Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?ref=weekinreview]Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com[/url]

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

85% cuts, 15% taxes. here ya go :[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vhupg440"] my plan[/URL] based on their choices of course

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

Very cool...I ended "solving" it with 77% spending cuts and 23% tax

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;758294]85% cuts, 15% taxes. here ya go :[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=vhupg440"] my plan[/URL] based on their choices of course[/quote]

So you cut Federal Employee pay and reduce the federal workfoce but don't cut federal contractors? The Gov't pays the contractors more than it pays it's own employees. I would just cut the contractors out and leave the rest of it alone.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Angry;758310]So you cut Federal Employee pay and reduce the federal workfoce but don't cut federal contractors? The Gov't pays the contractors more than it pays it's own employees. I would just cut the contractors out and leave the rest of it alone.[/quote]


When you roll in benefits and managing govt employees, contractors make more sense. Plus they are must easier to be done with then said govt employee.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

Cut the shit out of the military, that goes pretty far all on it's own. Of course it won't happen for obvious reasons.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Angry;758310]So you cut Federal Employee pay and reduce the federal workfoce but don't cut federal contractors? The Gov't pays the contractors more than it pays it's own employees. I would just cut the contractors out and leave the rest of it alone.[/quote]

I have seen some govt workers, and some contractors. I know the govt pays more to contractors, but IMO they get a lot better effort out of the contractors. That's not true in every single case, but a govt worker knows he/she has benefits and usually LOOOONG term employment, where as the contractors reasonably ofter have to re-bid and prove their competitiveness.

Also, and this is hard to explain, I fundamentally believe in small govt. I think that's known. IF we reduce by cutting contractors we do two things we make the equivalent govt workers jobs more stable, and thus promote more institutionalized govt, AND we reduce the competition around any given govt function. IF we reduce by cutting govt jobs, we increase the competition in the market place (assuming that the best of the cut workers would go to the contracting companies and compete for those jobs) and we create a more flexible and small central govt that can hire contractors as needed, or fire them if they get lazy or uncompetitive.

Also when you say it pays contractors more are you including the levels of benefits that many govt workers get in that? I don't know that stat so it is a honest question. I tend to think that the contractor may get paid more straight up, but then they have to turn around and cover their employees benefits.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Mattyk;758320]Cut the shit out of the military, that goes pretty far all on it's own. Of course it won't happen for obvious reasons.[/quote]

That was a huge part of my solution. It ought to happen, but I agree that it won't. :(

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;758327]I have seen some govt workers, and some contractors. I know the govt pays more to contractors, but IMO they get a lot better effort out of the contractors. That's not true in every single case, but a govt worker knows he/she has benefits and usually LOOOONG term employment, where as the contractors reasonably ofter have to re-bid and prove their competitiveness.

Also, and this is hard to explain, I fundamentally believe in small govt. I think that's known. IF we reduce by cutting contractors we do two things we make the equivalent govt workers jobs more stable, and thus promote more institutionalized govt, AND we reduce the competition around any given govt function. IF we reduce by cutting govt jobs, we increase the competition in the market place (assuming that the best of the cut workers would go to the contracting companies and compete for those jobs) and we create a more flexible and small central govt that can hire contractors as needed, or fire them if they get lazy or uncompetitive.

Also when you say it pays contractors more are you including the levels of benefits that many govt workers get in that? I don't know that stat so it is a honest question. I tend to think that the contractor may get paid more straight up, but then they have to turn around and cover their employees benefits.[/quote]

You have some valid ideas but also some misguided ones. First off, I am a contractor in a position that should be a government position. I am not going to get into the reason why though.

My company gets paid a hell of a lot of money to provide my services to the customer. I see less than half of the percentage that gets forked out for me. Yes, my employer does provide whatever health insurance he deems suitable. The guy is cheap though so it's not all that great. In the end the guy who owns the company bank rolls much of the money that he is compensated for my services.

If the government were to take my position and turn it into a government one, they could offer me a substantial pay raise with standard Gov't benefits and still save anywhere from 30% to 50% of what they were paying for me.

I work with contractor and civilian alike everyday and effort is dependent upon the person. We all get complacent from time to time and all of us can still get fired. Yes, it is harder to fire the civilian, but not impossible.

I like small gov't too, however there are just some jobs that too sensitive for some bidding contractor to be performing on a rotating basis. With the government employee I believe that you have more loyalty and more control over information spillage.

BTW, my wife is Gov't and I don't think that she should lose her job or take a decrease in pay before they get rid of all the contractors mooching off of the government first.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Angry;758310][B]So you cut Federal Employee pay and reduce the federal workfoce but don't cut federal contractors? The Gov't pays the contractors more than it pays it's own employees. [/B]I would just cut the contractors out and leave the rest of it alone.[/quote]

That statement is totally wrong.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Angry;758444]You have some valid ideas but also some misguided ones. First off, I am a contractor in a position that should be a government position. I am not going to get into the reason why though.

My company gets paid a hell of a lot of money to provide my services to the customer. I see less than half of the percentage that gets forked out for me. Yes, my employer does provide whatever health insurance he deems suitable. The guy is cheap though so it's not all that great. In the end the guy who owns the company bank rolls much of the money that he is compensated for my services.

If the government were to take my position and turn it into a government one, they could offer me a substantial pay raise with standard Gov't benefits and still save anywhere from 30% to 50% of what they were paying for me.

I work with contractor and civilian alike everyday and effort is dependent upon the person. We all get complacent from time to time and all of us can still get fired. Yes, it is harder to fire the civilian, but not impossible.

I like small gov't too, however there are just some jobs that too sensitive for some bidding contractor to be performing on a rotating basis. With the government employee I believe that you have more loyalty and more control over information spillage.

BTW, my wife is Gov't and I don't think that she should lose her job or take a decrease in pay before they get rid of all the contractors mooching off of the government first.[/quote]

[url=http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-employees-continue-to-prosper/]Federal Employees Continue to Prosper | Cato @ Liberty[/url]

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm]Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com[/url]

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;758327]I have seen some govt workers, and some contractors. I know the govt pays more to contractors, but IMO they get a lot better effort out of the contractors. That's not true in every single case, but a govt worker knows he/she has benefits and usually LOOOONG term employment, where as the contractors reasonably ofter have to re-bid and prove their competitiveness.

Also, and this is hard to explain, I fundamentally believe in small govt. I think that's known. IF we reduce by cutting contractors we do two things we make the equivalent govt workers jobs more stable, and thus promote more institutionalized govt, AND we reduce the competition around any given govt function. IF we reduce by cutting govt jobs, we increase the competition in the market place (assuming that the best of the cut workers would go to the contracting companies and compete for those jobs) and we create a more flexible and small central govt that can hire contractors as needed, or fire them if they get lazy or uncompetitive.

Also when you say it pays contractors more are you including the levels of benefits that many govt workers get in that? I don't know that stat so it is a honest question. I tend to think that the contractor may get paid more straight up, but then they have to turn around and cover their employees benefits.[/QUOTE]

I won't argue deeply into it.

Maybe my point is better said like this: a govt employee is intrinsically tied to a larger govt, a contractor while wanting govt money can turn to a commercial market to increase their profits.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

And we're done.

[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zf5pc001"]Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com[/URL]

All that being done, I would implement the FairTax which would increase the tax base and provide an immediate jump start to the economy.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=firstdown;758452][URL="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-employees-continue-to-prosper/"]Federal Employees Continue to Prosper | Cato @ Liberty[/URL][/quote]
1. Goverrnment employees should be compensated well. Trust me they still won't become rich.

2. Most of them live in high cost living areas. So while on average they make more than private counterparts they are actually compensated properly for the type of work that they do in the area that they live in.

3. Contractors still eat up more tax dollars than the federal employees do.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

So I wonder if the NYT will publish a compilation of these self fixes.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Angry;759428]1. Goverrnment employees should be compensated well. Trust me they still won't become rich.

2. Most of them live in high cost living areas. So while on average they make more than private counterparts they are actually compensated properly for the type of work that they do in the area that they live in.

3. Contractors still eat up more tax dollars than the federal employees do.[/quote]

Ok so I guess that every one of those articles are wrong and your right. Thats why I have a 100's of customers who are now retired federal workers and in their 50's. Now they get their federal retirement and are working a second career. How many in the private sector can do that?

Your thinking of your area. We have thousands and thousands of federal workers in our area and our cost of living is not that high.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Angry;759428]3. Contractors still eat up more tax dollars than the federal employees do.[/quote]Short term, yes. Long term, no bacause their contracts can simply not be renewed or terminated for the "convenience of the Gov't".

As the federal workforce is cut back, contractors also can and should be eliminated where possible.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Angry;758310]So you cut Federal Employee pay and reduce the federal workfoce but don't cut federal contractors? The Gov't pays the contractors more than it pays it's own employees. I would just cut the contractors out and leave the rest of it alone.[/quote]

I would argue contractors largely do a better job. And sometimes cheaper.

edit: as many others have.

it's a simple math equation if we could find some solid data. I've worked in the contracting field. We did the job better and cheaper. We had to..we were a for profit industry. In gov't no one is for profit. They have intrinsically less motivation to do their job "well".

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

I want to know where all of these lazy ass government employees are. I don't see very many of them. They get annual evaluations and if they are not making the cut then it reflects on their eval.

Yes, in the long term a government employee can make more money. Considering that the majority of these people are privy to information that can be sensitive to national security I am all for keeping them happy. The number one motivator for espionage is money. By taking care of their own the government in a small way is detering the vast majority from even thinking about it.

BTW you cannot retire from the Gov't until you have put in 20 years of Federal Service and are age 55 or older. That is only 7 years earlier than the average in the US. Not everyone in the government retires right at age 55 though. Oh and do not confuse a military retirement after 20 years as the same thing because they are not.

Yes, some government retirees may opt to pick up an additional job for 5-10 years after retirement that is their choice. Don't hate the player, hate the game. You should have thought about it in your grand scheme.

[URL="http://www.ehow.com/about_4618296_average-retirement-age-america_.html"]What Is the Average Retirement Age in America? | eHow.com[/URL]

I will not see eye to eye with you guys on this topic. Ever

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Angry;759728]I want to know where all of these lazy ass government employees are. I don't see very many of them. They get annual evaluations and if they are not making the cut then it reflects on their eval.

Yes, in the long term a government employee can make more money. Considering that the majority of these people are privy to information that can be sensitive to national security I am all for keeping them happy. The number one motivator for espionage is money. By taking care of their own the government in a small way is detering the vast majority from even thinking about it.

BTW you cannot retire from the Gov't until you have put in 20 years of Federal Service and are age 55 or older. That is only 7 years earlier than the average in the US. Not everyone in the government retires right at age 55 though. Oh and do not confuse a military retirement after 20 years as the same thing because they are not.

Yes, some government retirees may opt to pick up an additional job for 5-10 years after retirement that is their choice. Don't hate the player, hate the game. You should have thought about it in your grand scheme.

[URL="http://www.ehow.com/about_4618296_average-retirement-age-america_.html"]What Is the Average Retirement Age in America? | eHow.com[/URL]

I will not see eye to eye with you guys on this topic. Ever[/quote]

I really think we are talking about two different kinds of govt employees. Remember, very few people are saying we should cut things like the NSA, or areas and departments that are vital to national security. So when you are talking about blackmail, espionage, etc,. I don't think the positions I would be looking for cuts would necessarily come from there.

Your next logical question might be, ok so what departments are you talking about. Fair enough. I certainly could see reducing the size of the Dept of Education as a starting point. I can't say that I have a specific list of jobs I would cut, but I think it's safe to say that jobs where national security could be compromised would be on the short list of "safe" jobs.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Angry;759728]I want to know where all of these lazy ass government employees are. I don't see very many of them. They get annual evaluations and if they are not making the cut then it reflects on their eval.

Yes, in the long term a government employee can make more money. Considering that the majority of these people are privy to information that can be sensitive to national security I am all for keeping them happy. The number one motivator for espionage is money. By taking care of their own the government in a small way is detering the vast majority from even thinking about it.

BTW you cannot retire from the Gov't until you have put in 20 years of Federal Service and are age 55 or older. That is only 7 years earlier than the average in the US. Not everyone in the government retires right at age 55 though. Oh and do not confuse a military retirement after 20 years as the same thing because they are not.

[B]Yes, some government retirees may opt to pick up an additional job for 5-10 years after retirement that is their choice. Don't hate the player, hate the game. You should have thought about it in your grand scheme.[/B]

[URL="http://www.ehow.com/about_4618296_average-retirement-age-america_.html"]What Is the Average Retirement Age in America? | eHow.com[/URL]

I will not see eye to eye with you guys on this topic. Ever[/quote]

From what I see Most people who retired from the federal goverment at age 55 go back to work. I don't have a problem with them doing that because thats how the system is set up. I have a problem with the system. As far as lazy that might not be the correct wording but everyone I know that works for the federal goverment will admitt they don't bust their ass at work.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=Angry;759728]I want to know where all of these lazy ass government employees are. I don't see very many of them. They get annual evaluations and if they are not making the cut then it reflects on their eval.[/quote]I see them every day at every level of Gov't (Fed primarily, but also at State and Local). It isn't just the Feds, contractors have similar problems with folks f-ing off and billing time against projects.

Only solution is to cut funding and force agencies to get smarter and leaner.

EDIT: Another solution is to pay a bonus to folks who save on departmental budgets, rather than blowing out the budget at FY end. Start putting coin in people's pockets for saving the Fed money and watch how fast agency budgets decline.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

Great responses. Back to fixing the budget, sorry for hijacking.

I believe that defense spending should be cut but it has to be cut in the right places. downsizing the military is cool. Withdrawling from and reducing the numbers of those stationed or deployed abroad will also help. Some R&D could be cut but only from those projects that combatants aren't going to benefit from.

You still have to develop new technologies to protect the soldier.
You have to annually increase the pay for active duty. The pay increases have to keep up with the percentages of the private sector. Most of the military still lives below the poverty level. That aint right.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=firstdown;759814]From what I see Most people who retired from the federal goverment at age 55 go back to work. I don't have a problem with them doing that because thats how the system is set up. I have a problem with the system. As far as lazy that might not be the correct wording but everyone I know that works for the federal goverment will admitt [B]they don't bust their ass at work[/B].[/quote]
you work hard every day?

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=dmek25;760167]you work hard every day?[/quote]
Some days I do some days I don't but what does that matter?

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

I'll give it a shot...

1- Bring our troops from the Middle East home. Either those countries step up or pay up for us to be there.

2- Stop throwing billions of dollars to 3rd world countries. Let some other nation throw their money away and raise their budget.

3- Make marijuana legal, tax it like cigarrets and alcohol. Basically take it out of the war on drugs. Only go after the harder stuff.

4- Flat Tax. Everyone pays 10% or 15% of what they make. No loop holes.

5- Have the military rotate securing the border states. (my only other caviate is to simply take Mexico. ;) Everyones corrupt, someone needs to go clean house. Then build a fence south of Mexico where the border would be smaller. lol.)

6- Make Wednesday a day off also like Sat. and Sun. Work Mon., Tues., have Wed. off, work Thurs., and Fri., have Sat. Sun. off. I don't kow about you guys but I need a break in the middle of the week.

7- Extend school hours so kids will be at school from 7 am to 5 pm. I know this sound horrible. But I'm thinking about how school lets out at 2 or 3 now and families have to struggle to pay day care or not be able to work due to having to be there for when the kids get out of school.

8- People will only be able to collect Social Services if they have some form of job (unless they are disabled). People have jobs and Social Services tells them they can't help them due to them having a job. But if the person quits Social Services can help cause they essentially don't make enough then. Social Services should be supplimenting peoples income not telling people to quit and paying the full amount.

9- I'd pardon everyone who got voted off of Dancing with the Stars and put them back on why? cause we all know the only reason Palen's daughter is making it this far is due to the name. She can't dance and other have danced better, plus she shows no emotion while dancing. Which is something the judges told her from day one and she still has not fixed.

^- sorry went on a tangent.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=firstdown;760171]Some days I do some days I don't but what does that matter?[/quote]
your one bashing gov't workers for being lazy. and back on topic, you do the most bashing of anyone around here. whats your plan to fix this mess?

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

I also would stop the Navy from patroling everyone elses waters. They want us to use the Navy like the police then they other countries or the UN can start paying for the services.

It cost our military money to fuel the ships, pay the guys running the ship, and any soldiers on board those ships, as well as food. Time to start making the other countries pay for our services.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=dmek25;760178]your one bashing gov't workers for being lazy. and back on topic, you do the most bashing of anyone around here. whats your plan to fix this mess?[/quote]

Who have I bashed I just stated what people I know who work for the federal goverment have said. I own my own business and write my own pay check so the only person affected by how much or how hard I work is myself.

My plan would be to slash the federal goverment from top to bottom and cut spending across the board.

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

education? military? any specifics?

Re: Here's Your Chance to Fix the Budget
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;759449]So I wonder if the NYT will publish a compilation of these self fixes.[/quote]

Meant to post this last week, sorry

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21leonhardt-graphic.html?src=ISMR_HP_LI_LST_FB[/url]