Something New or Not, 'cause we dont pay attention!

[EddieS'04]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xOAgT8L_BqQ?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xOAgT8L_BqQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

 

[Travis Stevens]

wow... this video really bashes goverment employees... its kinda upsetting really.

 

[Richard L]

travis,

I disagree. The video does not bash government employees...It bashes the government for growing at such an illogical rate during a recession.



Government employees have the right to try keep their jobs just as any private sector employee has the right to try to keep their jobs. The problem is that there are simply way too many government employees, and that is going to be very difficult to pare down to a justifiyable size.



It appears that Obama has decided that if he cannot get the private sector to create jobs, the government will??? And we all know what that means down the road...Big retirement pensions and retirement benefits that we in the private sector will end up paying for in higher taxes.



When a private sector business is feeling financial stess and the typical cost cutting techniques have not worked, the most cost effective next steps they take is to reduce staff by laying off a significant number of employees. It appears that our government does just the opposite...They hire more people than they can possibly justify, and then they can claim they need more money, higher taxes, etc.



If you were unemployed and the government offered you a job paying $123K a year plus some nice benefits and retirement plan, are you going to say NO??? I think not. So it is not the employees fault and they are not the ones who are being bashed. The video is pointing out the very obvious fact that our government spending is OUT OF CONTROL. This is the fault of the top government officials who are at the top of the food chain.



Since that was so depressing, here are a few funnies that might cheer you up.



You know why a banana is like a politician?

When he first comes in he is green, then he turns yellow and then he's rotten.



I think Congressmen and Senators should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we could identify all of their corporate sponsors.



:bwahaha:



...Rich

 

[EddieS'04]

I think Congressmen and Senators should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we could identify all of their corporate sponsors.

I like that. Also add to when they get up to speak. They have to thank all their sponsors, for getting them there..:bwahaha:

 

[Robert Thomas]

I find a lots of things wrong with the presentation.



To understand the problems with the theory one has to have a understanding of the different types of federal employees and the status that they maintain in the system. Also one has to understand the budget process for individual agencies.



To say that all federal employees vote in a block depends on the status of the employee.



Does a Senator's staff vote just about 100% for one party, most likely yes. Do Presidential appointees vote 100% for one party, most likely, for a second term. Do federal employees, with status, vote for a certain party based on job protection, I think not. They vote more like the average American. How the military votes I don't know.



The number of employees making over $100,000 a year is limited to senior employees, some employees on salary + 25%, Professional service employees, and administrative appointees. Salaried employee are paid on several different scales. The average employee is much like a non government employee. Approximately 35% of the listed salary disappears before they even take the paycheck home.



Cutting the number of government employees could be massive if they want, without difficulty for federal employees, through attrition, IE just don't fill vacant position. As long as the public wants to agree to limiting the services offered.

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,



I agree that the majority of government employees do NOT vote in a block for a single candidate.....And as a retired veteran, I can assure you that military personel also do not vote in unison for the same candidates. There are conservatives, liberals and moderates in the same numbers as you would see in the private/public sectors.

Cutting the number of government employees could be massive if they want, without difficulty for federal employees, through attrition, IE just don't fill vacant position. As long as the public wants to agree to limiting the services offered.

I'm not sure I understand your logic. Simply reducing employee through normal attrition is what most businesses do to cut back on spending....but that has some very limited results that takes time to see results, and most often the next step is major layoffs. The US government cannot sustain that amount of employee growth without any growth in the economy?? The government did not provide the military or Social Security beneficiaries any COLA (Cost of living allowance) increase in 2011 because they claimed that the US economy experienced negative growth based on the Consumer Index's....Yet we all know that gas, and food prices have increased significantly over what they were last year???



As for the American public being willing to agree to cutbacks or limitations on service should not be an issue...I don't see where the government services have increased or improved any by this dramatic increase in the number of government employees??



Please explain where you see the increase in the number of government employees has improved any of the services provided by the US Government. The only one area might be in the number of people used to calculate the increasing number of unemployeed Americans.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Richard,



When a government activity is designated by congress, a budget and number of employees (FTE's) for that activity is established. The budget and FTE's do not change during the following years without a further action by congress, with the exception of a cost of operation increase given across the board many years. The yearly increase establishes a new budget for the previously approved activity. Most agencies are probably operating at about 90% of their budget programmed to "personal services'' IE PEOPLE. Some agencies DOD and others that give away money don't have this ratio. So if you want to cut funds to the operational branches of government, then you have to cut FTE's, People. You are 100% correct when you say this type of cuts take time to trickle down to real savings, however, the savings do occure and are real. If congress was to cut FTE's for a activity the funding for that activity would be reduced from the approve budget.



I can't answer you question at to what the additional FTE's that we are now paying for have done for me or you. Other than lighten our wallets. I never said that it did. I said that if they are reduced you will notice. Why.



I do know the nature of the beast. If you are a agency head and are mandated to reduce FTE's you will reduce the FTE's that most effect the public. Why, because you know the public will respond and congress will fold, then give you the money back. Take it from what happens at the top. What do you hear when things are going to shut down. No budget = no file clerk to process your SS payment or Yellowstone National Park will close. Did you ever hear any congress person or the president step before the public and say. No Budget = I will not get paid, or we won't be able to send 2 billion to Pakistan.



:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

I understand the government process and agree that we cannot just start laying off government employees. But attrition has not worked (and rarely does) when one job vacancy is not filled, but 3 new positions are created and filled !!



I have worked for the goverment and I know that the various agencies are given a budget to operate for the fiscal year. They are also asked to save money, but each agency head appears to be building their own personal empire. They have no incentive to cut expenses. If they cut spending by 10%, their next years budget will be reduced by another 10%...If he spends all the money in the previous budget, they will usually get that amount plus any budgeted cost increases. This has been going on since day-one and does nothing to cut spending.



My concern is how we let our OUT OF CONTROL government hire so many people. It is the same mentality that the auto makers have... The mentality of these companies as well as our government is to live for today and put off dealing with the problems you create today and let someone else deal with that later.



Obviously by drastically cutting budgets of many of these agencies, will force them to reduce their staffs, but it still should not allow them to ignore their service oriented mission. Unfortunately, like you said, most managers will lay off the employees who are doing the core services that effect the public the most.



I have only worked for one company that was smart enough to make a bold move and keep the core workers and laid off only the worthless managers.... They actually laid off department directors, managers, and even a few Vice Presidents (They had way too many VP's any way...about 6) :banana:



If the agency head lays off his core workers to justify the need for more money, he should be fired for incompetency since he is not fulfilling his mission to provide the services he was hired to do. Nobody is so important that they cannot be fired and replaced by someone who can do the job better, especially if they cannot fulfill the core mission of their job. There are plenty of unemployed people out there who would gladly take over and do a better job and they won't ask for a $123K salary to do it.



I understand all of your points, but that just makes it all the more important to make significant changes the way our government operates and put some serious limits and restrictions on hiring and give some incentives for employees and managers who are able to cut their budgets and yet keep their departments operating at peak efficency.



We live in the computer age....every company in every modern country has benefited from computers by not needing as many clerical people, yet our government has probably spent more on computer equipment than anyone but has not properly utilized the technology.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Cutting the number of federal employees may help but it is not the answer to the budget problem. It's a fart in a hurricane. Whatever the number of cuts, it would be a very small part of a multi trillion dollar problem. Figuring a 20% cut in a 3 million individual workforce at say $100,000 per employee what is the savings? My brain won't do the numbers.

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

I understand that "No one thing" will solve the deficit caused by many years of overspending, But the problem will never be solved if we don't start somewhere.



For a 20% reduction in a 3 million employee workforce that averages $100K salaries per year is a $60 million savings per year. Not a tremendous amount of money, but never the less it is a start and is only the tip of the iceberg. Over a 10 year period of further cuts, and factor in the savings of not having to pay additional employee expenses for all the Benefits, and retirement pensions, and pretty soon you are talking about some really big number$$ !



:grin:



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Social Security Shortfall 2011 - 1 Trillion +



Defense Department 2011 - 700 Billion +



Foreign Aid 2010 - 47 Billion +



Cutting 600,000 federal employees in 2011 - 60 million -



:banghead::banghead:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

The capital district continues to be the one area of the country that seems recession proof. That's all one really needs to know.



Fire them all in 2012.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

Social Security Shortfall 2011 - 1 Trillion +

Defense Department 2011 - 700 Billion +

Foreign Aid 2010 - 47 Billion +

Cutting 600,000 federal employees in 2011 - 60 million -

Precisely my point !! All of this is because of poor management by the politicians and the upper level civil service management.



Social Security was intended to be self-sufficient based on employee contributions. Obviously 40-50 years ago, nobody extrapilated those number out, or looked at what this program was going to cost now in 2011. Obviously the Social Security Tax must be raised and probably continue to increase in the future.



As a former member of the military, I support defense spending as long as we can maintain the best trained, and equiped military in the world....Even so, there is a lot of waste that needs to be cut.



Foreign Aide is one of the areas that need some serious cuts. We are giving way too much money to contries that neither pay us back, or are the least bit greatfull for what we have given them. Way too much money has been wasted proping up the corrupt governments of Afghanistan, and Iraq...much like what was done in Vietnam. I would have thought that we learned those lessons in Vietnam, but I guess not?



I am a firm beleiver in the old addage, "Charity begins at home". When the USA is on the bring of bankrupcy, I don't think we need to be supporting the corrupt governments of other countries.



By eliminating the $60 million a year in federal workers salaries, we are also reducing those future pensions, and medical expenses....That probably will exceed the $60 million per year whe would save initially.



We as American citizens and taxpayers are not getting the biggest bang for our buck, and it's the totally the fault of the politicians and the upper echelon government management.



...Rich

 

[EddieS'04]

Im not very smart about economics. I dont care how small the cut the cut is, when you compare millions to billions. IMO, start somewhere and quit hiring, what I call nobodys. Let those in the core pick up some of the clerical or whatever. I believe the fedrals have the same thing that happens in civilian jobs. Time wasted.



It was happening at my plant at one time. We didnt need one forman per three hourly. Also one superintendent per three formans. Also one manager per 3 superintindents.

At one time about a 450 man work force was about 200 managment. That is and was crazy. I know this will piss some off, but. 95% of managment were all Masons. The rest were beer drinking buddies. Im not making this up.

If you cant trust the hourly to do his job. Send him packing. No one had to tell me what to do. I usualy had my projects or repairs finnished before my forman knew about the problem.



One government example I can think of. Is the energy department that Carter established, to get us off of forgien oil. It still exist and has grown astronomicly. They have done nonthing that has moved us to the original purpose.

How many other agencies are the same.



I say damned the torpedoes. Start somewhere and quit hiring. Im sure there is wasted time, that an existing employee, can pick up the slack. In the years to come it will add up.

:soap:

 

[Richard L]

Eddie,

Very good point about the Department of Energy that Carter created. I was stationed in Washington, DC at the Forestall Bldg on Constitution Ave, almost directly accross the stree from the Smithsonian Insitute.



We were kicked out of our offices (as were all the other military agencies that occupied that building) and we had to move to the Pentagon and become of USAMSA...which support the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff who at that time was a US Army General.



While I was there, a little less than half the staff were DA or DOD civilian employees...even my direct boss was a DA civilian. After I was there about 2 weeks, my boss asked my what I thought about the operations there...I honestly told him that I was amazed that they managed to get anything done there since it was operated by a bunch of misfits. I don't think he liked my answer...:grin: But I did not care...he asked me for my opinion, and I told him.



When we moved to the Penagon, I was declared as excess personel and I immediately put in for a transfer to Europe. It was approved within a few days (I had friends at the US Army Personal office). When they found out I was being transfered the Major I worked for tried to claim that my being declare as excess personel was a mistake, but they would not allow him to revoke my transfer to Europe without my permission. Within a few months I was on my way to Germany!!!



Anyway, while I worked their I dealt with a lot of DA and DOD civilians and found 98% to be worthless. They did not want to do their job, and if I did their job one time as a favor so they could leave early, that became my job from that day forward. When I complained to my boss (the civilian) he felt I was not being a team player. I felt like I was a team sucker !!



My impression is that 75% of the government employees could be eliminated without any reduction in services, and we could balance the budget in 5 years.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Rich,



Are you saying that we should do away with 75% of all employees in Federal Service.



Are you familiar with the RIF poilicies. (Reduction in Force) They are much different from the military.

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

Are you saying that we should do away with 75% of all employees in Federal Service.

No, but that would be a good start! :bwahaha:



Actually we do need to trim down the government bureaucracy and reducing the number of government employees (not military) by about 50% over the next 10 years would be a good start?



That's only about a 5% reduction per year, and to make it fair, and have the biggest impact, I would insure that at least half of those employees cut make over $100K per year.



If the RIF policies won't allow these types of cuts, then "Change the policy" because the old way is not working !!



The definition of insanity is "To repeat the exact same thing over and over again and expect the outcome to be different" That's exactly how we got into this mess...The change that Obama promised has never materialized. Everybody is tied up in the politics and getting reelected. The kinds of changes that are needed are Revolutionary, not Evolutionary....we don't have that kind of time.



We need to Reengineer American Democracy and we need to start soon. Perpetuating laws, rules, policies or regulations that have pushed us into this corner need to be changed, modified or rewritten to allow for a more efficient, cost conscience government that gives the American tax payer the biggest bang for their buck.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Richard,



We both seem to agree that massive budget actions need to be undertake to get this country back on track. However, the way we would approach it is somewhat different. I recommend no more that a longterm hiring freeze "across the board" to reduce the workforce, save money, and promote efficiency. I feel that if you remove 1.5 million employees from the federal workforce, economically and functionally, you create a federal disaster and saving are far less than you project.



If you have a legislative body that is unable to make progress. I don't want them spending months arguing about repealing RIF policies, when all could quickly agree to hiring freeze. I would rather that they spend most of their time on the big ticket items. A trillion plus each year on SS. Fix it. Look at the big ticket item.



SS easy fix. Move up the retirement age. Increase withholdings. Stop mailing checks to people who don't need them. (I am retired, we have a joint income of over $50,000 a year. They started mailing me $175 a month. (I earned it but, I don't need it.) Stop sending SS checks out of the Country.



Medicare easy fix. Repeal Obama care, enact tort reform, stop fraud.



Defense Department easy fix. Close support bases all over the world. Bring units back home. All the military funding then goes back into the US economy instead of to foreign countries. Consider a joint force. Take away Defense Department funding for Foreign Aid. Stop building weapons because a local economy needs it, but rather based on the security or troop protection dictates .



Foreign Aid very easy fix. Take it away 75% until we balance our budget. Save 25% for support of foreign disaster relief.



Congress and the President - Cut funding and salaries 50% until the budget is balanced. Will save very little, but they need incentive.

 

[Les]

Cutting 600,000 federal employees in 2011 - 60 million -

This is incorrect, based on your example of $100,000 cost per year of a federal employee. Should be 600,000 x 100,000 = $60,000,000,000

 

[Richard L]

Les,

You are correct...:haveabeer:

I felt the answer was too low, but it was all my error. I just did the math in my head by just moving the decimal point, and obviously missed a few zeros. :banghead::banghead: :grin:



I think Yogi Bera once said: " A few million $ here...a few million $ there, and pretty soon you are talking about a lot of money". :bwahaha:



Yes, it should be $60 Billion not $60 Million, which makes the savings more significant, and my point even more valid. We need to cut back on the number of government employees, and we need to start soon !!



A 5% cut each year for about 10 years should pare the government payroll down to a more managable size and will pay dividends far into the future when we don't have to pay so many of those hugh retirement pensions.



I think the military should be exempt from this cut back, but the size of the military can be reduced through attrition. The military has had an "Up or Out" policy for officers and enlisted personel. For Enlisted personel, if you do not achieve a specific rank within a specific number of years service, you were barred from reenlisting and you had to get out at the end of your enlistment.



Officers were terminated if they were passed up for promotion for two or three consecutive years



....Rich