How do we reduce the size of government

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Pete

On talk radio yesterday they said there are more members of the various military bands than there are in the entire state department. I thought that was pretty odd.

Aren't there something like 200 US military bands???

[Ken King]

Originally Posted by Pete

On talk radio yesterday they said there are more members of the various military bands than there are in the entire state department. I thought that was pretty odd.

Hello Ken!

Hi Pete!

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Aren't there something like 200 US military bands???

Yep, lots of bands, don't know about 200 but a lot.

Look at the DOD organizational chart http://odam.defense.gov/omp/Function...March_2012.pdf I'm sure some of that can be reduced/eliminated/restructured.

[sockgirl77 (Premo)]

Here's a start...take away some of the DoD owned vehicles. I think I see over 100 DoD vehicles on this tiny base. I think that it's completely crazy that the plant workers are driving around in these cars. I can understand the trucks if they're hauling stuff, but not the cars. They can limit the number down to one per building, not 4 or 5.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by sockgirl77

Here's a start...take away some of the DoD owned vehicles. I think I see over 100 DoD vehicles on this tiny base. I think that it's completely crazy that the plant workers are driving around in these cars. I can understand the trucks if they're hauling stuff, but not the cars. They can limit the number down to one per building, not 4 or 5.

I wont use my personal car to go from place to place during work hours.

Why should anyone have to do that? I would think there are much better ways to save money.

[sockgirl77 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

I wont use my personal car to go from place to place during work hours.

Why should anyone have to do that? I would think there are much better ways to save money.

Like I said, downsize the fleet to one per building. There are hundreds of other base employees that go from building to building on a daily basis in their personal vehicle because driving a DoD car is not an option. No contractor on this base is allowed to drive a DoD car.

[bcp (Premo)]

and a bigger and better start?
Cut welfare back to a roof over the head, food dropped off weekly, no spending cash.
Give a card to use public transportation for the purpose of looking for work, no cell phones nothing. Shelter and food.
then go through and get rid of any assistance to any person that is not here legally and make a requirement that anyone accepting assistance was actually born in the country.

[Chasey_Lane]

Originally Posted by Pete

How about reforming the contracting process. Giving real thoughts to CPI instead of lip service, stripping away burdens and impediments. Rewarding efficiency.

Everyone #####es about federal workers and the CSS. Fact of the matter is the government created this god awful mess we all work in and they regulate it to the Nth degree.

Ever been through a DCAA audit? They spend $10 to be sure a contractor does not get $1 they don't spend $3 to document. You know we "could" reduce costs but are barred to by federal regulations.

Name another industry where the customer directly tells you what your profit margin is, comes in and audits you to ensure you don't eeek out a single dime above the limit, then changed the rules of the "contract" that you won in a competition you spent $70K trying to win.

Hello Walmart, I know for a fact that the giant jar of Vlasic pickles cost you $3.17. you are allowed to charge me $3.32. Oh BTW I want monthly reports proving what you paid for the jars, lids, lables, pickles, spices and vinegar. If I come back in April and you made .01 over you owe it back to me. Oh and you have to have at least 6 people hired on OH to make sure you comply with the 250 pages of accounting regulations. Oh and those rates you proposed and we awarded you the win on, they mean nothing because next month I am going to set a limit per hour what you are REALLY allowed to charge. Oh and the number of hours you were awarded, it is now reduced by 50%.

Spot on!!

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Chasey_Lane

Spot on!!

Not only is that spot on, but they could get rid of the MFD requirements for purchases and go to a best value/price purchasing instead.

[tommyjo]

Originally Posted by bcp

the Sequestration thread got me wondering.
Right now its 13 that say yes to sequestration, and 20 that say no because it might affect their jobs.

Face it, to shrink government, people have to lose their jobs, to just transfer from one agency to another does not shrink government, It might reduce budgets by a little, but nothing noticable.
So how do we fairly go about shrinking things?
Do we just not hire new people into the agencies, and slowly shut them down as people retire, then at some point relocate the remaining workers? That would do it, however there would come a point that some people would be getting paid for nothing more than sitting around playing on the internet. (I already hold this position)
So who gets cut and how is the decision made. Do we give early retirements, lump sum payments?

As usual, you put the cart before the horse and the responses to your question are just useless.

You need to understand why the deficit is increasing. Your post shows you don't. You start from the premise that there are too many govt employees. That is wrong. The wrong premise leads to the wrong conclusion. The second part of your premise is that the only solution is cuts...this is also wrong. We have a revenue and spending problem.

You also need to understand how we got here. If you can't see that decisions going back to the 1980s started us down the path to where we are today...the horrible decisions of the Bush Administration...the recession and the retirement of the Baby Boomers put us here. It's not welfare moms and international support.

You also need to understand that immediate spending cuts are not required. As you all point out, we have a weak economy. You all rail against any tax increase and point out that is not the solution in a fragile economy. If you can see that point, why can't you see that spending cuts have the exact same impact on a fragile economy? As the economy recovers, the deficit, expressed in terms of GDP, is already falling. If you weren't so blinded by your political viewpoint you would know this.

You also need to understand that the real problem is in the future and what that problem is. No one on this board does. When you can't see past a narrow minded politically biased view, you'll never understand what the actual problems are, where they came from and the real (and difficult) decisions that lie ahead.

There are myriads of places where you can obtain the information you need to understand the problems...but if the your only information sources are The Blaze amd Fox News, you are going to continue to be uniformed and uneducated (which is exactly the goal of propaganda outfits like those).

*************************

A balanced budget amendment or the idea that we should "just cut $1 trillion from the budget as I saw mention below is plain stupid and shows a complete lack of understanding. If you don't want to be called stupid or a kook...then don't make stupid, kooky suggestions. Stop posting on topics that you obviously don't bother to take the time to understand even at its most basic levels.

[abcxyz]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

You also need to understand that the real problem is in the future and what that problem is. No one on this board does.

I do, people thinking (or lack there of) like you do is the problem.