Candidate X is cutting the Federal Government in half - will you vote for him?

[The Evil Genius]

Although when you look at benefits, the cost comparison may be a lot closer.

One area that needs to be looked at is the future and existing commitments. People, rightly, like to complain about "welfare queens", but I know personally some disabled veterans receiving benefits for injuries incurred when playing sports in the military, not as a result of hazardous work or being injured in battle. This is just wrong.

Perhaps.

Maybe in cases where you have someone in federal service for 15+ years? But in the short term, through my personal experiences, the savings aren't gained. From what I have seen, the cost of he 3rd party contractor is more than the cost of the current Fed doing the job. And guess what, the benefits are built into the cost of the 3rd party contractor's rate. You think companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are going to eat those costs?

The true savings, if any, probably come from not having to pay a pension. But it's not like everyone is making a solid pension (despite what the current crop of politicians and radio peeps are saying).

[Corcaigh]

I've no doubt that the annual billed amount for a contractor will usually exceed that for a government employee salary. But when you factor in retirement benefits that kick in a relatively early age, and medical programs disproportionate to the job. The cost of government employees gets very expensive. The last article I saw said benefits for government workers were approximately $30k higher than for private sector workers, and the gap is growing.

[The Evil Genius]

I've no doubt that the annual billed amount for a contractor will usually exceed that for a government employee salary. But when you factor in retirement benefits that kick in a relatively early age, and medical programs disproportionate to the job. The cost of government employees gets very expensive. The last article I saw said benefits for government workers were approximately $30k higher than for private sector workers, and the gap is growing.

I wonder what the difference in pay is though? Does the benefits make up the difference? Exceed it?

There have been a few studies that show public workers make considerably less (not including benefits) than the private sector (in same type jobs with same levels of education).

I suspect the benefits and the job security that is afforded the public worker is what keeps most of them from jumping ship.

[luckydevil]

Well, a lot has changed in 2 years. Our fiscal situation is significantly worse. I am much more willing to embrace a 50% cut over night than over a gradual period. Post WW2 shows that cutting spending is a form of stimulus, an extremely effective one ( people tend to forget how drastically we cut spending after WW2 which led to a boom). In 1944 federal spending was at a peak of 44 percent of GNP in 1948 it was 8.9%. Economists like Alberto Alesina deserve a much bigger platform, he points that is true around the world as well ( austerity is the best form of stimulus).

Republicans need to embrace cutting spending. The empiricism is on the side of austerity.

[Woodhead]

Well, a lot has changed in 2 years. Our fiscal situation is significantly worse.

You have got to be joking. . . two years ago, we were in the midst of the worst recession of our lifetime, we were loosing jobs at over 650K/month, the dow was around 10K on its way down to 6500, we were in two wars, and the deficit was over $1Trillion dollars.

Now, the dow is over 11000, unemployment is higher, but we are adding jobs to the economy not loosing them, and companies are starting to grow again. The position this country is in now is nowhere near where it was 2 years ago, it's apples to corn.

I am much more willing to embrace a 50% cut over night than over a gradual period. Post WW2 shows that cutting spending is a form of stimulus, an extremely effective one ( people tend to forget how drastically we cut spending after WW2 which led to a boom

If there was a 50% cut in government spending right now, what would that do to unemployment? What would it be? 30%? We would have a balanced budget, but a lot bigger things to worry about.

[twa]

what is the deficit now?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/sullivan-the-.html

added

I love this comment there

@Bob: OK, so all we have to do is nuke China, Japan, Korea, India, Brazil and Germany into cinders, and we'll have an export and manufacturing driven recovery.

Because that was the state of the world that set the stage for your "miracle"...

[Renegade7]

Scared money don't make money. Anyone in here who thinks cutting the budget in half will help needs to ask themselves "what exactly are we going to cut?". You just can't do it, 20%, can't do it, not going to happen. Go to plan B, please, and don't spend the next two years arguing about the impossible...

edit : 50%, 20%, huh? I guess there goes those unemployement benifts we keep having to renew to keep families from getting desperate. How does anyone here plan on selling THAT to the American people?

[Corcaigh]

So here's a beautiful example of government lunacy ... one department is spending millions of tax dollars on marketing cheese and encouraging its consumption with great success ... while another spends marketing dollars on communicating the health dangers of a diet with too much saturated fat, such as cheese.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html?_r=1

[Woodhead]

So here's a beautiful example of government lunacy ... one department is spending millions of tax dollars on marketing cheese and encouraging its consumption with great success ... while another spends marketing dollars on communicating the health dangers of a diet with too much saturated fat, such as cheese.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html?_r=1

Actually, the link you provided shows how we had creeping fascism in the government during the Bush years. The Dept of Agriculture was stocked with people from the dairy industry, and they pimped their products on the American public, even though there were studies that talked about the health impacts of a high dairy diet. Yes, the department was contradictory, that is what happens when you have Fascism.

This is what the head of the EPA did. . .the person who is supposed to PROTECT the environment :doh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_L._Johnson

Johnson tried to block the efforts of 17 states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy

[Corcaigh]

that is what happens when you have Fascism.

I thought the definition of Fascism was ... the trains ran on time?

[twa]

Cheese trivia

the US has 4 Billion dollars of cheese in caves

Set my cholesterol free

[Barney B]

Post WW2 shows that cutting spending is a form of stimulus, an extremely effective one ( people tend to forget how drastically we cut spending after WW2 which led to a boom).

Mike Kimel's blog (see entry Nov. 6) claims otherwise, saying that real GDP per capital fell, post WW2, and the boom is a myth (It'd be interesting to see this refuted point by point).

http://www.presimetrics.com/blog/

[twa]

You haven't heard that it is only because the rest of the worlds manufacturing capacity was in ruins?;)

Don't happen to have a chart showing how the rest of the worlds GDP fared in that timespan?

[Barney B]

You haven't heard that it is only because the rest of the worlds manufacturing capacity was in ruins?;)

Yeah, somebody brought that up here. Wasn't it you?

Doesn't matter why, though, if the boom really was imaginary. As is (allegedly) supported by this one here:

[SnyderShrugged]

Anyone who doesnt see the absolute need for dramatic cuts in spending is either dumb or blinded by ideology.

[Burgold]

Anyone who doesnt see the absolute need for dramatic cuts in spending is either dumb or blinded by ideology.

I think everyone wants cuts, but it's a heck of a lot easier in the abstract than in reality.

Do politician's have the will? People say they want cuts, but once they realize that they will be impacted the fickles will get very angry.

Do we cut military? There's certainly waste, but the Repubs and Conservatives have made their fortunes by calling libs commies every time they tried to cut the military.

Do we cut education, research and development? The future is dependent on us not falling further behind in technology.

Do we cut social security? I think there might be some give there. We certainly could and should move the retirement age.

Do we cut Medicare? Certainly not if you're going to repeal Obamacare. You'd go from 40 million uninsured to 100 million uninsured. Hospitals would go bankrupt very quickly and soon we'd have tent cities for plague victims.

Do we cut politician's salaries? Sure. Why not? But that's just symbolic stuff. Less than a drop in the bucket.

Do we cut at the EPA, FDA, and other watchdog organizations? Traditionally, that's where we cut and then we complain that the understaffed, underfunded agencies aren't doing their jobs.

etc.

etc.

Mind you, there is a ton of waste and stuff that can and should get cut, but to get to the kind of levels many are talking about here, as a society we would have to be willing to bare a lot of pain and sacrifice. Are we willing to do that? Is that a bet power hungry politicians are willing to take?

[SnyderShrugged]

I think everyone wants cuts, but it's a heck of a lot easier in the abstract than in reality.

Do politician's have the will? People say they want cuts, but once they realize that they will be impacted the fickles will get very angry.

Do we cut military? There's certainly waste, but the Repubs and Conservatives have made their fortunes by calling libs commies every time they tried to cut the military.

Do we cut education, research and development? The future is dependent on us not falling further behind in technology.

Do we cut social security? I think there might be some give there. We certainly could and should move the retirement age.

Do we cut Medicare? Certainly not if you're going to repeal Obamacare. You'd go from 40 million uninsured to 100 million uninsured. Hospitals would go bankrupt very quickly and soon we'd have tent cities for plague victims.

Do we cut politician's salaries? Sure. Why not? But that's just symbolic stuff. Less than a drop in the bucket.

Do we cut at the EPA, FDA, and other watchdog organizations? Traditionally, that's where we cut and then we complain that the understaffed, underfunded agencies aren't doing their jobs.

etc.

etc.

Mind you, there is a ton of waste and stuff that can and should get cut, but to get to the kind of levels many are talking about here, as a society we would have to be willing to bare a lot of pain and sacrifice. Are we willing to do that? Is that a bet power hungry politicians are willing to take?

Notice, that the key root cause for not having the needed cuts is simply the motivations of the Pols. That is telling.

They certainly wont be easy, in fact, I dont believe any advocate of substantial spending cuts has ever claimed that it wont hurt some in initially. Fact is, its gonna suck. But just like removing a bandaid, better to rip it off quickly and get the pain over with than to continue to drag it out or even worse, ignore it.

[Burgold]

Oh, I'm completely cynical enough to believe that the biggest motivator for "not" cutting is the pols. I also think that the U.S. public is a heroin junky. It's going to hurt a lot more than ripping off a band-aid, it's going to send folks into withdrawal, shock, and worse. More, the state governments, who are also broke, are going to be expected to pick up the slack on things that they are mandated to, but have let the Federal Government take care of for decades, and be unable to.

We're not talking about a little flinch and discomfort, when we're talking about cutting the government by 50%. We're talking about using a radical treatment that would make even Dr. House blanche and blink at.

[SnyderShrugged]

Oh, I'm completely cynical enough to believe that the biggest motivator for "not" cutting is the pols. I also think that the U.S. public is a heroin junky. It's going to hurt a lot more than ripping off a band-aid, it's going to send folks into withdrawal, shock, and worse. More, the state governments, who are also broke, are going to be expected to pick up the slack on things that they are mandated to, but have let the Federal Government take care of for decades, and be unable to.

We're not talking about a little flinch and discomfort, when we're talking about cutting the government by 50%. We're talking about using a radical treatment that would make even Dr. House blanche and blink at.

Honestly, while I think cuts must be made, I would staggar the domestic cuts over the course of 10 years or even more. The immediate ones would be foreign aid and involvement in all other nations militarily. Make the ones offshore first, ease into the domestic, and over time, the public accepts that its neccessary.

The key is to act NOW on whatever needs to occur.

I'd also immediately open all doors, windows and basements of the Federal reserve and shine a light on every transaction they make and have made.

[Burgold]

I'd also immediately open all doors, windows and basements of the Federal reserve and shine a light on every transaction they make and have made.

I'm all for pulling off that band-aid.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm all for pulling off that band-aid.

I really feel the Fed is the root of our economic woes

[Burgold]

I really feel the Fed is the root of our economic woes

Wouldn't it be a shock if the masks were all pulled off and they were the only good guys?

(I'm not saying it's so... but people have invested lifetimes into hating them. What if they really were the only earnest guys just killing themselves to keep the ship afloat and were honorable, ethical, and righteous.)

[SnyderShrugged]

Wouldn't it be a shock if the masks were all pulled off and they were the only good guys?

(I'm not saying it's so... but people have invested lifetimes into hating them. What if they really were the only earnest guys just killing themselves to keep the ship afloat and were honorable, ethical, and righteous.)

It would be an interesting turn of events, but while awful policies like QE are occurring real time, its tough to sell me on them being the Good guys until their cone of silence is lifted.

[Burgold]

Oh, I doubt they are the good guys... though I wouldn't be surprised if they were mostly well-intentioned, but considering how much they are mistrusted and hated it would be interesting if they were the best that we had doing everything in the power in the most morally and ethically scrupulous way they knew how.