An obvious place to start - look at the Flag officer group (generals and admirals). The U.S. has waaayy too many by any standard . Compare with how many were used to win WW2. And they are richly rewarded. Some made some level of "sacrifice" but most - not so much. It's a great gig if you can get it. What is really galling is that many of them retire with great pay and benefits then get to draw big bucks with defense contractors with whom they dealt with while on active duty. Think its not a gravy train? Announce that if anyone goes to work for a company that they had any contact with while in the military will have give up their retirement pay -- you will hear squealing for miles. While you are at it, examine the Senior Executive Service- a closely related boondoggle.
For those of us in the “free world” who notice the water level rising conspicuously on the good ship USSA, a simple return to the limits of the constitution would be a great start. The federal govt is only to handle national defense and ensure easy interstate commerce. All other powers belong to the states. It would definitely help reduce our “snout to farmer” ratio.
I recall a few yrs ago, there was a Congressman who proposed cutting every major line in the federal budget (when Congress passed budgets) by all of one percent. Not slash & burn. Just one penny out of every dollar. And the inside powers went nuts. The man went away and was never heard from again.
Faced with the possibility a chainsaw-wielding candidate will show up on the scene, a president or prime minister, and his/her administration can do one of two things: cut like crazy and hope to tamp down the enthusiasm of those out of government, or hire like crazy and hope you can put enough people on the government teat that they will outnumber the others at the ballot box.
i regret to note that in our system north of the Rio Grande, no candidate seems to fall into the first category. There are gradations of "hire like crazy," but no one who says "let's cut the federal work force like crazy."
As a retired federal employee, I was always in the minority in calling for cutting the existing work force.
Set an example by chainsawing Dept of Ed and HUD in their entirety. Commerce could also go. Then go to the rest of the agencies and mandate a 33% reduction in workforce with no reduction in services that contribute to the physical safety of the public.
I like what I'm hearing about Argentina Joel... I fear we will need to experience a lot more poverty if not outright collapse in America before people get real about how big is too big for a government. Frankly, it is likely that, while yes the excessively large federal government is a problem, it might be the multiple decades of capital misallocation directed by said government that is the real economy killer that must be resolved. What is certain, even obvious in the government published economic stats, America's private economy is in retreat and government is getting larger. Do you suppose the folks in DC have actually come to believe that you don't need a private economy for the country to thrive...
One thing I’ve noticed is when the government shuts down there is a conspicuous lack of any change whatsoever in my daily life. Which raises the traditional question from office space
I was just reading earlier today about the Plum Book that includes about 8,000 government jobs that a president can hire or fire, not subject to Civil Service protection. I would recommend going through that book and eliminate every organization or department that most Americans cannot name.
Then I would take those that are left and eliminate at least 80% of their headcount. I would make exceptions of a 100% reduction in the FDA, CDC, and a bunch of others who pushed the COVID rules and shutdowns.
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, I can't think of a single government agency that serves a net positive purpose. Most of them have been captured by the organizations they were established to regulate, and now just serve to protect those interests.
Ah, we in the US have well over that number of "butter-bellied" (love that!) bottom feeders! If Trump ("Presidente!") gets elected, he might just not fund them. If they're not getting their cash, they might have to seek elsewhere. Terribly sad to see them go, though.
Where does one start? So many limbs to trim and trees to cut down. Just this week, the "conservative", vote buying slugs in Ontario, CA, disappointed again, with more spending and more government. Is there a politician anywhere (except for Milei) who truly wants to cut the size of of the pig trough? 🐖 municipal, regional, provincial and federal along with the creeping international governments all want more. Socialism is evil. Tu ne cede malis.
Agree with eliminating funding for PBS and NPR as they are partisan organizations working to preserve and expand government control. Tax money is best spent closer to home. Dissolution or marked reduction in D of Education with funds and control returned to states would be an enormous benefit to our children and young adults.
The best I can say about cutting government waste is to eliminate every agency that begins with a letter. And although that may not be practical (but it WOULD be very sensible), an alternative would be that every year, every government agency has its following-year budget zeroed out.
Not an agency but a law, the Jones Act (We refer to the Jones Act which deals with cabotage or coastwise shipping.) which dates back to 1920 and requires coastwise shipping in the US be on ships built, owned, and majority crewed by United States citizens or permanent residents. This raises the cost of shipping, especially to places like Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico, but it also limits the ability to ship LNG from say the Houston areas in the Northeast where there are no gas pipelines, making the cost of energy there much higher than it would otherwise be. The CATO Institute has a good article about this https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear.
Like the response from the conversation, you don't have to sell me on his policies.(not exact quote). In the U..S. they have no policies except fill their pockets,and bleed us dry. When their pockets have no coin left in them, they''ll run, not that i care but where will the go.The karma chainsaw will be started .In the mean time we hope for more victories and light in Argentina , and Milei's safety.
An obvious place to start - look at the Flag officer group (generals and admirals). The U.S. has waaayy too many by any standard . Compare with how many were used to win WW2. And they are richly rewarded. Some made some level of "sacrifice" but most - not so much. It's a great gig if you can get it. What is really galling is that many of them retire with great pay and benefits then get to draw big bucks with defense contractors with whom they dealt with while on active duty. Think its not a gravy train? Announce that if anyone goes to work for a company that they had any contact with while in the military will have give up their retirement pay -- you will hear squealing for miles. While you are at it, examine the Senior Executive Service- a closely related boondoggle.
For those of us in the “free world” who notice the water level rising conspicuously on the good ship USSA, a simple return to the limits of the constitution would be a great start. The federal govt is only to handle national defense and ensure easy interstate commerce. All other powers belong to the states. It would definitely help reduce our “snout to farmer” ratio.
I recall a few yrs ago, there was a Congressman who proposed cutting every major line in the federal budget (when Congress passed budgets) by all of one percent. Not slash & burn. Just one penny out of every dollar. And the inside powers went nuts. The man went away and was never heard from again.
Faced with the possibility a chainsaw-wielding candidate will show up on the scene, a president or prime minister, and his/her administration can do one of two things: cut like crazy and hope to tamp down the enthusiasm of those out of government, or hire like crazy and hope you can put enough people on the government teat that they will outnumber the others at the ballot box.
i regret to note that in our system north of the Rio Grande, no candidate seems to fall into the first category. There are gradations of "hire like crazy," but no one who says "let's cut the federal work force like crazy."
As a retired federal employee, I was always in the minority in calling for cutting the existing work force.
Cut all federal funding, whether direct and indirect, for PBS and NPR.
Set an example by chainsawing Dept of Ed and HUD in their entirety. Commerce could also go. Then go to the rest of the agencies and mandate a 33% reduction in workforce with no reduction in services that contribute to the physical safety of the public.
I like what I'm hearing about Argentina Joel... I fear we will need to experience a lot more poverty if not outright collapse in America before people get real about how big is too big for a government. Frankly, it is likely that, while yes the excessively large federal government is a problem, it might be the multiple decades of capital misallocation directed by said government that is the real economy killer that must be resolved. What is certain, even obvious in the government published economic stats, America's private economy is in retreat and government is getting larger. Do you suppose the folks in DC have actually come to believe that you don't need a private economy for the country to thrive...
One thing I’ve noticed is when the government shuts down there is a conspicuous lack of any change whatsoever in my daily life. Which raises the traditional question from office space
“What would you say you do here?”
I was just reading earlier today about the Plum Book that includes about 8,000 government jobs that a president can hire or fire, not subject to Civil Service protection. I would recommend going through that book and eliminate every organization or department that most Americans cannot name.
Then I would take those that are left and eliminate at least 80% of their headcount. I would make exceptions of a 100% reduction in the FDA, CDC, and a bunch of others who pushed the COVID rules and shutdowns.
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, I can't think of a single government agency that serves a net positive purpose. Most of them have been captured by the organizations they were established to regulate, and now just serve to protect those interests.
Ah, we in the US have well over that number of "butter-bellied" (love that!) bottom feeders! If Trump ("Presidente!") gets elected, he might just not fund them. If they're not getting their cash, they might have to seek elsewhere. Terribly sad to see them go, though.
Where does one start? So many limbs to trim and trees to cut down. Just this week, the "conservative", vote buying slugs in Ontario, CA, disappointed again, with more spending and more government. Is there a politician anywhere (except for Milei) who truly wants to cut the size of of the pig trough? 🐖 municipal, regional, provincial and federal along with the creeping international governments all want more. Socialism is evil. Tu ne cede malis.
Agree with eliminating funding for PBS and NPR as they are partisan organizations working to preserve and expand government control. Tax money is best spent closer to home. Dissolution or marked reduction in D of Education with funds and control returned to states would be an enormous benefit to our children and young adults.
The best I can say about cutting government waste is to eliminate every agency that begins with a letter. And although that may not be practical (but it WOULD be very sensible), an alternative would be that every year, every government agency has its following-year budget zeroed out.
Cheers from Chile . If Milei has some spare time we need him urgently here.
Not an agency but a law, the Jones Act (We refer to the Jones Act which deals with cabotage or coastwise shipping.) which dates back to 1920 and requires coastwise shipping in the US be on ships built, owned, and majority crewed by United States citizens or permanent residents. This raises the cost of shipping, especially to places like Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico, but it also limits the ability to ship LNG from say the Houston areas in the Northeast where there are no gas pipelines, making the cost of energy there much higher than it would otherwise be. The CATO Institute has a good article about this https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear.
Like the response from the conversation, you don't have to sell me on his policies.(not exact quote). In the U..S. they have no policies except fill their pockets,and bleed us dry. When their pockets have no coin left in them, they''ll run, not that i care but where will the go.The karma chainsaw will be started .In the mean time we hope for more victories and light in Argentina , and Milei's safety.