1:04 am, April 16, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 35
       

  • Options?
    Budgetweenie
    This appears to be a topic worthy of an honest discussion. However, if the impact of decisions falls at your feet, does it mean honesty has to be sacrificed? The broad sword slash to trim waste, diminish meaningful and critical services, is not a measure of good management. So, I conclude the following: - Just because people need jobs does not justify having unnecessary jobs. - Not having positions filled, which would, personal opinion aside, better serve the people, could be corrected if desired. - When an increase to spending occurs because of military action, do we not allow for a reduction to spending when the conflict winds down or ends? - The "addiction to over-spending" is more a combination of wanting more than you're willing to pay for. - When those that consider themselves elite enough to lead our nation, whether Administration or Congress, ought to do better at proving it. - Human nature, being what it is, does not really mean it has to stay that way.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Short-sighted
    cubedweller
    We don't have an "addiction" to over-spending. Our massive increases in spending were largely a response to an economic crisis, not flagrant waste. The remaining increases are due to soaring health care costs, particularly with regard to Medicare. The deficit is currently shrinking faster than it has since the draw-down from WWII. U.S. Treasury securities are still in high demand and interest rates remain low. It's easy to say that we should cut "unnecessary" jobs, but it's much more difficult to determine which ones should be cut: so who gets the axe? The people at the IRS? The FDA? NASA? Air traffic controllers? Doctors at the VA? The Pentagon? Across the board? The problem, as always, is that we have differing priorities. We aren't addicted to spending. We just can't come to a decision as to who should be cut because, by and large, most of these services are either necessary to someone, or they bolster the American economy in one way or another.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Actually....
    Budgetweenie
    Cubedweller, I think we begin at the low hanging fruit to assess that which is duplicative, then, that which, over time, has proven of little value for the amount spent. Next, I suggest a closer review and more honest assessment of defense contracts that provide unnecessary IT service support. On the question of how to determine which jobs can be reduced, there is the obvious answer of leave it to management. That assumes they would make the right decisions. However, perhaps it's best to reduce all by 10% and let the individual organizations determine how they can still obtain the outcomes expected. Wasn't there a recent article about the UASF squandering $1B for something that didn't even work a little? Finally, I disagree that "stimulus" money has to be treated differently than any other appropriation. Any time too much volume of funding is provided the amount frivolously spent is exponentially increased. If the infrastructure had been provided more than we could have a lot more to show for it. But when it melts into the abyss of Afghanistan, or other, what do we know of how it was spent?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You do understand that...
    FERS Fed
    ..."that which is duplicative" got that way not because some feds dreamed it up, but because so many members of Congress had earmarks inserted in some spending bills to benefit campaign donors or their congressional districts. ..... Expecting those very same members of Congress to now eliminate "that which is duplicative" might be comparable to expecting to see Speaker Boehner dance the tarantella with President Obama. Not.Gonna.Happen.Ever.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Agree, in part
    Budgetweenie
    I know that what you say is quite true, but not complete. Many Agencies submit Annual funding requests based on components of a program, what gets funded often covers these. Each budget submission is viewed at a Macro level while the details are irrelevant. In addition to "special interest" programs fed down from the top, there are other things that drive up the budget. New ideas or innovation, if scrutinized, already exist, either in another Division or Agency. The very talented MIC can demonstrate a solution, but, in reality are putting a different name to an already existing software program. they may or may not be deliberate in their omissions, but know, once implemented, it lives a long and prosperous life. You may wonder how I know. I just do.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • What Could Go Wrong
    RobDH
    Anything and everything! I have lost my faith in all three branches of our government. "shades of the Roman Empire". Robert DHS/CBP (Ret)
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Share the Fun
    FedUpToHere
    Let's balance the approach - sequester, cut entitlement programs and raise taxes on the wealthy (that's you Congress) so that we the people can all share the fun. Please don't say anything about the seniors or the poor, after all, don't you think that some folks that may be sequestered are the working poor or no longer "middle-aged". I say share the fun since we all got in this mess together....why should only one group have to pay for the damages, those being that serve the public? Where does it say that I (we) are supposed to make up the difference. So I guess a sequester would help share the fun since I will not be out there stimulating the economy and will plan on spending money on what is necessary.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • FEDS
    Bud
    On Feb 28 at 9PM EST Obama,Boehner and Reid will announce a 3 month delay in this sequestration.And it will have cost fed agencies hundreds of millions to plan for the sequestration.This is politics at its lowest in DC in 2013.These pols regardless of party are completely uninterested in the fed employee.It's their desire to just have their party be in power/control.I now regard DC pols as complete useless idiots.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • that would be the safe bet, but....
    Rob
    I think this time the can kicking will end and the sequester will happen. The GOP caved on the tax hike last time and they will not do it again. According to the CBO the latest fiscal cliff deal resulted in $1 of spending cuts for every $41 in tax increases; a 41:1 ratio. According to Obama, "a balanced approach." What's interesting and nobody seems to be aware of is the amount of revenue gained in the first year of the tax increase was already spent by the hurricane Sandy aid bill. Bottom line is you can't tax your way out of a $16T hole and the Dems are not interested in addressing entitlement spending. Result, SEQUESTRATION
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • FEDS
    Bud
    Rob,I hope you're wrong on your prediction.I too want to see budget cuts and fiscal sanity,but it'll never happen until both parties/leaders fully understand the runaway spending days are over.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Ghost Town
    Rob
    Congress is not in session next week so that means there are only 6 legislative days left for the two sides and POTUS to come to terms. It's funny that federal employees are off on the actual holiday while congress takes the whole week. Must be nice!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }