true then why arent you working for the government. You'd be making 2-4 times more than what you are now. My highly educated guess is you work for a defense contractor and making waaaaay more than you ever could as a government engineer....with waaaaaay better benefits.

[Yarddawg]

I would like to see a comprehensive review of ALL governmental agencies and programs. If the agency/program has no Constitutional authority, it gets cut.

[zephyp]

I would like to see a comprehensive review of ALL governmental agencies and programs. If the agency/program has no Constitutional authority, it gets cut.

Yep and there are a whole bunch of those...like about 80% or more...

My Constitution says ...for the defense of the country and the general welfare of the citizens...welfare meaning things like basic infrastructure not food stamps and a welfare cadilac...

[Yarddawg]

I would like to see a comprehensive review of ALL governmental agencies and programs. If the agency/program has no Constitutional authority, it gets cut.

Yep and there are a whole bunch of those...like about 80% or more...

My Constitution says ...for the defense of the country and the general welfare of the citizens...welfare meaning things like basic infrastructure not food stamps and a welfare cadilac...

Exactly! We have allowed the government to expand to the bloated goat that it is today.

As a further check against this, any new bill, agency, or program would have to withstand the Constitutional test.

I like that the Republican party is planning to read the Constitution at the start of the next congressional session, however, if they do not take it to its next logical progression, what are they really going to accomplish?

[gunderwood]

Yeah right. My entire compensation. Is about 55% of my gross pay. And like any private company the government subsidizes part of my benefits.

Including the retirement benefits or not? That is a huge cost which private companies don't deal with anymore because that model is unsustainable for them. Now they give a limited amount to a special account. If I took out my retirement benefits (401k only), which I suspect you are doing to hit only 55% or at the very least a using a low ball estimate of the actual retirement costs the government will payout, it was only 40% of my gross pay. With retirement benefits it is closer to 50% and I have better benefits than most of the defense contractors I know.

By the way Garrett...you're an engineer right...got a good education. If what the pundits say are true then why arent you working for the government.

Because I'm not interested in what they are offering, not just in pay/benefits, but mostly in work. I can barely stand working as a contractor in that bureaucratic mess. Even if they offered me a 10% or 20% raise in pay over what I make now, plus the sweet government retirement benefits I wouldn't touch it. Not interested...unless we are talking like 10x. Most of the government employee's work is to navigate the bureaucracy, I'm just not interested in that.

Even as a contractor I hate the BS and have come close to leaving government work for good on more than one occasion. I like the group of people (mostly contractors, but certainly not all of them, and a few govees) I work with and I like the challenging work we do.

My highly educated guess is you work for a defense contractor and making waaaaay more than you ever could as a government engineer....with waaaaaay better benefits.

Yes, my small group makes waaaay more, but most of the contractors are closer to parity. Besides research labs, does the government even have any real engineers anymore? A degree does not make anyone qualified. I know people without a degree whom I would hire in an instant if I needed their skills and I know people who have several degrees that I wouldn't hire to mow my lawn.

I could go to the civilian market for a small pay cut for the type of work I do. There absolutely is a pay premium for anyone doing classified work, which is most of NOVA. I've looked into it and estimate I would loose about 10% to do so (assuming similar cost of living; i.e. it would be much more if I moved to Wyoming or something). The biggest problem for me would be convincing a non-government contractor that I'm worth what I'm asking for my labor since I can't tell them about anything I've done. That is a problem for my corporate group too though. We are all paid much more than the rest of our company, so when we don't win new bids it almost always is because of cost. Simply put you don't need the level of skill my company has put together in this small group (a good bit less than <100 including overhead employees) for most problems.

[gunderwood]

I would like to see a comprehensive review of ALL governmental agencies and programs. If the agency/program has no Constitutional authority, it gets cut.

Yep and there are a whole bunch of those...like about 80% or more...

My Constitution says ...for the defense of the country and the general welfare of the citizens...welfare meaning things like basic infrastructure not food stamps and a welfare cadilac...

Agreed.

[gunderwood]

@zephyp

I will go even so far as to say the government should pay more for some positions. My whole company existed (before we were bought out) because the government needed a certain level of skill for a very difficult problem, but had no pay structure to attract that level of talent. They get around it by hiring contractors, but certainly not all defense contractors are like that. IMHO a better way to do it would be to create a special government pay structure which allowed it. This way the decision making govee and the expert are the same person. Of course you would have to cut out the bureaucratic aspect of the job because a lot of people, myself included, just would find other employment if you didn't.

COLA is not enough. There are lots of paper pushing jobs that don't require anything more than a high school education, but they are the same GS level as a position that really needs something with several advanced degrees. The government structure doesn't account for that.

[zephyp]

@Garrett - the government structure doesnt account for alot but we must not take an axe to it...lots of obese fat as I mentioned where tons of money can be saved. Why no one goes after them is way beyond me. Guess its not sexy for the pundits to discuss. More controversy to go after employees.

And, if I wanted too I could take my education which is extensive and my clearance and sell myself to the highest bidder and make about 20% more than I do now...but I like to drive the bus and contractors dont do that at least directly...

[gunderwood]

Choosing a job is about more than money. There are jobs that pay much more than mine, but I don't want the work for one reason or another. I don't want to make my job navigating the bureaucracy, even if it means I get to drive the bus. Nor do I want a high risk job like coal mining, etc. Education is only one aspect which some jobs compensate your for.

A great amount of the bureaucracy exists because no one wants to make a decision so they put a process in place where everyone gets to object, but no one actually makes a decision. Decisions are made through indecision. There are many federal jobs who's only purpose is to push paper through those lengthy and useless processes which allow no one to get blamed if things go wrong.

I just watched it play out last month...again. Half a dozen govees in a meeting and no one can make a decision. Meeting after meeting of talk, but no work or analysis, etc. Just shooting down one idea after another because someone objects (usually because it would make them responsible for something). Finally, since there is no way for someone to not take responsibility, indecision decided that they should go off to their own little fiefdoms and work hard to prove it wasn't their fault. Basically they gave up until sometime in March. "Nothing can be done" was their battle cry! Several people, myself included, pointed out that wasn't true. There are well known ways of handling the problem, but it does require someone take responsibility and make a decision to execute it so that lasted 30 seconds.

The bureaucracy doesn't reward leadership or taking control of difficult problems, it only punishes mistakes. However, since it does reward time served the name of the game is to not get blamed for anything by avoiding making any real decisions.

Certainly not all federal employees are like that. I've known some very good ones, but usually the bureaucracy views them as a threat...

No, its about much more than the money...and those here that know me know I am a rebel and I do not play the game. I get things done. And this is primarily the reason I am only a senior GS and not an SES...regarding your meeting with the govies who cant make a decision...they may not be able to make a decision but smart guys like you get to watch from the sidelines and hamstrung knowing you can make that decision...I make hard decisions every day rather than play the game. Sometimes I get a pat on the head and sometimes I get butt kicked, but I'm not relegated to watching and I do get things done.

Its one thing to stand idly on the sidelines and call the "govies" morons while watching. Its entirely another to be one and actually have the guts to move things around while the "watchers" make more money with better benefits.

And while I'm at it...my guess is that most people throwing stones at something like DOD have never served in uniform or as a civilian...man up and do something for your country rather than spouting talking points for which you have no true experience or knowledge...

</rant>

[FatAndy]

I just watched it play out last month...again. Half a dozen govees in a meeting and no one can make a decision. Meeting after meeting of talk, but no work or analysis, etc. Just shooting down one idea after another because someone objects (usually because it would make them responsible for something).

I've been involved in software requirements meetings where 30+ bureaucrats were crammed into a room. It's extremely ineffective, but at least no single person can be help accountable for any of the decisions made.

[dorminWS]

I proposed my 10 points as a STARTING POINT; not an end point. I ,at least, am willing to assume that the cuts I proposed will have no real effect on what the govenment produces. This shouldn't be hard to swallow. The government doesn't produce ANYTHING except perhaps the tangible results of its defense effort. Anything that might have been beneficial that got lost to the meat-axe would be more than offset by the elimanation of suboptimal results of more typical government activity.

Defense should be looked at; but it shouldn't be cut with the meat-axe; but rather with a scalpel and only after careful analysis.

The activities I'm takling about conditioning on drug tests certainly were not contemplated by the founding fathers as legitimate acts of government; but the are certainly set in stone at this time as government programs. I don't defend them and I don't condone them. But it is just not reasonable to expect to completely eliminate then at this time. I therefore seek to first cut out the least deserving.

And YES, I can't believe i forgot the illegal immigrants. Only those whose presence in this contry is legally sanctioned should be afforded any government benefit of any kind.

As for the "economic impact" piece, My point is that it sets up an automatic challenge for any program that grows past what was contemplated. It just won't wash to sit here in a country that mandates how much water we use to flush our pot and say that the scope of government "cannot be regulated". Will the pro-government folks p!ss and moan and contest any rollback? Damn skippy they will. So what? It'll give the lawyers something to do that won't run up the cost of medical care.

And, OH YEAH, DEFUND OBAMAcare, institute real tort reform, and disolve medicare/medicaid. Let the private insurors insure the former medicare/medicaid clients and let the government pay their bills and maybe regualate the risk pool and underwriting practices. I could go on about health care insurance reform until there were no more electrons to type with..................

[zephyp]

Choosing a job is about more than money. There are jobs that pay much more than mine, but I don't want the work for one reason or another. I don't want to make my job navigating the bureaucracy, even if it means I get to drive the bus. Nor do I want a high risk job like coal mining, etc. Education is only one aspect which some jobs compensate your for.

A great amount of the bureaucracy exists because no one wants to make a decision so they put a process in place where everyone gets to object, but no one actually makes a decision. Decisions are made through indecision. There are many federal jobs who's only purpose is to push paper through those lengthy and useless processes which allow no one to get blamed if things go wrong.

I just watched it play out last month...again. Half a dozen govees in a meeting and no one can make a decision. Meeting after meeting of talk, but no work or analysis, etc. Just shooting down one idea after another because someone objects (usually because it would make them responsible for something). Finally, since there is no way for someone to not take responsibility, indecision decided that they should go off to their own little fiefdoms and work hard to prove it wasn't their fault. Basically they gave up until sometime in March. "Nothing can be done" was their battle cry! Several people, myself included, pointed out that wasn't true. There are well known ways of handling the problem, but it does require someone take responsibility and make a decision to execute it so that lasted 30 seconds.

The bureaucracy doesn't reward leadership or taking control of difficult problems, it only punishes mistakes. However, since it does reward time served the name of the game is to not get blamed for anything by avoiding making any real decisions.

Certainly not all federal employees are like that. I've known some very good ones, but usually the bureaucracy views them as a threat...

No, its about much more than the money...and those here that know me know I am a rebel and I do not play the game. I get things done. And this is primarily the reason I am only a senior GS and not an SES...regarding your meeting with the govies who cant make a decision...they may not be able to make a decision but smart guys like you get to watch from the sidelines and hamstrung knowing you can make that decision...I make hard decisions every day rather than play the game. Sometimes I get a pat on the head and sometimes I get butt kicked, but I'm not relegated to watching and I do get things done.

Its one thing to stand idly on the sidelines and call the "govies" morons while watching. Its entirely another to be one and actually have the guts to move things around while the "watchers" make more money with better benefits.

And while I'm at it...my guess is that most people throwing stones at something like DOD have never served in uniform or as a civilian...man up and do something for your country rather than spouting talking points for which you have no true experience or knowledge...

</rant>

My apologies...in trying to see through the fog of being ill with a cold and trying make my point I screwed up my post and Garrett's...

ENOUGH!!!

I'm going to take a break, quit multi-tasking and watch a movie...

Bye the way, the post above (second quote) supposedly Garrett's is mine...

[gunderwood]

Choosing a job is about more than money. There are jobs that pay much more than mine, but I don't want the work for one reason or another. I don't want to make my job navigating the bureaucracy, even if it means I get to drive the bus. Nor do I want a high risk job like coal mining, etc. Education is only one aspect which some jobs compensate your for.

A great amount of the bureaucracy exists because no one wants to make a decision so they put a process in place where everyone gets to object, but no one actually makes a decision. Decisions are made through indecision. There are many federal jobs who's only purpose is to push paper through those lengthy and useless processes which allow no one to get blamed if things go wrong.

I just watched it play out last month...again. Half a dozen govees in a meeting and no one can make a decision. Meeting after meeting of talk, but no work or analysis, etc. Just shooting down one idea after another because someone objects (usually because it would make them responsible for something). Finally, since there is no way for someone to not take responsibility, indecision decided that they should go off to their own little fiefdoms and work hard to prove it wasn't their fault. Basically they gave up until sometime in March. "Nothing can be done" was their battle cry! Several people, myself included, pointed out that wasn't true. There are well known ways of handling the problem, but it does require someone take responsibility and make a decision to execute it so that lasted 30 seconds.

The bureaucracy doesn't reward leadership or taking control of difficult problems, it only punishes mistakes. However, since it does reward time served the name of the game is to not get blamed for anything by avoiding making any real decisions.

Certainly not all federal employees are like that. I've known some very good ones, but usually the bureaucracy views them as a threat...

No, its about much more than the money...and those here that know me know I am a rebel and I do not play the game. I get things done. And this is primarily the reason I am only a senior GS and not an SES...regarding your meeting with the govies who cant make a decision...they may not be able to make a decision but smart guys like you get to watch from the sidelines and hamstrung knowing you can make that decision...I make hard decisions every day rather than play the game. Sometimes I get a pat on the head and sometimes I get butt kicked, but I'm not relegated to watching and I do get things done.

Its one thing to stand idly on the sidelines and call the "govies" morons while watching. Its entirely another to be one and actually have the guts to move things around while the "watchers" make more money with better benefits.

And while I'm at it...my guess is that most people throwing stones at something like DOD have never served in uniform or as a civilian...man up and do something for your country rather than spouting talking points for which you have no true experience or knowledge...

</rant>

I think I fixed it for you. Way to much power for you mods!

[KaosDad]

When I worked for the DoN in The Pentagon (as a contractor) it go to the point where we would have decision making meetings off site, after hours with only the Warrent invited. Got things done. Probably not legal in the long run, but in the end the CNO's IT department was the best!

[Kreutz]

Have to say cuts to transportation is a bad idea. Its already underfunded and our infrastructure really does suck, which drags the economy down overall.

They're all good ideas (and I'm a liberal), but they will NEVER happen. Even if they were all enacted TODAY its still the equivalent of spitting on a burning skyscraper to put it out. Not going to do a damn thing.

This country is broke, and the debt ceiling will just rise and rise until ? happens. Hell, with a fiat currency like ours, maybe it really could go into infinite, who knows?

[allingeneral]

Welfare Reform. It is my personal opinion that welfare is one of the biggest things killing our country economically and socially. People who rely upon welfare for years upon years, or their whole life...living in poor conditions, just because it's easier to do that than to work for a living and pull themselves out of the pit. Low income neighborhoods where lowlifes breed and create more lowlifes who are reliant upon the system...it's a never-ending circle that must be broken one way or another.

Drug testing as a requirement for benefits - Hell Yes! In the service, I was randomly drug tested no less than 15 times in 10 years of service. It was allowed because the government "Owned me". If you are living off of a government welfare paycheck, then the government owns you just as well, and random drug screenings should be required in order for anyone to begin receiving or continue to receive benefits.

Drug screening is just one step in the "Make sure you deserve benefits" scheme.

Anyone receiving welfare must PROVE that they are deserving due to physical or mental conditions or other extraneous circumstance. People with a decent brain and two arms, two legs, walking all over town stirring up trouble are more than capable of working for a living and should be forced to do so by rescinding government benefits if they cannot prove that they NEED them. So, along with drug testing, anyone receiving benefits must undergo a bi-annual or yearly physical examination.

I understand that times are tough right now and unemployment is a problem. You can continue to receive unemployment benefits as long as you can reliably show that you have made a concerted effort at finding work on a monthly basis.