It isn’t hard – from Zero Hedge:
…In a nutshell: do to the government, what the privates sector has done to itself in the past 3 years, and fire 15% of the federal government workforce…
…slimming the US government ever so modestly, by just 15%, would generate savings of $117.4 billion a year, or $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. And no, these are not reductions in future spendings: these are real actionable cuts from the day they are enacted, with fungible cash able to be used for any other, much more needed purposes, up to and including economically stimulative projects, which actually generate jobs for the private sector…
Ah, but that would mean less government employees, and thus less government union members…and so less donations to Democrats seeking power. It is a nauseating circle of corruption…demands for big government in order to pay for politicians backing big government who will then make government even bigger.
Now, why didn’t the GOP go this rout? For two reasons:
1. The TEA Party element is strong, but it is not dominant in the GOP. It can stop some things from happening, but it cannot yet force through genuinely conservative/libertarian policies.
2. Even as the TEA Party element rises from strength to strength, we have to deal with the reality that the American people installed an ultra-leftist President in 2008. Obama simply will not – cannot, in fact – make genuine cuts in spending. Liberal Democrats had been slavering for years in anticipation of just that day…the day they managed to hoodwink the American people in to voting an ultra-leftist President in to office while ultra-leftists controlled the Congress. They essentially upped government spending by a trillion dollars annually and this is to be the “new normal”; no liberal is ever going to be allowed to cut in to it.
But what this proposal shows is that without even for a moment altering the basic structure of our government, massive spending cuts are possible. The government is so impossibly over-bloated that you can make cuts of $100 billion a year and you’ll still have an overwhelming behemoth of government. All the talk of throwing granny over the cliff is just so much liberal lies…and they simply must know it; no one is actually that stupid.
Get ready for the political fight of your life – 2012 will be the final battle between liberty and Big Government. One of the two will prevail, and probably prevail for good.
Blogs For Victory 
I would venture to bring an axe to Federal government. Entire programs and policies. Let the little fish swim with the rest in the sea of the private sector ~ after all, if you are so damn good then you should have no problem getting a job or starting up a company in the current market. Isn’t that the American dream?
Another item that really pisses me off: “would generate savings of $117.4 billion a year, or $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years.”
“Over 10 years” FU. If you have the balls then cut it off and pay the tab. Geez, even a drunk can figure out that equation and maybe we can get past the phase “spending like a drunk sailor” because ever drunk sailor I have had the pleasure of knowing spent his own money and not OPM.
Starting to agree with GMB here that the only way to save us is to burn it to the ground and rebuild.
OPM. It is an addiction. An addiction thousands of times worse than any known drug. Why? Because there are no know side affects to the users. None. You can just keep using and using and using and nothing bad will ever happen to you.
The Republican Party is a co-dependent in this addiction. Of the 435 house members and 100 in the senate, Consevatives can count on the support of just 25 of those people. The rest are willing participants in this addiction.
How much longer can the party last? How much longer will the producers have carry the looters and takers? How much longer can they before before it becomes a zero sum game?
Think about how long our founding fathers took beggin and pleading for redress against the british crown before they had had enough.
We have had 98 years of unchecked progressiveism. The Republican Party seems to be ok with this. Things will change next election right? You just go right ahead and keep thinking that. Good luck.
Want an example of why western society is crashing and burning? Wasting money on comparing smurfs to nazi’s. Pretty much says it all. The following vid is in german. For those of you who do not speak it maybe Thomas will translate it for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPNj0hDrO6U&feature=player_embedded are smurfs nazi’s???
Consequences of Across the Board Hiring Freeze.
While immediate reduction of the federal workforce is appealing, a hiring freeze would be less disruptive.
Assume a workforce that ranges in age from 20 to 65. Assume further that the various age classes, 20-21, 21-22, etc., are equally represented and that everyone retires at age 65. Finally assume that retirement is the only route by which employees exit the workforce.
Then 1/45 = 2.2% of the workforce retires, and the workforce shrinks by that amount, annually.
To achieve a 15% reduction would take a freeze of 7.38 years, i.e., the size, x(t), of the workforce in year t of the freeze is given by x(0) exp(-.022t), from which one concludes that if (x(t*)/x(0)) = .15, t* = 7.38 years.
In fact, this is almost certainly an overestimate:
1. The age distribution of federal workers, like that of the general population, is probably skewed to the older age classes.
2. Some individuals exit the workforce before reaching age 65.
If one instead assumes a 4% loss rate, a 15% reduction in the workforce is achieved in about 4.06 years. At this rate of attrition, the workforce would shrink by 50% in 17.32 years.
As the workforce shrinks, additional economies will result.
Never ask a burocrat if his/hers/its job is really needed. Of coarse it is. Civilization depends on it. Just ask the 2nd vice assistant deputy undersecretary of transgenderd undocumented nonurban housing affairs.
Never ask a burocrat if his/hers/its job is really needed.
Remember the blizzard in D.C. a couple years ago when 80% of the federal workforce was asked to stay home because they were classified as “non-essential”?
I know this is an oversimplification, but it is just an outline.
Dismantle the IRS by initiating either a flat tax or the Fair Tax. Move the IRS people, who are already pretty good at snooping and prying and investigating, over to Immigration to handle the backlog of paperwork that would be generated by a registration system.
Then allow attrition to take over, and as the former IRS employees retire or quit, just don’t replace them. By that time a registration-based investigation process would be pretty much finished, so we could deal with two things at one time.
While this is going on, shrink and consolidate other agencies, such as Interior and Agriculture, stripping them down to the barest minimum and gradually shifting what has to be retained over to state control.
Over the long period—10 years?—-of adjustment the federal tax rate would have to be going down, as state taxes would be going up to accommodate the increased state involvement in government.
I have an even more evil suggestion. Create a Bureau of Government Efficiency not unlike the Base Closing Commission, staff it with the most bureaucratic of bureaucrats and turn them loose to refund programs & agencies that have completed their task, are redundant, have failed, have exceeded their charter or become corrupt. Government functions directed by the Constitution are somewhat protected. All else is fair game. Just to be sure they do their job, BoGE will have no budget of their own. The only source of income comes from the programs & agencies they shut down.
holy moley..batman
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded
1. Not cutting the government isn’t so hard EXCEPT the rank dishonesty of GOP accounting. 15% cuts magically apply to the military in the SAVINGS columns but don’t show up in the REALITY column. Mark wants a 4th war in Syria for goodness sakes.
2. The GOP house leadership failed to deliver any meaningful cuts to the budget because they only want to undercut the monies which favors the Democrats and not the monies which their constituents desire. Michelle Bachmann’s farm subsidies should be the poster child for what’s wrong with the GOP.
3. Obama is as fiscally conservative as Bush, Bush Sr. and Reagan and more fiscally conservative than Ford or Nixon. He is willing to cut social programs started by Nixon in favor of returning the tax rates to Reagan levels. He is not a Tea Party candidate and has no interest in uniformly cutting social programs while watching defense remain untouched and the tax cuts for the wealthy remain status quo. Like Bachmann he is a politician who will leave his church if it is politically expedient and protects his base supporters while attacking others as pillagers of the economy.
“Obama is as fiscally conservative as Bush, Bush Sr. and Reagan ”
Obama is as fiscally conservative as Reagan??? WTF moment there Bardolf. Reagan never had a congress worth a damn to work with. You know it. The other two I’ll go along with.
GMB
Here is what fiscal conservatives said about Reagan in 1988. Rhetoric aside, compare and contrast with Obama.
In 1980, Jimmy Caner’s last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of “national income” (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of “national income.”
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan’s 3%—in the government’s take of “national income.” And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan’s requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn’t count the recently signed $4 billion “drought-relief” measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. “contribution” to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, “We’re not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have.”
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
Sorry Sir but your arguments just don’t hold any water. The donkrats controlled both houses of congress except for two years of a repub senate under reagan. Those donkrats could of done something about it but didn’t.
Gored by your own ox. Sure you are an Educator? 🙂
GMB
What part of “Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend.” is hard to understand. WE AGREE that the Democrats are big spenders. You seem to think there are politicians (like Reagan) who wield influence using means other than economic giveaways. You have no proof to support that contention. The most you can say is nay nay the other side of worse looters.
Again, the ox doing the goring of Reagan is a group of fiscal conservatives immediately after the end of his presidency in 1988. That was long before the mythology of Reagan had him closing the borders, standing tough in the mid-East and trying to hold the line on spending.
Bardolf, the Congress did not have to give him what he asked for. Knowing a bit about President Reagan here, I would wager he asked for about 50% more than he actually wanted.
In the end though, Congress is the where the approval comes from not the presidents office.
Who was arguing about closing the border or being tough on the middle east? You already know how feel about President Reagans mistakes there.
Are you sure that you are sure? Come to dark side Bardolf. We are waiting for you. 🙂
GMB
Again I hold the congress to blame. I think a mythology about Reagan has crept up which is disconnected from facts. He was hardly a fiscal conservative in practice.
Ron Paul is a Republican. Isn’t that enough dark side for B4V?
Bardolf, I mean the real Dark Side. I am no republican. The last party I belonged to was the U.S. Taxpayers Party. Now mostly Defunct. A forerunner if will of the TEA Party.
I am talking about the real dark side. Those of us that understand that depending on anything other than family and friends is pretty much pointless anymore. Those of us that have not planted a crisis garden but have planted an armegeddon garden and are prepared to defend it. Those of us that are prepared for the collapse when it comes.
GMB
I have 12 acres of prime land (currently going fallow but for some hazelnut trees) that await my retirement in 20+ years. I’m pushing for a change to local ordinances prohibiting poultry in the city. I’m not really a dark side person but the ancestors lived through the depression and passed on some genes just in case. (They seem to have skipped the boomers in my family hehehe!!!)
3. Obama is as fiscally conservative as Bush, Bush Sr. and Reagan and more fiscally conservative than Ford or Nixon. – barstool
Proving once again that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Hey stool, please tell us again what precipitated the housing crisis, I always enjoy your opinions on that.
Clueless
I’ve provided evidence above in response to GMB about fiscal conservatives. Since you enjoy my take on the housing crisis I’ll be more than happy to oblige with my tinfoil hat on.
http://www.justpeace.org/structures/squeeze.htm
1. Real weekly wages rose until 1973 and have been declining pretty much ever since. Women in the workforce have helped to forestall lifestyle crashes due to this stagnant growth.
2. Costs of things like education and health care skyrocketed and continue to outpace inflation.
3. By the early 80’s the middle class was looking for safe havens to stop the erosion of progress. a) For retirement they were offered tax breaks if they put their pension in the stock markets (401K) and b) for midterm planning they were told to use their house as a piggy bank.
4. With the huge increases in $ put into the stock markets and housing market there was an increase in the apparent underlying value of both. There were 2 bubbles created. (The stock market added a further bubble in the form of dotcom which eventually burst right around the time Clinton left office but which had allowed him a balanced budget.) The real estate market folk believed that a golden age of ever increasing prices was upon the US. Every effort was made to enlarge the amount of $ pumped into that sector of the economy. Politicians on both sides of the aisle cut back on oversight and encouraged irresponsible buying especially among those with little resources (insert whatever group of looters you wish).
5. The Ponzi scheme hit its limits and came crashing down from its heights. It still hasn’t hit the historical trend which would mean housing prices should fall 20% more. The reasons for the still artificially high prices are obvious. The middle class has no other investment vehicles and is willing via the government to Stimulate (Obama/Bush) or Bulldoze(bankers with tax breaks) its way to keeping the market from going down further. Of course being ‘good people’ the justification for stimulating/bull dozing is with terms like ‘market stability’ etc.
Now what about the future?
A. wrt the housing crisis there isn’t any amount of stimulating that can be done. Gravity will pull down the prices eventually to historical standards and perhaps a bit more.
B. wrt the stock market it will be relatively stagnant until the GOP can convince young rubes to put their Social Security into it. It will then take off for a run of 10 years or so until it crashes and the US looks like Greece or Portugal. The key is to put $ in the stock market at the beginning when SS is privatized and try to guess the peak based on demographics.
2. Costs of things like education and health care skyrocketed and continue to outpace inflation.
Can you guess why that is? Hint, think unions and government regulations
..for midterm planning they were told to use their house as a piggy bank.
I sure don’t remember that.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle cut back on oversight and encouraged irresponsible buying especially among those with little resources
And yet I remember Bush warning Congress about this very issue in 2005
And wrt to SS, I would encourage you to investigate the municipality of Galveston, TX
2. Costs of things like education and health care skyrocketed and continue to outpace inflation. Can you guess why that is? Hint, think unions and government regulations. – Clueless
The American Medical Association is in this position. It is a trade union that can limit the number of people who can enter. How can it do this? The essential control is at the stage of admission to medical school. – Milton Friedman
SO what is the GOP doing to break the AMA trade? NADA
Don’t know what unions you mean in higher education beyond the secretaries and groundskeepers and they aren’t driving up the prices like the athletic departments and exponential increase in administrators.
..for midterm planning they were told to use their house as a piggy bank. I sure don’t remember that. – Clueless
Well you have a poor memory, nothing to be ashamed of here on B4V.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle cut back on oversight and encouraged irresponsible buying especially among those with little resources. And yet I remember Bush warning Congress about this very issue in 2005. -Clueless
NO you don’t. It’s just because I remind everyone of Bush’s ownership society fiasco that was trumpeted at B4V for 4 years that someone scoured around for a half-hearted warning of Bush in 2005. He didn’t insist with any vigor and being president hardly needed to Warn congress. Again the GOP HOUSE could have done something for years but didn’t.
Actually, Bardolf, we do remember Bush’s warnings about Fannie, Freddie and the housing bubble.
Again the GOP HOUSE could have done something for years but didn’t.
Couldn’t have had something to do with the fact that, in 12 years, the GOP never had a working majority in either chamber? The Dem majorities in 2009/10 were DOUBLE the largest majorities the GOP had from 1995 to 2007. The average GOP majority in the House during that period was around 18 seats. Until the blowout last November, the Dem House majority was 70+ seats. Big difference in what can get done or even what can be attempted. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Spook
Half hearted is a great summary of the linked article. 17 times alone in 2008 when the market was tanking. Next picking through thousands of items to find a few concerns along the way, yawn. It reminds me of the truthers complaints that Bush didn’t heed the WH memos.
Now the GOP needs an overwhelming ‘working’ majority to do the right thing for the American people. Gotcha
IF the housing bubble had burst 2 years sooner instead of being propped up all along we would have seen the true economy and like it or not Hillary would be president. The lack of make/mine/build jobs was hidden by real estate related jobs and the unemployment rate of 10% now (more of course but Mark is okay with BLS recently) would have been associated to Bush as well.
Obama is a big boy and claimed he knew how to cure the ills of the economy. He’ll get what he deserves at the ballot box in 2012 same with the Democratic Senate and GOP House.
I have to agree with Bardolf here. Majority size means nothing if there is no commitment. There is no commitment in the GOP at all. There is no fight in them. They are just going through the motions not even pretending to be conservative anymore.
An opposition party that won’t oppose anything. Why?
you cant get good fruit from a rotten tree…the GOP included…boehner proved that beyond any doubt….\
how to cut the deficit? stop spending…anyone can tell you that…even a child knows the soundness of this theory…
you cant expect to cut the deficit when you authorize trillions more in borrowing…
just dont happen…never did…never will
These numbers don’t add up. According to the report referenced in the linked article, the total estimated compensation and benefits for all current federal government employees in 2010 is $447 billion. 15% of $447 billion is $67 billion, not $117 billion. Firing 15% of federal employees–including the military–would not save $117 billion.
Well then lets just keep firing the tax farmers until we reach that majic 15%. Hell we could fire 80% of them. The country would not even notice.
watson
I believe that there would be a 15% reduction in the number of employees AND the remaining employees would also take a 15% pay cut. The idea is to encourage the slacker working in the government to do 17% more work for 15% less pay.
baldork
The idea is to encourage the slacker working in the government to do 17% more work for 15% less pay.
that would include you….
Neoconehead
In the last 10 years my department has been reduced 30% while generating the same number of student credit hours. Salary has been flat with my personal contribution to pension going up by 5%. Taking inflation into account I have seen a 15% decrease in my pay.
Care to predict if the number of administrators, accountants etc. is down during that same period? How about the athletic budget?
Taking inflation into account I have seen a 15% decrease in my pay.
Join the club, Dolf.
Of course, Clown will be the first one to complain when he has to stand in even longer lines at the Medicare office. But yes, firing 15% of the workers and reducing the compensation and benefits of the remaining 85% would get you $117 billion in savings. Thanks for that, bardolf.
Regarding our debate a few posts up, stool just like to fly right by the obvious and launch into more conservative bashing. The fact is stool, Bush warned Congress about the GSE’s not once, not twice, but three different times, and one of them being in the SOTU. To which Barney Frank and Maxine Waters replied by saying that “there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie”. Did the GOP congress at the time respond properly – NO. But then again, we didn’t have filibuster proof majorities and the obstructionist democrats prevented anything from happening. In re: to unions – do you think that those professors of those major universities actually teach? No they don’t. They take sabbaticals, they theorize, and they enjoy their lifetime pensions and their ranks grow, but they are never blamed for the rising costs of education. Incidentally, most athletic programs not only pay for themselves in revenues, but also contribute back to the school.
Any other idiotic whines from you today? How about if you just go punch a rich person, that ought to make you feel better.
Clueless
An economist might warn the congress about a problem but a President does ACTUAL things about a problem. Again, that the democrats were complacent in the housing bubble doesn’t remove blame from the GOP house, majority, minority, White House or what have you. You don’t seem to believe in either corporate or individual responsibility for the powerful.
Again without the housing bubble the unemployment rate under Bush would have been 8-10% because all the constructions workers and related jobs would have vanished just like they did under Obama. Bush made home ownership a centerpiece of his economic agenda. WHAT ELSE did Bush accomplish on the economic front? Oh yeah, China got most favored nation trading status.
As opposed to your fantasy world. In the real world, professors at major universities teach. If they are not teaching they are doing funded research which is either military related or agriculture related. Want them to teach more, cut the funding to NSF and see the impact on the country. The ranks have decreased and not swelled. Only 5 athletic programs in the entire NCAA pay for themselves, the overwhelming rest are a net drain on university resources. In addition the word sabbatical is related to Sabbath and hence occurs once in 7 years mainly as a way to learn new ideas to bring back to the university. Thus, you have shown a complete ignorance about the current state of American universities which is not a surprise.
What is a surprise is your denial of supply and demand. If becoming a professor is so attractive and so easy why aren’t more Americans taking Ph.D’s in science and math? Seems you believe in a kind of Marxism which is controlled by boards of regents consisting mainly of businessmen.
No comment on the AMA as a trade union.
Now why don’t you go beat up someone in the check out line who is using food stamps?
Stool,
Please tell me the average salary of a Harvard professor, and what the average time they spend in the classroom actually instructing. And the term sabbatical is used often in those circles describing a professor who takes time away from the actual job of teaching to write.
And you’re saying only 5 athletic programs pay for themselves? I would be interested in seeing that proof. I can tell you that my alma mater lives off the football program which bring massive proceed to the university. I think you’re lying here.
And what in the hell does this even mean?
Seems you believe in a kind of Marxism which is controlled by boards of regents consisting mainly of businessmen.
Clueless
I heard the remark from a university president last year.
http://blogs.courier-journal.com/ericcrawford/2011/06/15/ncaa-22-division-i-programs-are-self-sufficient/
Explains that last year only 14 schools had self-sufficient programs.
If you want access to Harvard education I would point you to ITUNES university.
“…..a President does ACTUAL things about a problem. ”
Such as…..?
Pass a law? Eliminate an agency? ?????? What are the actual powers of the Executive Branch? What unilateral action could Bush have taken regarding Fannie and Freddy?
bardolf,
you know that presenting cluster with links and facts about your posts only makes him want to change the subject.
notice he didn’t come back and post about the “lie” he accused you of. It’s funny with these conservative terrorists…you give them facts, and they evaporate like water on a hot Texas day.
Keep up the good work ClusterF**K
Now the GOP needs an overwhelming ‘working’ majority to do the right thing for the American people. Gotcha – stool
Yet when the democrats have a filibuster proof majority in both chambers, they still blame republicans. Stool, you are really out doing your self today.
Cloistered
You are saying the GOP is to be held to the same standards as the despised Democrats. Gotcha
I just don’t remember the 2006 GOP congress blaming democrats for their problems. And I do remember conservatives not voting for them, hence their losses. Ironically, democrats not only blame others for their incompetence, but they also seem to get re elected by their equally incompetent base.
You don’t seem to believe in either corporate or individual responsibility for the powerful. – stool
I hope you realize that this class warfare that liberals are all about these days, will result in losing elections for a long time to come, so please keep it up. Rational, mature adults have grown out of this childish mind set. Obama, however has yet to mature.
Cloistered
You need to wake up. Obama isn’t going after the people who finance his campaign. Only in your imagination and kook websites is there a class warfare on the rich.
For a touch of reality look at tax rates, look at the relative distribution of wealth, … just pick a metric by which one could measure the class warfare.
Using the number of people on food stamps I would guess a war on the lower middle class is most likely. Of course one could say they get what they deserve by their voting patterns over the last 2 decades.
It’s not “class warfare ON the rich”, dolf. Duh.
Barry is sucking up to his rich supporters on one hand and on the other trying to stir up resentment and hostility toward them within a certain type of mentality. This is the kind of strategy that works when you are dealing with a totally emotion-driven base.
There are people who are FOR things—for the most part, these are conservatives. They are FOR things like a Constitutionally run nation, a balanced budget, a strong military, etc. And then there are people who are AGAINST things, and people—against Palin and Bachmann and Bush, against the TEA Party, against lower taxes, against Rush Limbaugh, etc. The latter type is pretty easy to rile up with class warfare rhetoric, but Barry isn’t going directly after his rich buddies and supporters. They all understand the gamesmanship of rabble-rousing and don’t take it personally.
.