AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@mysteryman,

Hey, contact the right people about those wastes. I can't do anything for you about government waste; it will always exist whether its the republicans or democrats who control Washington DC.

If you can identify who those wasteful people are, by all means, report them. Otherwise, you're just talking in the wind.

1 Reply

Awesome. Someone gave a thumbs down to my last post. I don't recall that happening before.

0 Replies

rjb, I "fixed" it for you! Happy reading.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that we need budget cuts but we cant cut jobs, services, or expenses to do it.

Good point, mm. By the way, thanks for the excellent reference to the Heritage Foundations ideas for federal budget cuts.

Did you see what I posted about federal employee pay and compensation being far higher than private sector employees, and even state and local government employees?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hey, contact the right people about those wastes. I can't do anything for you about government waste; it will always exist whether its the republicans or democrats who control Washington DC.

If you can identify who those wasteful people are, by all means, report them. Otherwise, you're just talking in the wind.

ci, you say you can't do anything about government waste. I disagree. You can support politicians and reform that will cut down on waste. Face it, there is a difference between parties and their solutions to fight waste, as well as their foundational beliefs in the size of government and what government is mandated to do.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Hey, if I said something either in tone or content, a thumbs down is fine.

0 Replies

@okie,

I think this is worth posting again, showing the disparity between employee compensation in the private sector, state and local government, and the federal government. It seems to me this should be telling us where some of the budget cutting could occur.

http://images.usatoday.com/news/graphics/2010/2010-08-10-fedpay/fedpay.jpg

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, What kind of world do you live in? I happen to live in the real world where both parties get elected into office, and they spend money - much of it wasted in wars. Yes, I do vote in every election, but there is no way for individual citizens to control what they approve in congress, and the president signs off on it.

What kind of "reform" are you talking about? The kind that the conservatives talk about without details? Boehner says he's going to save $200 billion in the first year.

How much you want to bet he won't be able to cut that much from spending? I want to know where he's going to cut that much from the budget - in detail?

1 Reply

@okie,

One of the things we so often hear about the tax system is the idea that those that are able to pay more, should pay more. That is part of the whole idea of the tax system being progressive.

The thought occurred to me, how come we don't apply the same principle to government employee compensation, starting with the politicians. If politicians are already very wealthy, such as Harry Reid, why don't we just pay him nothing, and save the country a few dollars. If we did an analysis on the wealth of all of the Senators and Congressmen, then we could apply a pay scale from zero to maybe a few thousand. If they are worth almost nothing, we could give them the full wage that we otherwise give them. After all, if progressivity is fair in the tax system that they devised for us out here, why can't we the citizens tell our representatives that we want progressivity instituted with federal pay scales, starting with their pay in Congress. That would include all of their staffers as well. After all, if ability to pay is the measure that is valid in the tax system, why not with employee compensation, if they don't need to be paid to live, why should we pay them?

I think I just came up with one of the best ideas that anyone has come up with for a long time. In fact, is this a totally new and different idea that I have here? I think we should start a movement to promote the idea. What is good for their tax system on us, that should also be good for our pay scales to them. Why not?

If this idea works for the politicians, we could expand it to all federal employees.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, What kind of world do you live in? I happen to live in the real world where both parties get elected into office, and they spend money - much of it wasted in wars. Yes, I do vote in every election, but there is no way for individual citizens to control what they approve in congress, and the president signs off on it.

What kind of "reform" are you talking about? The kind that the conservatives talk about without details? Boehner says he's going to save $200 billion in the first year.

How much you want to bet he won't be able to cut that much from spending? I want to know where he's going to cut that much from the budget - in detail?

I too share your frustration. I think the kind of frustration you have expressed is the motivating reason behind the Tea Party movement. If most Tea Partiers are like the ones in my town, they are business owners, honorable citizens, and just good all around patriotic and law abiding Americans that are fed up with a government that is too big and spending way too much money. They want accountability and a total redirection of government. I share their frustration. I have so far not been involved in the movement, but I agree with many of their ideas. We do need a total rethinking of what government should be doing and how it does it.

I think you are totally wrong to believe that both parties are equally at fault however. I do not at all agree with all of the Republican party policies, but I think they are at least closer to what I would favor and prefer our policies to be. I am hopeful the Tea Party movement can combine forces with Republicans and bring the Republicans back to its original principles of smaller government and more responsible government.

0 Replies

@okie,

Somebody keeps thumbing this down, but it does not deserve being thumbed down. It is pertinent and it is applicable information that is useful to solving the budget crisis, so I repeat it again.

okie wrote:

I think this is worth posting again, showing the disparity between employee compensation in the private sector, state and local government, and the federal government. It seems to me this should be telling us where some of the budget cutting could occur.

1 Reply

There was a recent piece somewhere about budget cutting at the University of Michigan. So far, U-M has cut hundreds of thousands of dollars from the budget by taking small steps. Some were very small, like emptying waste baskets every other day instead of everyday.

Every government building is overheated. When I was a new mom (my daughter turns 33 in January), most of the people we knew set their thermostats to where their grandparents set it in the 1930s: at 60 degrees F. (I now set mine at 55 when I am home and awake; at 47 when I am away or asleep.)

Think of how people dressed then: Women wore dresses over girdles (which are very warm) and full length slips. They probably wore cardigans. Men wore vested suits to work with undershirts under their shirt. Working men wore work clothes over longjohns. Men and children wore woolen socks. Kids wore undershirts under their clothes. Sweaters were made of wool. When a man came home from work and sat reading his paper, depending upon his social class, he wore a smoking jacket (which was a sort of bathrobe) or a cardigan.

I wear a blazer or twin set when I teach but I have to remove the jacket or the cardi in the classroom which is always too warm.

Government buildings need to be heated to 62 at best; 65 at worst.

0 Replies

@okie,

I went to the source link for the graph to read the article and find out what data was used. ( http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm )

There's no indication of there being a comparison of only secretaries in cities of comparable costs of living, same education and experience, etc. There's no indication that the data took into account that obviously the doctor caring for the first family isn't going to be paid on par with a doctor in Muskogee or Shawnee. The Air Force One pilot obviously is going to command more pay than a Delta pilot. So, without further information it's hard to tell how they got the numbers for that graph.

I don't have a problem with freezing raises for federal employees, or cutting the pay of our representatives.

I DO have a problem with the lack of thought that goes into this topic. Those that went to vote last Tuesday with the idea that we have to cut government, cut the deficit, throw out the Democrats cause they must be to blame, don't know the facts.

The article above states:

Quote:

Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Most all of that took place under Bush and the Republican control. Obama is just now addressing federal employee raises for 2011, which he wants to limit to 1.4% , and this will only be the 2nd federal employee raise he authorizes out of the decades worth referenced in the article. Bush was giving 3% & 4% raises. But, Tea Party / Republicans heard "Federal employees are making way more than..." and voted out the Democrats?

That's the whole voting against their own interest crap they keep doing.

2 Replies

@squinney,

okie, I know you have difficulty blaming anything on the conservatives, but needless to say, please print what squinney posted on your forehead, and remember that Bush gave raises to government employees at the rate of 3% and 4% while Obama wants to limit it to 1.4%.

You don't know the meaning of frustration!

0 Replies

@squinney,

squinney wrote:

I DO have a problem with the lack of thought that goes into this topic. Those that went to vote last Tuesday with the idea that we have to cut government, cut the deficit, throw out the Democrats cause they must be to blame, don't know the facts.

squinney, Democrats are not known as "big spenders" for nothing. They earned that title. People are not stupid, and they see this. And one of the reasons the Tea Party movement has fluorished as it has, it is because many people do see that the Republicans are also at fault in too much spending. The current situation is not all about Democrats, but its about government.

Quote:

The article above states:

Quote:
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Most all of that took place under Bush and the Republican control. Obama is just now addressing federal employee raises for 2011, which he wants to limit to 1.4% , and this will only be the 2nd federal employee raise he authorizes out of the decades worth referenced in the article. Bush was giving 3% & 4% raises. But, Tea Party / Republicans heard "Federal employees are making way more than..." and voted out the Democrats?

That's the whole voting against their own interest crap they keep doing.

The 1.4% now vs 3 or 4% I think was determined by an inflation index, so you can't blame Bush. My question to you is, why do federal employees deserve any raise at all, given the fact that Social Security recipients are apparently getting nothing? It seems to me that Obama is hypocritical at best. And it seems to me we should be considering a huge pay cut for federal employees, and that is based upon the reality that the government is broke.

To really assign blame, you can't just go back to the Dem's tried and true method of blaming Bush. Sure blame Bush, but also take a look at the past few decades of pay increases under both Democrats and Republicans, as presidents and Congresses. You need to get past your knee jerk reaction to blame Bush for everything. You criticize for lack of thought, but you are as lacking as anyone, perhaps more.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

The thought occurred to me, how come we don't apply the same principle to government employee compensation, starting with the politicians. If politicians are already very wealthy, such as Harry Reid, why don't we just pay him nothing, and save the country a few dollars.

There have been politicians that did that okie. Unfortunately, the RIGHT demonized them and drove them from office.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

The 1.4% now vs 3 or 4% I think was determined by an inflation index, so you can't blame Bush.

You mean we can't blame the people in charge of the government for the laws? Oh.. you mean we can't blame them if they are Republicans. But we can blame the Democrats for what the Republicans did.

You seem to have no logic at all okie..
If the GOP spends money right and left, you want to blame the Dems? The GOP controlled House, Senate and White House during many of those years. They could have rewrote the law any time. It wasn't the Dems fault they didn't.

0 Replies

@parados,

Name any congressman that has ever served for free or that has ever volunteered to. I dont know of any

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know