I have this ongoing conversation with the wife. She works for the federal government here in Canuckistan, and I’ve worked on a few government contracts over the years. I walk the delicate line of telling her that, while I respect what she does, there’s no reason that the government should do it. Which is not to say that it should not be done, just that it could be done through other means.
At least it wasn’t unintentionally left blank…
I’ve posited that you could cut the size of the federal government here by 60% and hardly anyone would notice. How would I do it? First, cut the 20% of programs that no one will miss. I’ve worked on some of these projects in the past. On one, I was working on a public-facing website to provide data ostensibly for “the public good”, at a cost of millions of dollars. One day, one of my colleagues got the idea to pull the website statistics to see how often and from where it was being accessed. Turns out, in the previous year, it had been accessed exactly twice from IP addresses outside of the department. Hardly anyone would miss that program.
Second, I’m sure that there’s 20% savings to be found by cutting bureaucratic overhead. When the wife tells me about her day, most of it relates to how she’s working against the bureaucracy to try to get her job done. In my small consulting business, I’ve increasingly moved away from doing federal government contracts – the overhead is just too much. It’s much cheaper and faster to find and perform work for private clients.
Third, I’d cut 20% of the people. If you look around your own workplace, you can identify a certain percentage of people who don’t pull their weight, or worse, contribute negatively. You know, the ones who are constantly at cross-purposes with the rest of the team, or the ones who spend all of their time commenting on Glibertarians.com, or the ones who just aren’t good at their jobs. I once led a team on which I didn’t have the authority to hire and fire (yeah, it sucked). I spent inordinate amounts of time trying to get contributions from non-performers. Then, one day, I just stopped. I ignored them. And, you know what? Our productivity went up. Strange, that. It happens everywhere, but the existence of public-sector unions exacerbates this situation.
I wouldn’t do it all at once. I’d do it gradually, say over 12 years. I think that doing it more gradually would lessen the degree to which people would notice it (which is, hardly at all).
Anyhoo, in the case of the U.S. federal government, I came across this neat-o website that breaks down U.S. federal government spending (I’m actually shocked that it’s a .gov website because it’s pretty well done). According to it, the U.S. government spent $3.85 trillion last year. I started looking at it like a minarchist softball coach, and here’s what I came up with:
Social Security: $916.1B (23.0%) – CUT
National Defense: $595.3B (14.9%) – CUT to $584.6B
I opted to keep national defense spending, except for “Defense-related activities”, which sounds an awful lot like a slush fund for defense contractors. If you eliminate foreign interventions and limit spending to national defense, this number should be much lower. Since I’m not getting that fine-grained in this analysis, let’s leave it for now.
Medicare: $594.5B (14.9%) – CUT
Income Security: $514.7B (12.9%) – CUT to $144.8B
Here, I’ve eliminated everything except federal employee retirement and disability. If you’ve already made those commitments to your employees, then you’ve got to keep them.
Health: $511.3B (12.8%) – CUT
Net Interest: $240.7B (6.0%) – KEEP
You gotta pay the bank. Although there’s something to be said for the government skipping out on loan repayments and tanking their credit rating so that they can’t borrow any more. Picture your favorite congresscritter walking into a pawn shop or payday loans joint.
Veterans Benefits and Services: $174.5B (4.4%) – CUT to $167.2B (4.2%)
Here, I cut “Other veterans benefits and services”, because it sounds like more government cheese for contractors. In general, I think that you should look after military vets, to the extent that they can be injured during their service, but I’m sure that there’s more here to cut. For example, the largest slice of this category is $86.8B for “Income security for veterans”; most of the veterans I know are eminently employable.
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services: $108.1B (2.7%) – CUT
Transportation: $92.9B (2.3%) – CUT
Administration of Justice: $57.1B (1.4%) – CUT to $52.1B
This is one of the fundamental roles of government, although if you end the war on drugs, I’m sure you could cut a bunch here, too. I did cut $5.0B for “Criminal justice assistance”, which is described as transfers to state and local governments for something or other.
International Affairs: $45.3B (3.5%) – CUT to $13.9B
Here, I’ve cut out everything except “Conduct of foreign affairs”. The rest looks like cash that will end up in the pockets of the Mugabes of the world.
Natural Resources and Environment: $37.8B (1.0%) – CUT to $26.6B
Honestly, I don’t know what most of this actually is. Maybe it’s within the domain of government, and maybe not. But “Other natural resources” (slush fund) and “Recreational resources” sure aren’t.
General Science, Space, and Technology: $30.2B (0.8%) – CUT
Community and Regional Development: $21.2B (0.5%) – CUT
Agriculture: $20.1B (0.5%) – CUT
General Government: $18.6B (0.5%) – CUT to $11.9B
Here, I’ve cut “General purpose fiscal assistance” and “Other general government” as slush funds.
Energy: $3.7B (0.1%) – CUT to $0.2B
Here, I’ve cut everything except “Emergency energy preparedness”.
So, let’s add everything up here. Let’s see … carry the 1 … Sweet Feathery Jesus, it’s worse than I thought. We’re down to $1.28 trillion, or to about 33% of the current budget. And, I’m fully aware that there’s still lots of waste in there.
Earlier, I stated that most people wouldn’t notice if you cut the government by that much. Sure, some of the things that I’ve cut here would be noticed by people, but this is analysis is really only about cutting program spending, not eliminating bureaucracy and ineffective people. You know what people would notice? More money in their pockets. You’re welcome! I’m sure your rebate checks are already in the mail.
I just want all the $$$$ I’ve put into Social Security over the last 15 years back so I can invest it in something that I can actually retire on.
I’d be happy to settle for half of it out if that meant they’d actually give it to me.
scratch that “out” out
Sorry can’t scratch out words without a properly completed 1492 form.
Drop it off at your local Scratch Out Bureau (S.O.B.) office.
try 38 years, I’ll never see a dime,
Yep. I keep telling my wife we’ll never see that money, so don’t include it in our retirement calculations. She’s slowly coming around to believing me.
Hell, I’d settle for simply calling the past a sunk cost and just letting me keep my money for the next 25-30 years I’ll be working.
Considering its a transfer program, that is the way to think about it.
This.
You’ll get back almost 10% of it if you live to average life expectancy.
Remembering of course that the money you’re “getting back” actually came from your kids or grandkids paychecks.
That’s what my old man sez: “Keep on working so I get my SS checks”.
And that’s one thing that annoys me about SS – old geezers like my parents have pensions, and enough money stashed away that, along with mandatory IRA deductions, they a greater income than I do in a year. And yet they still collect Social Security.
something means something testing?
“I just want to get back what I paid in.” is what I get when I talk to older relatives about Social Security and the fact that it is a transfer payment system. The funny thing is, the relative that is the worst about wanting back what he paid in is the relative that explained to me, when I was younger, about how Social Security really worked.
I hate how they refuse to accept that that money is gone it was spent. We went to the moon, we won the cold war, we are the greatest humanitarian force in the world, but they stole my retirement money.
Not a perfect analogy but it often strikes me as a family business where the out going generation spent like crazy and leveraged all the companies assets and borrowed as much as possible, then when they hand over the debt laden company they tell the kids they’re gonna have to tighten their belts to make sure the pension plan is funded.
So freaking true. The government has been run by Uncle Billy on its a wonderful life. What’s that knot on my ring finger for?? Oh yeah, I wasnt supposed to spend the SS trust fund! Oops!!
That’s actually a pretty good, common language, analogy.
So last week in my corporate adventures, my corporate overlords hacked out millions of dollars of payroll despite our records profit year. They can spin it all they want but the real plan is to see if everything still gets done – if the answer is truly no in a couple of months, they’ll hire a few people.
Non-union shop?
Ha!
No way a government could get away with that. The screeching from the pubsec unions would be deafening, and the campaign contributions to their opponents would be overwhelming.
One of many reasons why public sector unions shouldn’t be allowed.
That, and/or public sector employees should be allowed to vote.
Sigh … should not be allowed to vote.
The politicians are much more worried about the union money than the union vote.
You can always buy more votes.
“Honey, the work you do is too important to be left to government.”
Nice! Stealing this.
I used a very similar line about education in a on-line discussion about education. Folks laughed at me. I responded with “Where do you get your food?” The response was, “I used to live on a farm. I know my food comes from farms. What’s your point?” “Most everyone buys food from privately owned grocery stores supplied by the private sector.” More laughter.
Public education apologists deserve withering scorn for their stance. There’s a sad, unacknowledged class component to their blithe acceptance of the status quo: sure, their schools might be tolerable. Might even be great! So of course they’re going to defend them. And if they bought property specifically for access to some of the region’s better schools, they’ll double down. Public education is a human right when your property value is tied up with it. And because they carefully elide their own self-interest, they can steamroll over the people who don’t have their access, students who are stuck with substandard or failing schools. All while evincing an entirely unearned smugness for supporting “universal education.”
Property values are used as an excuse for a myriad of rights violations.
We live in a strange world, where people will support of the outright taking of property (eminent domain) but balk at any action, no matter how beneficial at large, that might injure their property values. It’s as though the concept of ownership has been entirely debased.
You didn’t build that!
Nice article. You’ve taken a moderate approach to reducing government spending, but the crazy thing is that your suggestions would be viewed as radical
Thanks. I harbour no illusions about my electability.
If I voted, I’d vote for you.
*scratches single vertical line on notepad
Anything less than a 10% annual increase across the board would be viewed as radical.
Transportation: $92.9B (2.3%) – CUT
But…but….MUH ROADZ!!!!!
National Defense – I’m all for a strong defense but a a good place to start cutting would be the 742,000 civilian employees. Seriously – what in fuck’s name do that many people do? That’s more than the active duty Army and Marine Corps combined.
Yup. There is SO much waste in DoD. I saw it every day in the Marines, particularly in Iraq. We had conex boxes full of MREs out at the radar site in Al-Asad…..why? We had a chow hall! We just used the MREs for snacks. We’d raid them for the stuff we liked, such as jalapeno cheese and pound cake, and leave the rest lying around in the open cartons, which led to a rat problem for a while. And we were just one detachment of one squadron. This inevitably was mirrored all over the place among the other 100K+ troops in country.
I am really looking forward to the Pentagon audit. LET THE BLOOD FLOW!
There’s a real mindset difference now too.
I was in the Marines in the late 80’s and early 90’s on an air-team in the infantry.
When we saw some shit that needed blowing up and wasn’t danger close to friendlies, first choice was old-fashioned mortars, artillery, or naval guns. The next choice was Cobras if they were in the neighborhood. Then it was an airstrike with dumb-bombs. Either your basic 1,000 lb iron bombs or something like Rockeye that’s been around since the 60’s – then the pilot might strafe the target if they were feeling it. I might mark the target with a laser, but I never expected laser-guided bombs or missiles unless it was for a reason – i.e. tank danger close.
Even though it was the height of the Cold-War and budgets were huge, we operated this way because the stuff is expensive and if we went to war with the commies, we’d have to kill a shit-ton of them efficiently.
Now it seems that price is no object. They drop GPS laser-guided million dollar bombs on dudes hiding in caves with AK’s.
Well, when you can just print money if you run out, its easy!
Agreed – along with a number of base closures. I think I read something about Mattis working-on this – but I’m sure both Red/Blues screamed.
A lot of them help make sure the DoD doesn’t waste money.
I’m being serious.
“Third, I’d cut 20% of the people.”
My university is trying to cut a significant amount from its budget. I offered to go over to the main admin building and fire every third person. I was asked which ones. I told them it wouldn’t matter, I was sure the necessary work would still get done.
Universities/Schools and the Pentagon are the two most glaring examples of administrative bloat I can think of.
What would you say … you do here? /Bobs
One of the biggest problem is that this system keeps creating mid-level admin positions then giving them titles such that they need to be paid more than if they were called “Coordinator” or some such. I was at a meeting last year where we were told about a new program. A couple of academics were going to part of the program: one of them sounded like they were going to be a glorified travel coordinator but was given a title which probably means a 6 figure salary.
It’s funny because it’s true.
RETAINING one in three is likely to yield even greater worker efficiency.
One third fired outright. One third retained. The last third fights the second third for the job.
Two thirds enter, one third leaves?
Two girls, one job?
keep the vice dean of otherkin diversity anyone else is expendable
OTOH what Happens to all the now unemployed GOV workers? More Starbucks Baristas?
Seriously, if they are that expendable where do they work? And Yes, it matters
Mulch.
*pound pound pound*
Number 6, this is the police! We know you’re in there!
It was Preet, wasn’t it? Fuckin’ stoolie!
Hah!
Hah! Sort of what I tell my libertarian & conservative friends. In some ways we should be glad there are so many academics: most of them are sufficiently dysfunctional that they’d never be able to hold down a regular job.
Yes, it matters
Not to me, it doesn’t.
It does to me. At least short term. Interesting that folks here claim to be merit based, yet want to arbitrarily cut workers. It’s fun to crack up on the internet and I don’t like to be in the position of defending FedGov, but we are talking about actual people here. I work where we actually provide a product (forestry). Sure we can debate whether the FedGov should own land and sell the trees, but that ship has sailed for the foreseeable future. If I am better at marking trees for harvest, for example, and I get removed instead of the person who sucks, that seems illogical to me. I would I find a job marking trees in the private sector since I’m good at it, but you’ve just reduced efficiency of the gov even further. Maybe that is your point. Then the even LESS efficient govt would be on the chopping block altogether, which is what some want. Ends justify the means, I guess.
I write this in a less than ideal state of mind. Forgive the assholishness. I thought of deleting it, but fuck it.
Interesting that folks here claim to be merit based, yet want to arbitrarily cut workers.
Which workers are cut might be done on a merit basis. How many to cut, though, goes to the merits of the enterprise as a whole.
My remark was directed more at, why should pubsecs who lose their job get a gradual phasedown, job training, etc. etc. to make sure they land on their feet. Because, as someone who has been fired three times, I can tell you , that ain’t the way it works out in the private sector.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
It happens quite often. Not for individuals or small groups typically, but large workforce layoffs (especially those related to dying industries) are typically followed by some politician saying we need to re-educate these folks since they have limited marketable skills. Hell, since the iron mining industry crashed here they created a quasi-govt entity to: Promote and invest in business, community and workforce development for the betterment of northeastern Minnesota. That drives me nuts, and I don’t think it should be done for govt workers either.
In the narrow case of the FS, I don’t see a reason why the government should be the ones servicing it. I don’t think that NOT selling the land off should be ‘off the table’ because history. Indeed, I think that a reduction in federal involvement in the nation could be very illustrative here.
Sell off 5% of the land and assets. Offer the FS personnel that are based there the opportunity to bid for their jobs with the new owners – who will need forestry personnel. They’ll end up with the staff they want, and the residual, unemployed former forestry workers are unemployed. This should look familiar, it certainly does to anyone who’s been in the private sector.
Then all you have to be concerned about is those personnel and their alleged usefulness in the wider workforce. I’m not utterly unsympathetic, and given that the federal government has just obtained a large pile of cash from private industry, a suitably humble portion of those proceeds might go into career training in other industries.
In a broader sense, retraining former IRS SWAT team or IRS Investigative personnel might be a more difficult proposition until you find an employer who wants staff with that kind of unique and special personality.
I need to write my land management article…
So your saying… we throw out our history? Sorry. I had to. Especially since I never said we shouldn’t sell it off, just that it would be nearly impossible given the current state of affairs. But I guess this whole topic is in that realm, so…
To the other points, some national forests already contract a bit of the field prep work to sell timber, but some is still done in house. Depends on local markets (workforce, volume, etc.). Honestly though, I just used this as an example for actual production work. Very few FedGov employees do manual labor. It’s mostly white collar work (I’ve even been more office bound the last few years).
I don’t know the answer, but I’m sure people smarter than I could figure something out. I’m just pushing back on the flippancy of some of the comments. It’s a hard world, I get it. And I like it that way, to be honest. I’ll lighten up now.
Well, if the forestry service staff aren’t particularly involved in managing the day to day manual labor of the forests, I’d guess they’re in management and admin roles. Such skill sets are quite fungible.
I don’t – as I can see you appreciated – see the benefit in seeing National Forests as some kind of Gaian Art Exhibit. What is done with the majority of the land managed by the Forestry Service? You leave it to grow, and leave it unmanaged? Forests are natural resources, like any other, and just as with wildlife management, I see no compelling argument that a bunch of politicians and government bureaucrats guiding your efforts is likely to yield any better outcome (no matter what the intended outcome is) than a business would. If indeed, there is a justifiable fear that every parcel of land purchased would be clean cut and re-planted with fast-growing coniferous cover, then by all means, I can see a that a case for keeping some proportion of those lands under the management of federal government might be electorially appealing.
One of the primary objections of slashing federal staffing is that those dedicated, selfless public servants will be turned into chum for the pets of uncaring plutocrats, and I suggest that one way to fund some of the remedial programs that some people might think necessary to find gainful employment, instead of being wards of the state (to be honest, I don’t count myself in that number) is to do so from the proceeds from the sale of an asset or resource that I really don’t believe was legitimately the government’s in the first place.
One of the reasons we need a federal Forestry Service is because the federal government has forests. If there were no federally managed forests, the service could be cut to zero staff. The realistic outcome lies somewhere between where we are now, and the latter. Unless you believe there’s no relationship whatsoever between the area under Forestry Service management, and the number of staff working for the Forestry Service, I’d argue that one way to reduce federal costs in managing such land is to hold less of the land.
Doubt this gets read, but here goes. I really don’t think most people would need to be retrained, for the reasons we discussed. Given the numbers we are talking, it seems the labor market may have a blip of some kind, but maybe not.
Neither does the Forest Service, since it has a utilitarian mission to provide products from the forests. They were created as ‘reserves’ to be used as working forests. Ironically, many of the federal reserves were in fact less productive lands, or otherwise unavailable given technology at the time, and were never transferred out of the government ‘ownership’ via the various land dispersement laws. Essentially unwanted lands. Obviously, technology changed quickly, which leads to…
Yes, that is the fear. I’m not well versed in the theories, but I have zero belief that if we sold all federal lands, the timber producing lands would be anything like what we have now. Currently, and again ironically, there is little economic incentive to manage lands for anything but timber, since there are so many acres of public land available for free. Why would someone pay to walk in a forest, when you can do it for free? I’m sure at some point, some of the owners would realize managing lands for more than just maximizing timber production would be financially beneficial, but by then, what has been lost? That said, I’m not the type to say the earth will be destroyed if we clear cut everything, but it sure wouldn’t be the same.
I should be offended, but I’m too old for that anymore. I’m not in this position for any reason other than to support myself and my family. Purely selfish. Maybe that’s why I don’t fit in?
it is an issue because many of them will need adjustment to be productive and employable. But if you let them go gradually without much unemployment, humans adapt. and jobs are created as taxes and regulations go down.
Why is that different from 3000 manufacturing jobs ‘going away’ here and there over a 20 year period? The only difference is one of scale.
the difference is manufacturing workers are people used to well… working. Government workers, not all but a decent number, not so much. You have to get reused to actually having to do something productive, achieve targets and the like
Well, I guess that some of them could be made productive citizens via a program of re-education, and the ones who are ill-fitted to functioning in a modern, free society could all live together in communes – maybe in rural areas – with someone helping them lead useful lives for a subsistence lifestyle. Many would become valuable members of society able to mingle with the rest of the nation, after 20-30 years of personal development.
Could we, perhaps, build some kind of ark to relocate them?
We could, but a sufficiently remote area would probably be adequate.
Relocating them smacks of needless indulgence and expense – who would pay for the construction of said ark?
The taxpayers?
Private donations?
I’m sure an enterprising private company could find ways to turn a profit by selling tickets and broadcast rights to view the inevitable thunderdome the ark would devolve into.
Perhaps we can build a colony for them in Madagascar.
I guess we could always use the footage for a relaunch of Firefly, onboard a Reaver’s ship.
They’d better get used to starving, then.
They won’t just give in en mass, Shit would happen, various groups would lose they’re Shit over this, and some Do have Guns
Well, that just makes a better argument for the ‘ark’ solution. Some modest technology would provide them with guns and shivs via time-locked stores, so the clients are out of range before they can access weapons.
AND, the subscribers to the show would pay more, because they’re seeing a variety of weapons under realistic conditions.
Which always makes me wonder – why don’t handguns have to go thru’ UL testing?
20% of 800k non-essential FedGov employees that were just furloughed = 8k per year for 20 years. Not going to ruin the country, but it would be pretty expensive to re-educate them all for other jobs. Still cheaper in the long run than what we have now? Almost certainly. It would be an interesting ride…
We could set up some camps out in the desert and keep them there until their re-education is completed.
I like the desert. No humidity, but can you kill all the snakes and scorpions before you send me there?
The size of government retracts. Revenues are reinvested in the private economy and new jobs are created. Unemployed bureaucrats are absorbed into the private economy. That is the theory, right? And if it doesn’t work that way, my default position is “who cares”
Assuming we all will have much more expendable income they will undoubtedly find new and exciting fields of employment i.e. maids, butlers, valets, gardeners etc,etc….
I somehow don’t see your average DMV/IRS/EPA employee doing well in an actual service industry.
As Chipping Pioneer hints at above- Starvation can be a hell of a motivator.
Right…they’ll be hosing up my order at McDonalds, same as the other clowns working drive through. But at least we get to choose which awful drive through to drive through.
KillFire them all; letGodthe market sort them out -Arnaud Amalric, probablyWell, you could do it over a few years by simply rehiring one worker for every two that leave…whether that be by retiring or by taking another job.
I’m sure if government workers are worth anything they can find work elsewhere. People such as these exist in some number.
” what Happens to all the now unemployed GOV workers?”
Emigration. Do you really want these unproductive people hanging around?
And Europe thought that the Muslims were bad?
OTOH what Happens to all the now unemployed GOV workers?
They can die drunk in a gutter for all I care.
Just put them through job training courses. Isn’t that what our chocolate Nixon suggested a while back? Teach them programming and then facebook, google and twitter can hire them or green jobs…yeah, that’s the ticket.
/sarc
I’m sure some company has a need for holes to be dug and then filled back in. They won’t even need to learn any new skills.
and when people say libertarians are worse than nazis, you complain. *If government healthcare is cut all doctors will disappear. No school can exist if it is not financed by government. What about the goddamn roadz? seriously
In some ways we are. We expect adults to have agency and a certain degree of self-interest.
The nazis – and authoritarians in general – are happy to take the citizenry just the way they are.
If you have been trained to not have agency, and to depend on the state, it’s easy to see why we’re seen as worse than some other *kind* of authoritarian who you have been taught to fear.
anyway this is a bit extreme really, but I think any government can cut 25% of spending while offering the same “services” and better by cutting useless bullshit
I totally agree. 25% at minimum with no drop in service.
I read somewhere (might have been here) that “Bureaucracy is the epoxy that greases the wheels of progress.”
Nice! Consider it stolen.
Oooh, that’s great.
Yeah, I gleaned that from a book by a fellow named James Boren, if memory serves correct.
And here he is
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Boren
nice.
“This page Intentionally left blank” That is actually a cost saving measure to not waste. It has to do with the paper reams that books are printed with and how the paper is folded into book form. Rather than waste resources trying to reformat an entire publication to fit the standard reams, they leave a few pages blank. The words are only ever printed on there so people don’t think there was a printing error.
“This page Intentionally left blank”
Of course, any page with that on it isn’t actually, you know, blank.
Or they will put in lines and call it “notes”
I have seen it in a few .PDF Manuals I have
in Romania we have the ministry for business and entrepreneurship which was always a bit of wtf to me
Do you know anyone else who tried to run a nation where the government left businesses alone if they worked for the benefit of the state?
I really don’t. Because businesses are never left alone if they work for the “benefit” of the state.
Germany 1932-1945
Suggestion for the military budget – reduce the scope of operations for them to strict defense, only. As in, the operational guidelines set forth by Smedley Butler – The Navy and Air Force don’t patrol further than 500 miles offshore, and the army never leaves home.
Subject all military contracts to constant review, and The Pentagon to annual audits.
I know the realpolitik people who hang out here won’t like that, but too bad; satiate your warboners with your own fucking money.
to strict defense, 500 miles offshore, and the army never leaves home – wowowow hold on there sparky. Defense should keep including Eastern Europe or are you some sort of Putin stooge?
If we’re putting the Navy 500 miles offshore, lets do the same with the army to give us some cushion.
Don’t give them any ideas. Next thing you know, you’ll see an RFP for this.
Big Navy, Small Footprint, I like Imports, and FOTS is important
I could see some rationale in *not* limiting the Navy to 500 miles offshore, but only in the name of commerce protection in unsafe areas (open seas, territorial waters of failed states, etc.)
The problem with that is that we then become a police force, and by extension, events that might occur in the Andaman Sea suddenly become ‘our problem’.
FOTS Members patrol local areas as much as possible, It’s all about Commerce
I absolutely agree – which is why there is some rationale for letting our navy go farther afield, but *only* for the purpose of commerce protection, and *only* if there’s no nearby navy able or willing to protect our commerce. Interestingly, combine that narrow focus with repeal of some of the crazier maritime law here, and there might be a renaissance in the number of US-flagged ships.
But….sometimes they DO become our problem if they inhibit trade. I think an absolute 500 mile policy is foolish and shortsighted, though that may make me an apostate here.
Let shipping companies arm or otherwise protect themselves, and add those costs to the bill for their customers.
I’m not interested in taxpayers financing a protection racket on the open seas for products they may not be purchasing.
/ancapistan
If you’re willing to let them really protect themselves (including against bad state actors – Iranian speedboats, for example), then I’m all in with this solution. Or perhaps ships/convoys could pay for the cost of the Navy’s support.
Like Letters of Marque? We can still do that if we wanted, then just Bring out the Big stuff if needed
Not necessarily – I was thinking more along the lines of allowing the shipping companies (or, more likely, private “shipping protection companies”) the right to arm their ships as they see fit to handle better-financed piratical sorts.
I see the inevitable objection here
A private security company increases in size such that has more arms and employees than all but a few dozen countries have in their armed forces.
The multi-billionaire oligarch who owns the company will undoubtedly decide to invade a country, steal ships/cargo protected by his lesser capable competitors, or try some crazy Blofeld like world domination plot.
A couple of ideas I’ve had:
(1) No transfers of funding from any level of government to another. It is fundamentally corrupting to have local and state governments (a) beholden to the feds for money and (b) spending money they haven’t actually taxed out of their citizens. The only exception would be the purchase of goods and services at fair market value. There is a flipside problem which is not unrelated: “superior” levels of government ordering inferior levels of government to do shit that costs money. This could be fixed by saying that no inferior level of government is required to follow orders from on high unless those orders are fully funded (at fair market value). This is kind of a tangle, but its also a huge spending problem.
(2) All transfer programs (SocSec, Medicare, etc.) are funded for only one year at a time, must be fully funded (cannot spend any borrowed money), and are funded by a separate tax which must be adjusted each year to fund the transfer programs and only the transfer programs. Connect the size of the welfare state directly to the level of taxation it requires, and I think you would see a very different dynamic around entitlement spending.
(3) Converge all transfer programs into a single program that gives cash payments. If the government is going to pay for medical coverage, they shouldn’t also be providing the coverage as that adds extra bureaucracy and cost. Give the people the money and let them spend it in the private sector.
[standard libertarian disclaimer]
Sounds like a guaranteed universal income.
[/sld]
No transfers of funding from any level of government to another – or go back to the idea the states collect all the money and give some to the feds, not the other way around
In Australia, there are no state taxes. All income & VAT collected by the Feds and then given out to the states once a year.
So they have it exactly backwards, since on the US – California and NY would ensure that they get all the money.
They also have an interesting way of taxing dividends.
^^^This.
Fun mental exercise: where does the Federal government get the authority to make transfer payments?
As far as I can tell, it’s one of those “implied powers” that grew into a full power of its own.
I think its generally traced back to the “General Welfare” clause, which is part of the Taxing and Spending Clause:
As ever with proggy commies, though, they had to completely reverse the meaning of “General Welfare” to have it justify charitable handouts/welfare. The “General Welfare” is a reference to government activities that benefit everybody. Transfer payments benefit a few at the expense of many. The Founders were not unanimous on what counted as the General Welfare, but were (mostly) quite clear that the ConstA decent overview of the history of the clause.nt to engage in charity.
A decent overview of the history of the clause.
It is interesting how we would have a Constitution that seems specifically designed to spell out a government of limited powers but then somehow grants that government indefinite spending, taxing*, and regulatory powers.
Granted, the 16th Amendment completely upended the original taxation power and limits.
ot but speaking of libertarian countries
https://twitter.com/ConanOBrien/status/955100835784077314
led to this
https://twitter.com/Some_BlackGuy/status/955316466470993921
Hilarious.
I particularly liked the foot-in-mouth response to the other Haiti pix showing a street in LA, which is a city with both (a) completely controlled by Dems and (b) home to a very large immigrant population. Not really a good example to give to rebut Republican opposition to high levels of immigration.
How to be an asshole:
Go to a really poor country and photograph yourself drinking out of a coconut.
I did that in Haiti back in October. I guess its not news to me that I’m an asshole.
asshole 😉
/every westerner in Bali
Left-wing celebrities really are some kind of retarded species.
They did/do the same with Cuba. When I ventured off the ‘paradise lot’ on a moped all I saw was abject poverty no self-respecting person could possibly pass for an advanced country on any level.
Idiots like O’Brien pictures themselves in the safest, best spots reserved for pampered assholes like them and then send photos to show the world how *beautiful* things are.
It truly is despicable how they lie to prove a partisan point.
The ultimate irony of course, once we get past their hubris and ignorance, is that this doesn’t help Haiti’s cause at all or one iota. It serves to keep them exactly that: A fucken shithole.
I maintain four websites in addition to new development for my place, and one of the websites was created because something like six years prior they’d gotten the domain name and didn’t want to waste it even though the original site no longer existed. There’s another site whose audience was primarily “the interested public”. It gets about four hits a month. Four. One project has been in discussion for over two years. Nobody can agree on what it is, but they’ve got a name, and there’s a reference to it on the first website I mentioned, so now they think they have to make it. They hired a consulting firm to do some user research and stuff like that; the firm basically concluded that nobody wanted it. That didn’t stop them, but we’re still in discussions to determine just what the hell it is.
Heh – we had a series of long and tortured meetings about setting up a webpage so one of our (very large) plastic molded parts could be bought directly by the public.
Problem? Said item cost more to ship than the cost; meaning a customer would have to pay over $100 in shipping for a $60 part. This was mentioned by us but the concern was waved away by management. So my department did the setup/install / messed with the horrible tax issues that came up… basically consumed weeks of our server guy’s time.
Number of sales? two.
Eventually the website was pulled due to lack of sales.
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/955560675966889984
Speaking of non-essential government employees
When was the last Time The GOV actually Wrote and passed a Budget? How many YEARS now?
http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/01/23/vatican-asks-underground-chinese-bishops-to-stand-aside-for-government-backed-ones/?platform=hootsuite
And this is the kind of stuff that traditionalists in the Church will get upset about. The Catholic church is breaking with thousands of years of tradition and allowing the godless communists in China to choose its bishops. It’s as if the French Revolution never happened or the Great Schism had nothing to do with the emperor choosing clergy
I’m sure this will work out great for the Church, with no unforeseen consequences whatsoever.
Seriously, Commie Pope has to be off his meds this week. Maybe JP II can come to him in a vision and straighten this shit out.
Time for the council of cardinals to appoint a pope in pectore.
Maybe my history is wrong, but I thought one of the big differences that led to the Great Schism was that the Orthodox Church was willing to allow the emperor to choose its clergy. And, maybe I am mistaken, but I also believe that the inability of European monarchs to choose the local bishops was a source of tension between the Vatican and the French and English kings for hundreds of years. And didn’t the Vatican’s refusal to grant the Holy Roman Emperor ‘veto’ over the selection of local bishops lead to a long running ‘Investiture Controversy’? Further, didn’t the Vatican also engage in a long-running fight with the French (after the French Revolution), the Germans (after Bismark’s ‘Kulturekampf’), and the Mexicans (under the Constitution of 1917) over this very same issue: whether or not the state should have the final say in the selection of bishops?
Then why is leeway being given to the godless communists of China? What am I missing here?
The same reason various US companies are kowtowing. The possibility of gaining a foothold in a growing market. Sure isn’t in Europe where both the governments and people are godless (except for the elephant in the room).
Let me progsplain to you; the Maoists are, unlike the patriarchial cis-shitlords that were medieval kings, enlightened.
This Pope is a significant downgrade from Pope John Paul II. What an utter embarrassment. Caving to the communists of China. This move will lose the church more people of faith than they will gain.
The schism and the investiture controversies were roughly contemporaneous, but independent. The rule of simony was practiced by both branches of the church and want listed as a point of contention between them at the time of the split. It wasn’t until 1056 that the members of the Gregorian reform attempted to end the practice, and it wasn’t until 1059 that the college of cardinals backed them. The denunciation of the primacy of the bishop of Rome occurred in 1054, a few years prior.
Yes, obviously that was not the only sticking point that led to the schism.
Also, doesn’t the Orthodox Church still hold that the bishop of Rome is first among equals. My understanding is that they just dispute what authority he wields as first among equals. I believe this was established by the First Council at Constantinople. Therefore, any Christian church that accepts the teachings of this council would also have to accept that the Bishop of Rome is the ‘first among equals’, although they can disagree over what that means in terms of authority.
There is debate over both the legitimacy of the third canon, and it’s interpretation. The bishops of Rome themselves have contested it; Pope Leo the Great argued that the canon was never submitted to Rome for agreement, and that The lessening of Antioch and Alexandria violated the Nicean creed. The main issue with the Roman bishop’s assertion of supremacy wasn’t with ecclesiastical matters, but rather civil. While few in the church had any issues with the pope taking over civil matters in the Christian kingdoms under its original jurisdiction, when it declared itself to have universal jurisdiction and began inserting itself into the civil affairs of the eastern kingdoms was when the eastern churches got their backs up.
Today, the main issue preventing reunification is variations on rites and the idea of papal infallibility. The rites were issues back in the origin of the schism, but the infallibility came after.
Also, doesn’t the Orthodox Church still hold that the bishop of Rome is first among equals.
Not presently. Eastern Orthodox view the Bishop (Patriarch) of Constantinople as first among equals, and the Oriental Orthodox view the Bishop (Pope) of Alexandria as such. The Eastern Orthodox recognize the primacy of the Pope in Rome until the Great Schism, while the Oriental Orthodox split off at the Council of Chalcedon.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/orthodox_recognize_pope_first_among_equals_disagreements_remain
That’s not entirely true. The Bishop of Constantinople re-iterated that the Bishop of Rome was first among equals, but contentions remain over the Bishop of Rome’s role and theological differences.
And the Oriental Church is a different animal in and of itself.
The Bishop of Constantinople re-iterated that the Bishop of Rome was first among equals
Was, past tense. The Ravenna Document itself makes no firm declaration that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals today.
Not to drag this out, but literally in the Ravenna Document it says:
“Further, they agree that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.”
All they did was reassert the First Council of Constantinople that both sides still accept
Not to drag it out? It’s been almost a millennia and the pompous Romans still refuse to cede any of their pretend authority. I doubt there is anything we could do to extend the rift, or to close it.
I am only repeating what the Orthodox bishops declared in the Ravenna Document. We cannot make people do what is best for themselves by submitting to the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
Submission is for Islam, you autocratic apologist.
The sentence before your quote, which is part of the same bullet, is:
Both sides agree that this canonical taxis was recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church.
Last I checked, that era ended in the 11th century.
True God from True God. Begotten, not made. One in being with the Father. Through Mao all things are made.
Let us share with each other the sign of peace
/Pulls out gun and shoots his wealthier neighbor in the back of the head.
OT: apparently there have been some suggestions that Trump’s various comments will harm the US/Canada/Mexico bid to host the 2016 World Cup. This is going to be interesting as the only other interested party right now is Morocco. How does Morocco stack up:
“According to Human Rights Watch annual report 2016, Moroccan authorities restricted the rights to peaceful expression, association and assembly through several laws.”
Homosexual acts are illegal in Morocco, and can be punishable by 6 months to 3 years of imprisonment.
It is illegal to proselytise for any religion other than Islam (article 220 of the Moroccan Penal Code), and that crime is punishable by a maximum of 15 years of imprisonment.
And there ongoing claims of human rights abuses in the Western Sahara conflict.
So will support for LGBTQ rights triumph over TDS? Stay tuned.
So, that should be 2026 WC
2026? So after Trump would be out of office for 2 to 6 years? Makes sense.
The vote is June, 2018.
At this point, I think we’ve already lost our chance to host the 2016 World Cup, but maybe that’s just me and my linear sense of time.
Meh, there was no World Cup in 2016 and Raven Nation immediately corrected it. Refresh!
On a more serious note, Morocco can’t be any worse than Qatar.
They probably can’t offer the same level of bribery.
Morocco is one of the most enlightened Muslim countries.
Tallest midget.
What I can’t get anyone to see is that industry is where the good stuff comes from: safety glass, exhaust scrubbers, decomposing plastic, efficient engines, smart logistics. We dream it, we design it, we prove it, we sell it, we build it at a profit……and…..eventually, the State of California codifies the requirement for everyone to so equip or operate.
Then some flake tells me the government is saving us.
If the state of CA is requiring it for everything and it shows up everywhere outside CA, why do we need an OSHA? We can cut them right out of the Federal Budget!
Thanks CA!
Ralph Nader invented the seatbelt, fact.
I don’t object to activism…..it’s a form of dissent or agency. But Nader should be cajoling industry to compete for his favor and his business, not agitating for specific regulation.
Nash offered seat belts when Nader was in short pants, methinks…..wonder if he ever bought one.
nice.
and you didn’t even cut it to the bone like most of us would dream about!
we could actually dig our way out of debt
Neat!
Perhaps OT: As many people from central america want to come here, I wonder what the reaction to a real proposal to allow those countries to join the union would be. Are the people that want to come to the US a large enough portion of the population that it could gain any traction? Would we even be able to straiten these places out enough to integrate them into the union? Would Mexico get renamed Old Mexico? Or New New Mexico?
And Take Canada as well, We would Own This Planet!
CanAmerExico
I don’t know if we would be able to get the culture to shift, look at Puerto Rico. It’s been a territory for over a hundred years.
Realistically, to get the cultural shift we would have to colonize it first, which isn’t something I’d advocate.
Of Course We Colonise, and also relocate The Mexicans to Canada and vice versa, Culture problem Solved! They would all be too confused to resist
ASSIMILATION!
In your universe, will I be relocated to Canada? I better stock up on winter boots.
Newfoundland for you, I think.
Only if its Labrador. Islands make me clausterphobic.
PEI. You’ll eat potatoes and like it.
Some I assume, a Good People, Besides, I know You have a Green Card
What would the Quebecois do?
Oh, they’d be revolting.
Aren’t they Revolting Enough?
We should start by colonizing everything down to the Panama Canal.
I don’t want any Aztecs or Mayans, Mexico is where we draw the line.
I’d complain, but you’ve already banished me to Canada.
Arizona isn’t Mexico, you’re free to roam….
That’s good. You were never going to keep me in Canada anyway, not until you build that wall!!
One major flaw:
Being banished to Canada means you have to winter in Florida, which could open this plan to human rights violations.
Then what? the Prime Directive for the Canucks?
Now that I think about it. Central America is becoming a cheap, popular place to retire. In a sense we already are.
You’re not going far enough. You can cut a lot out by simply going back to providing strictly Service Connected medical treatment. Also the $86B you are referring to as “Income Security for Veterans” is actually disability payments. That system is set up in a manner to offset the costs of service connected disabilities that would theoretically hinder a disabled Vet from employment. While this system is certainly abused by Vets that are in essence, faking it, generally speaking you will have a hard time doing a lot of blue-collar work if you are confined to a wheelchair. At the time the system was setup this was considered normal work.
The VA is a New Deal Era dinosaur, the whole thing can be shaken up top to bottom.
Good article, by the way.
Thanks. Good points on the VA. I freely admit that I’m largely ignorant of the specifics of many (ok, most … ok, all) of these spending programs. Your insights are informative.
We could also try this one weird trick to not have so many disabled veterans, not sending them to unnecessary wars.
It’s so crazy that it just might work!
CPRM, my friends, is a whacko- bird.
//John McCain
That, and maybe put a financial incentive on military leadership to keep disability down*. Right now, nobody in the service or the DoD civilian leadership faces any consequences for putting people into disability.
* = Granted, perverse incentives abound both ways
+1 “That may be a hernia, here’s some Motrin.”
And drink more water
The problem isn’t so much the DOD, but VA in this instance. The previous admin incentivized the VA to grow the disability pool without really fixing their ability to treat those individuals.
Currently, if you retire from the military with sleep apnea, you get a 50% disability from the VA.
Which is super fucked up, because sleep apnea is generally a symptom of being slightly over-weight and in your 40s.
If you develop the beedus that’s disability as well. So what your saying is fat people should get disability?
It’s a little of both in the sleep apnea case. Once word got out that it gets you 50% everybody starts getting it on their medical records. The problem is, sleep apnea will get you medically retired, so the only people that are going for it are the ones about to retire at 20. In a sense, they are double-dipping by getting their retirement + VA disability.
Since the OT cherry has been popped: Canada is #1 to somebody!
I would pick maybe one thing on that list and try very hard to sell it. But even that would have .001% chance.
The fact that no one can sell something as clear cut as eliminating corn subsidies is just depressing.
Can you spell “Iowa Caucus”.
I know the stated reason, but find it hard to believe that’s the real cause. If you wanted to kill the subsidies, you do it right after a presidential election. Minimal risk to any single member of congress (excepting the ones from Iowa) voting to kill the subsidies, because there’s at least three years before any of them are running for president and have to deal with the caucus.
Libertarian porn.
Also has about as much chance of me delivering a pizza to a sorority house, but, oh dear, they don’t seem to have enough money to pay me…how ever will we deal with this problem?
Omega Mu?
I was thinking one that had Lexi Belle and April O’Neil in it, but to each his own.
Her shelf life was shorter than a Twinkie.
A great deal of expense could be eliminated if governments would cease the “bread and circuses” projects. Sports stadiums and concert venues are things that can and will exist if there is demand, yet governments often build these things. These structures often sit vacant due to lack of demand (since, surprise surprise, bureaucrats who are “investing” with other peoples’ money are not motivated to be very good investors).
My city government recently built a concert venue near the river. It’s not the most terrible thing that a government has ever done, but it costed a lot of my tax money. There was a debate over it, and supporters of the project were always saying, “it won’t cost you a penny more on your taxes; they’re just going to implement some cost-saving measures to public utilities and garbage collection“. Well, if there was money to be saved, shouldn’t they have done that a long time ago and lowered taxes?? That’s like if my hypothetical family were struggling financially and I came home with a brand new motorcycle one day and said, “don’t worry, it won’t cost us a cent; I just used the money that I saved by quitting my drinking and gambling!“
Nothing gets me more pissed off during the election seasons when there’s some bond or tax extension measure up for a vote, and the ads all say the same thing:
“Won’t raise taxes”
No shit, it just continues a tax that was supposed to fscking expire this year, and let me start getting more of my money back.
You could go in and audit every single exec branch agency and find a shit-ton to cut. Every single one. From what I’ve seen, it’s the political appointees who always spend money unnecessarily. Because they’re all dogs lifting their legs and marking their territory at taxpayer expense. There’s always a re-org with every political. Guaranteed. There’s sometimes a complete physical space renovation (at State, we had 3 in 10 years). The last re-org/reno that was done by the politicals that the WH dumped on us was about $3 million. That was just one bureau in one department. Multiply that by, what? 1000? More?
Fake Doric columns for all!
“I wouldn’t do it all at once. I’d do it gradually, say over 12 years”
That’s exactly how a bureaucrat WOULD do it.
Which means there’s ample time for territorial pissing contests and run-arounds and at the end of 12 years few things would have been cut and most of the stuff would have expanded.
In the private sector, when a 20% cut is called for it happens all at once.
Agreed, that’s how it would happen in the private sector. I was thinking of the frog in the boiling water. If you said that you were going to reduce the size of the government by 60%, that sounds like a really big number (although I maintain that it could be done). If you said that you were going to reduce the size of the government by 5% (then just keep doing it every year for 12 years), then it’s a lot more palatable to some people.
I realize that it would still be wildly unpopular and would never happen, but one can hope.
The ratchet only turns one way.
If you were going to do it at all, it would have to be done all at once.
What the heck is a “minarchist softball coach”?
Stop making us look weird, CP.
As for Newmanian logic: “So what you’re saying is…” you don’t love your wife.
My foggy memory remembered this as softball, not football.
And a Great Article, I love a Good Fiction Story
Thanks! You can find more of my fiction in Penthouse Letters.
Wasn’t being a Dick. ITYKWIM
AITID
“Dear reason, I never thought this would happen to me…”
The old sandwich fantasy.
Why do you have mustard on your back?
OT: TedX talk on Teacher Liberation.
Concept is based-on the Northstar Program. My son attended the self-directed learning cooperative Joel started (PLC).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRCUF_XAj0&t=537s
So the office progs are reading a report from someone(I don’t care enough to ask who) saying the NFL owners let the Raiders hire Gruden, violating the Rooney Rule, and in return they would pick up Kapernick so he would drop his lawsuit.
She quotes from the article”There is no direct evidence of this, but I strongly believe it to be true” and they act like that seals it and the owners are scared of Kapernick and it’s one big conspiracy.
An hour earlier she was going on about the Kentucky school shootings and how you can’t say anything if you don’t want laws passed to prevent this.
It was difficult not to say”What laws? You mean like making murder illegal, or maybe make it illegal to bring a gun to school?
/Rant
They need to make those things even more illegaler.
Like how? Mandatory minimums?
*runs away*
We’ll make your football team have to hire Lane Kiffen.
You’re a monster.
I was having a bad day at work, so thanks for reminding me how lucky I am that my cow orkers are completely uninterested in talking about politics.
They didn’t go through the insulting motions of interviewing a random black guy for the job before hiring the guy they knew they wanted?
That’s what bothers me, that and the whole “CONSPIRACY WITH NO EVIDENCE!!!!”
I want to clarify that I do like these two women as far as work goes, I don’t hang out with anyone from work, but they are usually very freindly and easy to work with.
And now she’s bitching about Trump being the biggest cyberbully IN THE WORLD! Because Melania hasn’t done much in that regard, compared to Michelle who had such a nice garden and really worked to fight obesity.
I don’t talk politics at work and I damn sure don’t mention the fact that I open carry a pistol everywhere I go outside of work, I don’t understand why they feel the need to make everything political.
/Rant, for real this time?
Get in on the complaining and start adding ‘facts’ from Hat and Hair stories, and see if they realize you’re talking made up shit.
Randomly seeding the insanity of Sugar Free into the mind of the unsuspecting to spread unbidden through the populace akin to untraceable plague is how we get new chaos gods. Stop this heresy at once.
Ye olde chaos gods have not been pulling their weight, maybe they need a wake-up call.
Right, you shouldn’t just toss the seeds out randomly. You must carefully plant and cultivate them.
You should bring up ‘Ban Bossy’ and then tell her to shut the hell up, because it sounds bossy.
I know I’m an asshole, but that seems a bit excessive.
That was supposed to reply to CPRM, but I guess it works here too.
That comment could work in approximately 72% of the discussions here.
“…hardly anybody would notice.”
I think quite a few would notice. Chip, you are misunderstanding the purpose of hiring all of those people and spending all of that money.
Also, I just pulled up the 375 H&H Magnum reloading data page on Loaddata.com where I have an account and I am getting a giant pink cartoony ad for Victoria Hearts dating site. What the hell? What kind of people do they think reload for 375 Holland? What’s next? Women’s hygiene products?
What kind of people do they think reload for 375 Holland?
People who need, err, companionship?
People with shoulder problems.
Real men reload .375 Ruger. Or their targeting algorithms are doing a piss take, whichever.
If you’ve already made those commitments to your employees, then you’ve got to keep them.
How is that a different argument than, say, the “commitment” made to people regarding SS and Medicare – which you cut?
Cutting SocSec and Medicare, which the beneficiaries at least paid taxes to support, and leaving the much phatter pubsec retirement benefits intact, which I don’t believe the beneficiaries contribute to, is an excellent way to see pubsec employees strung up from the nearest available lamppost.
Oooh, I get it now . . . .
Re means testing: 1) if you can prove you’ve been a registered Libertarian since 18 or when your state allowed you to register as such, then you get back everything you and employer paid in – with interest – since you weren’t responsible for the program: 2) means test on lifetime earnings, not what assets you have at age 65. The neighbor whose income equaled yours, but spent it all on Caribbean vacations, a boat, Whole Foods groceries, and a second vacation home ,doesn’t get to collect s.s. while frugal you has to live on your savings.