Cost cutting

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Cost cutting

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Cost cutting

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Cost cutting - 1/25/2011 8:12:07 PM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

Can someone explain something to me?

When talking of budget cuts, the idea is always that cuts = less benefits. Why is that?

Conservatives have long charged that there is a ton of deadwood in the government, and no liberal has ever disputed that. So why not try to make the government simply more effective? Determine how much (paid) infrastructure it requires to deliver benefits, and reduce that infrastructure. In the private sector, efficiency analyses would have been conducted decades ago.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: Cost cutting - 1/25/2011 8:19:21 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Can someone explain something to me?

When talking of budget cuts, the idea is always that cuts = less benefits. Why is that?

Conservatives have long charged that there is a ton of deadwood in the government, and no liberal has ever disputed that. So why not try to make the government simply more effective?

Because they're taking advantage of the situation to push their own policy agenda.

If you want to get rid of entitlements, that's what you blame.

Sure, you could cut the big military project in your district that the Pentagon doesn't even want---but how ya gonna get reelected THAT way?

It's why no one but McCain cheered when they learned earmarks would be vetoed too.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: Cost cutting - 1/26/2011 6:49:52 AM

DomYngBlk

Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline

And the dirty secret is that there isn't all that "fat" to cut. Take any Federal Department in any state supplying "non-essential" services. There aren't enough of them. From Park Rangers to Mine Inspectors Start cutting people and budgets and a bad situation is only going to get worse.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: Cost cutting - 1/26/2011 6:59:08 AM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

And the dirty secret is that there isn't all that "fat" to cut. Take any Federal Department in any state supplying "non-essential" services. There aren't enough of them. From Park Rangers to Mine Inspectors Start cutting people and budgets and a bad situation is only going to get worse.

I have contracted with the Department of Defense and can personally say that a lot of the civil servants there would be vastly overpaid at minimum wage. I have heard that the Department of Education is the same. The article about laid off Camden, NJ firefighters and cops said that they cost $200K/year.

I agree about the neglected stepchildren such as the Park Rangers being underfunded but I still bet that there is plenty of fat at the top levels.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to DomYngBlk)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: Cost cutting - 1/26/2011 7:01:08 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Can someone explain something to me?

When talking of budget cuts, the idea is always that cuts = less benefits. Why is that?

Conservatives have long charged that there is a ton of deadwood in the government, and no liberal has ever disputed that. So why not try to make the government simply more effective? Determine how much (paid) infrastructure it requires to deliver benefits, and reduce that infrastructure. In the private sector, efficiency analyses would have been conducted decades ago.

because the level of skimming will remain the same!

they are trying to tell people something but people do not listen to what is not being said LOL

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: Cost cutting - 1/26/2011 7:06:39 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

If you want to get rid of entitlements, that's what you blame.

that too

Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: Cost cutting - 1/26/2011 7:11:21 AM

DomYngBlk

Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

And the dirty secret is that there isn't all that "fat" to cut. Take any Federal Department in any state supplying "non-essential" services. There aren't enough of them. From Park Rangers to Mine Inspectors Start cutting people and budgets and a bad situation is only going to get worse.

I have contracted with the Department of Defense and can personally say that a lot of the civil servants there would be vastly overpaid at minimum wage. I have heard that the Department of Education is the same. The article about laid off Camden, NJ firefighters and cops said that they cost $200K/year.

I agree about the neglected stepchildren such as the Park Rangers being underfunded but I still bet that there is plenty of fat at the top levels.

Camden Firefighters aren't part of the Federal Budget. Defense Dept would be part of the 'essential budget". And, I hear people give hearsay evidence about every department that is in the govt. Do you think Education is being done right?

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: Cost cutting - 1/26/2011 8:35:03 AM

DCWoody

Posts: 1401
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline

"Sure, you could cut the big military project in your district that the Pentagon doesn't even want---but how ya gonna get reelected THAT way?"

This. A part of the problem is that those in control of the budget are systematically encouraged to have the government spend as much and take as little as possible in their area.

(in reply to DomYngBlk)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: Cost cutting - 1/26/2011 8:57:06 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

The game now will be sending "must pass" legislation to the Oval Office with earmarks attached, daring Obama to veto it.

(in reply to DCWoody)

Profile

Post #: 9

RE: Cost cutting - 1/26/2011 9:05:21 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

Hey Steven. I have worked at both Federal (Military) and Local (municipal) levels. There are lots of things that could be done more efficiently for sure. However the rules won't allow it. Example, A civilian company needs a $10,000 pump to meet some construction deadline and the one you ordered broke down in testing or you ordered the wrong one or whatever. They make a few phone calls, order it and in a week or so it is here. In Government, you are required to complete a set of specs, specify why you need it, possibly go thru the budget process and get it approved by council because of the dollar amount (at local levels) go out for bid, wait for the bids to come in, award the contract for services, Pay for the opps at exhorbatant (happend to the Military when we were leaving France following WWII they ordered trucks without wheels) prices and then you get what you needed a few months from now.

Same with hiring practices, contracting for services, etc.   In the Civilian world you do the same procurement process on some project but all the small stuff you just get (each company has a different threshold). If they need some labor, they call the local union or unemployement office or the paper and hire someone and they report to work in a day or two.   I have even hired prisioners for some jobs (in my civilian capacity) and only had to pay the guards wages.

There is extrra staff needed then for the specs determination, the procurement process, high level approvals to approve the purchase, inventory because it turned out to be a capital expense and now accountable and on and on.   Even getting a temp employee can take months and months.   Look at all the manhours needed to get him.

We need to look at a rule change (my opinion) as a start, then get the efficiency expert in who isn't tied to anyone politically and with the power to make the changes needed.   Not send his recommendations off to committee where they take months and years to decide not to follow them because they are out of date now and the requirements have changed.

(in reply to DCWoody)

Profile

Post #: 10