55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 02:31 pm
@Foxfyre,
Hmm. Might be. I'd thought more about the morality of the private sector - I mean, not that you misunderstood me: it's not that the civil servants go in prison of such happens what you described above. (They do, if taking e.g. bribes etc.)
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 02:34 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Contractors that do illegal activities go to jail here too. What I described is 100% legal courtesy of the incompetence and/or inefficiency and/or greed of the bureaucrats who hire them. And until the people demand something better, what the bureaucrats are doing is also legal.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 02:49 pm
Last night I heard some French criticism of Prezbo's budget and spending plan. I wonder if we'll be hearing this kind of lecture from the EU soon?



Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:03 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Last night I heard some French criticism of Prezbo's budget and spending plan. I wonder if we'll be hearing this kind of lecture from the EU soon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs




Your youtube-link is a speech by the conservative MEP for South-East England, Daniel Hannan, MEP, done at the European Parliament when Brown visited it on 24th March, 2009. (Not exactly the correct place to do such, namely criticise the own PM's politics in European parliament, btw.)

Could you give the French link?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:09 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Last night I heard some French criticism of Prezbo's budget and spending plan. I wonder if we'll be hearing this kind of lecture from the EU soon?


Actually, the French and the British government do exactly the same what the US does (in Britain criticised- see above - by the Conservatives, in France by the centre-left parties).

The EU-commission tries to convince the other EU-governments to follow, I think, ...
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:13 pm
@Foxfyre,
Hmmm. Apparently somewhere since that documentary, they stopped reimbursing for new furniture. That's a good thing.

But if anybody is interested in what each and every one of our elected leaders is authorized to spend in addtion to their salaries,insurance, pension plan, and other basic benefits:

http://gop.cha.house.gov/services/membershandbook.shtml
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:23 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I've been (and frequently am) in a position to talk with contractors who work for local, state, and federal governments and this is what they tell me. If they get paid as much or more anyway, they are usually in no hurry to finish a project but will likely take other jobs and work on those at intervals instead. There is no particular incentive to do it right the first time if they get paid more for redoing it. They LOVE changes in the specs because they get paid more for doing the changes. Cost overruns are as often intentional as not when the government authority can be persuaded to cover them.

Further I see the balance sheets for some of those government projects. Almost without exception, even in the case of the most honorable and honest contractors, the amount of a government contract for materials, wages, and overhead is going to be substantially more than the same contract completed in the private sector. That is why government contracts are so lucrative and coveted though there are some who don't want them because they don't want all the extra paper work and regulation that goes with them.

When you're spending your own money, you're a lot more particular about getting value for the dollar spent. Government bureaucrats, however, aren't spending their own money and don't care nearly about value received nearly as much. Also in government there is no reward for coming in under budget. That's a sure way to get your next year's budget cut. So, there is strong incentive to spend all the money allocated and more if you can.




So, in your experience, Government contracts typically do not have the clauses you mentioned, providing bonuses for coming in under-time and -money?

And the State and Local government contracts you were proposing earlier - how are they any more efficient than the Federal ones? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:33 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
No, I don't have a French link. It was just a blurb on the news last night and I don't even remember what channel I was watching.

I didn't mean to imply that the 3-minute speech I linked was related to that though other than we are seeing some definite MACean notions being spoken on your side of the pond.

I did do a cursory search and found this in lieu of French criticism. (As there has been quite a bit about this in some news outlets here, it's possible that I heard something re this last night along with something about the French and incorrectly connected the two. I honestly don't know.):

Quote:
EU Presidency: Obama Plans 'a Way to Hell'
Wednesday, March 25, 2009

STRASBOURG, France " A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as "a way to hell."

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the stability of the global financial market."

A day after his government collapsed because of a parliamentary vote of no-confidence, Topolanek took the EU presidency on a collision course with Washington over how to deal with the global economic recession.

Most European leaders favor tighter financial regulation, while the U.S. has been pushing for larger economic stimulus plans.

Topolanek's comments are the strongest criticism so far from a European leader as the 27-nation bloc bristles from recent U.S. criticism that it is not spending enough to stimulate demand.

They also pave the way for a stormy summit next week in London between leaders of the Group of 20 industrialized countries.

The host of the summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, praised Obama on Tuesday for his willingness to work with Europe on reforming the global economy in the run-up to the G-20 summit.
more here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510445,00.html
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't know any more than what I've already posted about government contracts Cyclop. But you're certainly free to post anything you have to rebut my impressions about that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:42 pm
@Foxfyre,
Well, as said, both the (conservative) French and the (socialist) British government are following the American way - the other EU-countries are more or less a little bit ... slower.


[The EU Presidency isn't "the EU" at all, it changes any half year as you know. (Leaving alone that the Czech PM resigned).]
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:45 pm
CONSTITUTIONALISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=constitutionalism&x=30&y=9
Main Entry: con•sti•tu•tion•al•ism
...
Function: noun
...
1 : the doctrine or system of government in which the governing power is limited by enforceable rules of law and concentration of power is prevented by various checks and balances so that the basic rights of individuals and groups are protected
2 : adherence to the principles of constitutionalism


SOCIALISM
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=socialism&x=26&y=8
Main Entry: so•cial•ism
...
Function: noun
...
1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods: as
a : FOURIERISM b : GUILD SOCIALISM c : MARXISM d : OWENISM
2 a : a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property <trace the remains of pure socialism that marked the first phase of the Christian community -- W.E.H.Lecky> -- compare INDIVIDUALISM
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state -- compare CAPITALISM, LIBERALISM c : a stage of society that in Marxist theory is transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and payments to individuals according to their work

It's even more clear now that Obama-crats are socialists. They cannot or will not understand that what one freely contributes to charity is a portion of their total after tax income--their net personal income. If their net personal incomes were to be reduced, their freely given contributions to charity would be reduced. There are in fact some charities that encourage a 10% contribution of one's net personal income. Obviously, the dollar amount of that 10% contribution would be reduced by a reduction of their net personal income, and increased by an increase in their net personal income.

Say your gross personal income were $50,000, and your tax rate were 15%. Then your spendable income would be $42,500. A 10% gift to charity would be $4,250. That would leave $38,250 for other expenses. But assuming that entire gift is tax deductible, that would allow the giver to retain the $38,250 for other expenses, while adding the $637.50 tax saving to the $4,250, making the gift $4,887.50, or a 11.5% gift.

Taxing the gift itself would serve to reduce the size of the gift to charity, while increasing the amount the federal government has to spend. Charities do a far better job helping those individuals who are not capable of helping themselves, than will a federal government that gives that money away to organizations that are capable of helping themselves.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:49 pm
@ican711nm,
Well, ican, you are mixing apples and salad here when setting those two terms as being on the same level.

In the UK, we've got a constitutional monarchy and a socialist government ...
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:51 pm
More on what Congressional leaders spend on themselves:

Quote:
For Immediate Release May 21, 2007
For Further Information, Contact:
Peter J. Sepp, Sam Batkins, (703) 683-5700
No Belt-Tightening Here: House Members' Office Spending Breaks Half
Billion-Dollar Mark; 20% Jump in 4 Years

(Alexandria, VA) -- The persistence of red ink in the federal budget didn't deter most House Members from spending more on red-ink pens, travel, computers, and other items to run their own Capitol Hill and district offices, according to a long-awaited study from the National Taxpayers Union (NTU). A comprehensive analysis by NTU, the only one of its kind, provides detailed comparative figures on individual lawmakers and reveals that overall House office expenses exceeded $525 million in 2005 -- representing a 20 percent rise from the year 2001.

"Anyone who wonders why Congress can't seem to get a grip on wasteful spending in the federal budget should examine House Members' careless handling of their own office budgets," said NTU Senior Counselor and project manager David Keating. "Not only have House offices largely failed to do any belt-tightening during a time of deficits, their reporting methods are fraught with errors and 'adjustments' made as much as two years after the fact."

It is for the latter reason that NTU's confidence in the reliability of House data could only be extended to calendar years 2005 and prior. In the first half of 2006 alone, every lawmaker reported at least one adjustment to their 2005 office expense data, adding up to $27.4 million for the whole House.

Perhaps more egregious, 36 House Members' records for postage contained errors, most of them for reporting more expenditures on postage for mass mailings than for all postage combined. "This is mathematically impossible," Keating noted, "leaving taxpayers to wonder if the inaccurate reports are being filed to avoid disclosure." Study findings include:

House Members spent $525.01 million on their offices in 2005, a 4.7 percent rise compared to 2004. However, since 2001, the overall total has risen 19.8 percent (from $438.3 million). The average Representative's office outlay was roughly $1.2 million in 2005, although each office is issued a different "Members' Representational Allowance" (MRA) based on factors such as population within the district, prevailing rents, and the district's distance from Washington, DC.

Unlike previous years, NTU found no instances of lawmakers in 2005 who exceeded their MRAs, but a total of 74 House Members did spend at least 99 percent of their allotments. The average Representative consumed 94.4 percent of his or her MRA in 2005, a figure that has fluctuated within just a few percentage- points since 2002.

The top-ranked office spender, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), used all but $375 of his $1.3 million allowance. The lowest-ranked spender, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA), did without $518,036 of his MRA (which came to $1.2 million). Had every Congressman been as frugal as Goode, House office spending would have fallen by $205.4 million that year.

The House spent $22.3 million on franked mail postage for 2005, over 85 percent of which (subject to the data inconsistencies above) went to mass mailings of 500 or more identical pieces. This is barely higher than 2004's franking outlay of $21.7 million, in spite of significant mailing "blackout" periods that apply during election years.

Although House franking costs peaked more than 15 years ago, new technologies (such as segmented mailing lists on CD-ROM) allow House Members to get more bang for their mass mailing buck. Even so, the House still managed to spend nearly half as much on franking during the 2003-2004 election cycle as challengers did on their entire general election campaigns over that period.

In 1999 the House abolished its longstanding limits on franked mail spending, which, although generous compared to the Senate's, helped to curb a perk that gave incumbent lawmakers an unfair political advantage. In 2005 nearly two dozen Representatives spent more than 1999's postage limit of 42 cents per district address. The highest spender by this measurement, Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-NY), shelled out 60.2 cents per address.
More here:
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=935&org_name=NTU


And then there is Congress's little trick that sort of escaped the mainstream press. Rather than waiting until the press went to bed and raising their salaries and expense allowances in the middle of the night--they usually got caught and had to endure the negative publicity--they decided no Congressperson should be able to vote on their own raise and should wait until the next election where it would be authorized by the people voting him/her back in. But they quickly got around that by just quietly passing a little law that would allow their salary to go up automatically $4 or 5 thousand every year without them having to do anything. Since nobody then had to vote on the raises, everybody could collect right away. They did make sure it wouldn't apply each year until after the election though.

Quote:
With economy in shambles, Congress gets a raise
By Jordy Yager
Posted: 12/17/08 05:41 PM [ET]
A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

“As lawmakers make a big show of forcing auto executives to accept just $1 a year in salary, they are quietly raiding the vault for their own personal gain,” said Daniel O’Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-partisan group. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/with-economy-in-shambles-congress-gets-a-raise-2008-12-17.html


And this is the group that our non MACean members think should be entrusted with 3.5 trillion dollars of the taxpayers' money next year.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:57 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
That's very interesting Walter but I don't know whether it has anything to do with the point I intended to make. But then I don't know if you're talking European terms or American terms either which as you know are very different as to what they mean. Not important though. No need to respond.

(I am pretty sure that Ican's post related to US government only and has absolutely nothing to do with the EU or criticism of USA policy by any EU country.)
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 03:57 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, Some people's doom's day projections have no basis in fact; they are guessing without any background in economics or the workings of capitalism.

This is the very first time in human history that we are having a world-wide financial crisis of this magnitude in contemporary times. Hoover's time was much different in every way. If the governments do nothing, the economies of most developed countries will be destroyed, because the trends that were set last year is a downwards spiral in employment, asset values, and closing of factories.

What this financial crisis did was to destroy the liquidity that once existed, and no economy can survive without credit in a cash based economy.

The Obama team are doing everything they can to shore up the banks and finance companies, because without them, trade will cease to happen.

The foundation of our economy must be saved, and Obama and his team are looking at the long-term survival of our country's economy by ensuring that the foundations of our country stay competitive. That means looking at our infrastructure, our education, our health care system, and job growth.

This is about survival. When there's a forest fire, some times adding more fire saves the forest.

If left alone on its own merits to repair our economy, more families will lose their jobs and whatever assets they own, because job losses exceeding half a million every month cannot be sustained without some outside stimulus.

People talk about the huge deficits being built up by this stimulus plan, but the other alternative is no tax income when everybody goes broke. This trend is already happening, because property, sales, and income tax receipts are already on a downward trend. It will only get worse if nothing is done.

It may take several years to make up this deficit, but that's a much better choice when we can "see" that tax revenue will increase as jobs begins to grow. We need that foundation of job growth to realize that the current spending is the only smart option available.

0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 04:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
More on what Congressional leaders spend on themselves:

For Immediate Release May 21, 2007
For Further Information, Contact:
Peter J. Sepp, Sam Batkins, (703) 683-5700
No Belt-Tightening Here: House Members' Office Spending Breaks Half
Billion-Dollar Mark; 20% Jump in 4 Years



Why did you wait so long, Foxfyre? It says: "For Immediate Release."
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 04:03 pm
@wandeljw,
This particular subject hadn't come up recently Wandel. It just showed up on the list when I was hunting for different information and I recognized it as being pertinent to the point I intend to make here. Better late than never I always say though.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 04:04 pm
@wandeljw,
That was during Bush's tenure, wasn't it? LOL
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 04:14 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

That's very interesting Walter but I don't know whether it has anything to do with the point I intended to make. But then I don't know if you're talking European terms or American terms either which as you know are very different as to what they mean. Not important though. No need to respond.

(I am pretty sure that Ican's post related to US government only and has absolutely nothing to do with the EU or criticism of USA policy by any EU country.)


I wasn't responding Ican's but to your post.
And when speaking about Europe I use those terms the related people call themselves resp. are called commonly.

I only responded because I really wanted to know who in France said what, what this had to do with EU and why you posted that youtube link in the same context.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 04:16 pm
to CI: Yup, but the Democrats had a substantial majority in Congress.

We need to beat that drum more too MAC people. The Obama disciples are under the impression that the Republicans were in total control the last eight years and our President is doing absolutely nothing to correct that impression. We sure don't have to praise President Bush when criticism is due, but we sure don't have to allow the impression that Democrats haven't held Congress the last two years either and they could have headed a lot of this off. President Bush at least was sounding the alarm about Fanny and Freddie and he does deserve credit for that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 07/20/2025 at 12:44:45