Best way to cut government spending

[gpolakow]

Since the economic picture is so bad right now, and since our government has utterly failed to protect us from the greed, stupidity and excesses of the Auto industry, the banking industry and Wall Street. I think all members of the government should have to suffer the same consequences we the people are suffering.

Government needs to be downsized, positions eliminated, and salaries slashed. We should lay off at least half of our congressmen/senators and their staffs. The remaining half should take severe pay and budget cuts.

We do this in the name of creating greater efficiencies and cutting government overhead. After all, that’s what Congress wants our troubled corporate world to do. And what’s good for the goose should be equally good for the gander. There should be no golden parachutes, no severance packages of any kind. These are desperate times and they require desperate measures.

Cut the executive branch, too. No need for so many cabinet members. Some will just have to wear two hats.

And let’s cut the federal judiciary, while we're at it. Everyone’s going to have to work a little harder until the economy rights itself.

And one further advantage of cutting out congressional and executive branch jobs, there might be a significant reduction in stupid legislation designed to reduce the economic fortunes of Main St America to bail out the wealthy.
What do you think?

[bemmerbiker]

+10,000

[Moot]

By George I think you are on to something. And while we are at it, why don't we allow Ford, GM and Chrysler to rent Air Force One when POTUS is not using it? No need to have it to sit idle. Then surely there is an extra room or two in the White House that could be rented out. And two senators from each state? One should be enough --at least for now. Besides, that resolves the question of The Junior Senator From Illinois without a lengthy and costly court battle -- the position is simply eliminated. And scooters. Why are all these government officials riding around in chauffer driven limos --- they can ride scooters. (We can make an exception for the President and VP--they get LTs and RTs respectively.) Come on guys, we're on a roll here, lets make this happen.

[gpolakow]

By George I think you are on to something. And while we are at it, why don't we allow Ford, GM and Chrysler to rent Air Force One when POTUS is not using it? No need to have it to sit idle. Then surely there is an extra room or two in the White House that could be rented out. And two senators from each state? One should be enough --at least for now. Besides, that resolves the question of The Junior Senator From Illinois without a lengthy and costly court battle -- the position is simply eliminated. And scooters. Why are all these government officials riding around in chauffer driven limos --- they can ride scooters. (We can make an exception for the President and VP--they get LTs and RTs respectively.) Come on guys, we're on a roll here, lets make this happen.

I love the scooter idea, both because of the cost savings and because riding on scooters will set the right tone for how we should view our congressmen and how they should view themselves.

[Dick]

I love the scooter idea, both because of the cost savings and because riding on scooters will set the right tone for how we should view our congressmen and how they should view themselves.
Only problem with them dudes riding on scooters is, some of 'em only turn *left*!!! :rolleyes: ;)

[zippy_gg]

Only problem with them dudes riding on scooters is, some of 'em only turn *left*!!! :rolleyes: ;)The good thing is that after 4 Left turns they are back on track!:D

[razman10]

I agree 100%, but good luck in getting it implemented!

[joegottberg]

My fear is we are going to see Government growth going the other way.

The current size will be considered "down-size" in 4 years.

[gpolakow]

My fear is we are going to see Government growth going the other way.

The current size will be considered "down-size" in 4 years.
BTW, the December 2007 Federal payroll (one month) was about $14.5 billion. Hey, but I'm sure there's no fluff there, right?
Let's face it folks, we're not getting what we pay for.
As for the Auto maker bailout, I'd rather we all go out and buy a Ford, Chrysler or GM car. At least we'd be getting something for our money.

[gunny]

You go Republican after the elections?

[Briantime]

I disagree. Our issue lies on our fear of dropping money into bailout and economic stimulus packages. I propose sinking another 1 trillion dollars into another bailout and let our grandkids worry about paying for it :D

Ugh...someone already thought of it :(

[meese]

Ugh...someone already thought of it :(Yep, our grandparents. :histerica Wait, that's not really all that funny after all. :(

[pickerbiker]

I think we should start with eliminating health care for all Representatives and Senators. I bet they'd get it figured out then.

[gpolakow]

You go Republican after the elections?

funny you think this is Republican thinking. I see no indication from the 8 years of a Republican administration that they want to reduce the size of government. I am neither for Republicans nor Democrats. Both parties have lead this country astray.

[Matt]

Come on Now! The federal government didn't "fail to protect" us from the excesses- THEY WERE COMPLICIT IN CAUSING THE THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS!!!!! The vast majority of Congresspersons should be tarred and feathered. And where is the Fed's spending plan for the Trillion $ stimulus package?! (Congress can't even account for the first $350 Billion of the first bailout) Congress required it of the auto execs- and their take is under $50 Billion. AND the Anointed One just admitted that Stimulus Package won't work- that after redistributing a Trillion dollars that we'll still have Trillion $s (that's multiple trillions) deficits for years to come! If it's not going to work why spend it in the first place??

Because it concentrates power into the hands a select few. And we the voters as a whole are too ignorant, stupid, or lazy to vote the bastards and bastardettes out of office. Sad.

[gpolakow]

Come on Now! The federal government didn't "fail to protect" us from the excesses- THEY WERE COMPLICIT IN CAUSING THE THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS!!!!! The vast majority of Congresspersons should be tarred and feathered. And where is the Fed's spending plan for the Trillion $ stimulus package?! (Congress can't even account for the first $350 Billion of the first bailout) Congress required it of the auto execs- and their take is under $50 Billion. AND the Anointed One just admitted that Stimulus Package won't work- that after redistributing a Trillion dollars that we'll still have Trillion $s (that's multiple trillions) deficits for years to come! If it's not going to work why spend it in the first place??

Because it concentrates power into the hands a select few. And we the voters as a whole are too ignorant, stupid, or lazy to vote the bastards and bastardettes out of office. Sad.

I agree, the government was complicit, so the least we can do is cut their pay and their numbers.

[grifscoots]

I agree, the government was complicit, so the least we can do is cut their pay and their numbers.What if we voted them out and they didn't leave?

[pickerbiker]

What if we voted them out and they didn't leave?

If I recall, didn't that happen to George Bush in 2004?

[meese]

If I recall, didn't that happen to George Bush in 2004? :histerica :histerica

Wait, that one's not really all that funny either. :(

[meese]

I agree, the government was complicit, so the least we can do is cut their pay and their numbers.Sounds good. Just tell us how we can actually accomplish that and we're there.

[Randy]

You do understand that this government considers it a 'cut' when spending doesn't grow as much as projected.

[gpolakow]

Sounds good. Just tell us how we can actually accomplish that and we're there.

It would take a tax payer revolt. Cut the size of the government or we pay no taxes.

[bigbear]

And two senators from each state? One should be enough --at least for now. Besides, that resolves the question of The Junior Senator From Illinois without a lengthy and costly court battle -- the position is simply eliminated.

As far as Illinois is concerned, we have only had one working senator since the last election. BHO has NEVER done anything as a senator except campaign!!

[jbrown]

I've often wondered why the constituents of Illinois didn't kick his ass out of Congress.
You put him in their to do a job, paid his Salary, and he did nothing but run for another
office. Seems like you ought to demand your money back at least.

Time will tell if you can be as proud of this guy as the State of Arkansas is of
the Clintons...

[jayjacobson]

+1 Greg and Matt!

And no, it wasn't Bush that didn't wanna leave in 04, it Was Algore in 00.

[NCrider]

Too funny. You come on here extolling the virtues of a man who openly promised bigger government, vote for him and he's elected, and now you want something different.

Now that's funny.

[pickerbiker]

+1 Greg and Matt!

And no, it wasn't Bush that didn't wanna leave in 04, it Was Algore in 00.

....and Al Gore STILL won't just disappear.

[gpolakow]

Too funny. You come on here extolling the virtues of a man who openly promised bigger government, vote for him and he's elected, and now you want something different.

Now that's funny.

And your belief is that the last eight years have not brought us bigger government and a nation on the brink of economic collapse? Now that's funny.

[gpolakow]

....and Al Gore STILL won't just disappear.

Let's hope that Bush does!

[jayjacobson]

....and Al Gore STILL won't just disappear.
I should hope not! Who would entertain us--you know, besides Bush?
And your belief is that the last eight years have not brought us bigger government and a nation on the brink of economic collapse?....
The SAME as the 8 prior!....and the 8 prior to that....
Let's hope that Bush does!
Now, now, Greg, who would entertain us--besides Algor--that is? :think: :D

[gpolakow]

Too funny. You come on here extolling the virtues of a man who openly promised bigger government, vote for him and he's elected, and now you want something different.

Now that's funny.
You seem to have missed my point which was quite simple actually. Here it is again. If we are in tough economic times then the government and those who are in its employ should have to cut back just like the rest of us. We are all being told to live on less, large layoffs, highest unemployment since WWII, so I think it's only fair that those in government, who help immensely in getting us to this condition, should feel the financial pain, too. Everyone should have to take a cut in hours and, consequentially, a cut in pay. That way, a. we would be saving billions of dollars a year and, b. the governement would have less time to screw things up. if things are tough, then we should all share in the consequences.
So, you see, my original post was not, per se, about big vs small government. It was about our senators and congressmen sharing in the financial pain of main street America. Get it?

[eljeffe]

You go Republican after the elections?

Yep. It looks more and more every day that Obama channels Reagan more than LBJ.

[NCrider]

Whatever, Greg. I'm not going to argue what your "intent" was. It's quite clear to me by reading your post.

Here's a little reminder:

Your quote: "Government needs to be downsized, positions eliminated, and salaries slashed..."

Sounds like you are talking about reducing the size of govt. Hey, that's a good idea. And if I remember right, that's what the other guy promised to do. :histerica

Google around and see if you can find the various letters from BO to employee unions, while he was running. I have the one to EPA at work. He promised the Union more power and he promised more money to EPA. He did the same to many other agencies. Sounds like it's time to send him a letter telling him you were just kidding about your support for his initiatives. :crazy:

As I said, too funny.

[gpolakow]

Whatever, Greg. I'm not going to argue what your "intent" was. It's quite clear to me by reading your post.

Here's a little reminder:

Your quote: "Government needs to be downsized, positions eliminated, and salaries slashed..."

Sounds like you are talking about reducing the size of govt. Hey, that's a good idea. And if I remember right, that's what the other guy promised to do. :histerica

Google around and see if you can find the various letters from BO to employee unions, while he was running. I have the one to EPA at work. He promised the Union more power and he promised more money to EPA. He did the same to many other agencies. Sounds like it's time to send him a letter telling him you were just kidding about your support for his initiatives. :crazy:

As I said, too funny.

Hmmm. I can see you really don't want to get the point. Okay.

If you want to make the argument just about big vs small government, that's fine, but I think it's really good vs bad government, whatever the size.

[jayjacobson]

....If you want to make the argument just about big vs small government, that's fine, but I think it's really good vs bad government, whatever the size.
Actually Greg, I'd say were really talking about the same thing. An ever expanding, bigger nanny-state government CAN NOT be a good government--at least in its' ever more porking, current state.

So I like your "accountability" plan. By making the worthless big government hacks live by the same rules that we have been living by (downsizing), we're heading toward better government, also. Now if can just get these worthless hacks to stop throwing money at every problem that comes across their desks--whether real or imaginary!

[gpolakow]

Actually Greg, I'd say were really talking about the same thing. An ever expanding, bigger nanny-state government CAN NOT be a good government--at least in its' ever more porking, current state.

So I like your "accountability" plan. By making the worthless big government hacks live by the same rules that we have been living by (downsizing), we're heading toward better government, also. Now if can just get these worthless hacks to stop throwing money at every problem that comes across their desks--whether real or imaginary!

Bigger nanny state government, you are right, is not by definition good government, Jay. But a small, inefficient, ineffectual government is not good either. So, my first requirement for government is that it be good. That means that it serves the needs of the people ahead of special interests, whoever or whatever those special interests are. That it spend our tax dollars carefully, frugally, and wisely, with no waste and on no projects that don't further the interests of society in some measurable way. That it employ as few people as possible to attain those ends and that the people it employs be qualified for their jobs. And that it deal harshly and swiftly with corruption in its ranks.
That's just for starters.
Oh, yes, and as per my original suggestion here, when the economy is weak everyone in the government takes a pay cut along with the rest of us.

[meese]

So, my first requirement for government is that it be good. That means that it serves the needs of the people ahead of special interests, whoever or whatever those special interests are. That it spend our tax dollars carefully, frugally, and wisely, with no waste and on no projects that don't further the interests of society in some measurable way. That it employ as few people as possible to attain those ends and that the people it employs be qualified for their jobs. And that it deal harshly and swiftly with corruption in its ranks.Wow, and I thought I was an idealist. :)

Nice theory, but never gonna happen. There's just too much money to be passed around. And that draws all the weasels out to claim their self-entitled share.

I still say that anyone who wants to run for office should be excluded based on that fact alone.

[gpolakow]

Wow, and I thought I was an idealist. :)

Nice theory, but never gonna happen. There's just too much money to be passed around. And that draws all the weasels out to claim their self-entitled share.

I still say that anyone who wants to run for office should be excluded based on that fact alone.

Maybe it won't ever happen. But it's good to at least have a definition of it so we know what we want.

[jayjacobson]

....So, my first requirement for government is that it be good. That means that it serves the needs of the people ahead of special interests, whoever or whatever those special interests are.....
:rotf: Isn't it the job of government to serve the "special interests?" Now you we why I want WAY less?! :histerica
....There's just too much money to be passed around. And that draws all the weasels out to claim their self-entitled share....
Hey speaking of weasels, any way we can get in on some of that bling--besides screwing over a bunch of old people with some Ponsi scheme?! I don't want to compete with the government, as they pretty much have the market cornered on large Ponsi schemes! :D

[BecketMa]

I'm afraid as long as Congress can spend money to buy re-election votes, let alone divert 80Billion in Earmarks from programs to benefit every taxpayer, we are doomed to living at their whim.

About the only way I can think of to reduce the Congressional and Presidential corruption is to keep voting against every incumbent participating in the corruption.

Bob

[gpolakow]

We are all rightfully cynical of both the competence of our government and its intent to serve the people. But we should all remember that our goverment is but a reflection of our culture as a whole. You cannot elect a corrupt, self-serving, inept government from a population devoid of those very qualities. And I would suggest that they are present in our government exactly to the same degree they are present in the culture as a whole.
It's sad to say, but collectively we get the government we deserve.
Change the consciousness of the culture and you will automatically change the consciousness of the entity that governs the culture.
Meanwhile, as a kind of half way measure, I suggest we cut their pay and disallow lobbyists from ever entering the halls of congress.
Just my opinion, of course.

[jayjacobson]

....let alone divert 80Billion in Earmarks from programs to benefit every taxpayer....
Yeah Bob you swerved into something here: ever notice that every time congress does something to "benefit" you, your wallet gets a little lighter? :(
....It's sad to say, but collectively we get the government we deserve....
Yeah, that's exactly what I said when WalMart came to town! :D