hurleyjd said:
I know that the debt will be higher in the next few years. It will take spending cuts and more tax revenue to make the ends meet. Yes Tam it takes a lot of courage to show something on here that I thought someone would be interested in. Got any ideas where to cut the spending and also what taxes to raise. I noticed you were very quiet on my post about Browns statements and also the out rage you showed about the teaching hospitals in Canada when I posted the guidelines for teaching hospitals. Yea I like the torture you give me,. You know how I feel about every thing. I will try to post interesting articles for you to pick apart. Just think if I was not on here you guys would not have any one to goad into an argument to salve you egos.
First the article was interesting but not in the way a liberal would think. :wink: The Chart only said who the President was as if it was his fault for the spending . BUT Was it not you that said the president doesn't write the bills it is the Congress? So why doesn't the chart you posted point out who was in control of the Congress? Could it be because the author wants to blame the Republican Presidents for the Dems spending habits?
:?
(Yes I did post this one to highlight that the Democrats are not the only big spenders. I could have found charts from other areas that were more official and said the same thing.)
Since you asked the first cut I would make is to the fuel budget for Air Force One. :wink: Let Obama stay in Washington to sign bills and make his speeches. It is not like they are not all televised for the whole nation to see anyway. :roll: And let him date his wife on his dime not the tax payers with flights to NY for dinner and a play with the Secret Service and media in tow. :roll:
(President will have to fly 60 more times in the next 5 months to equal the flights of another president that used the big plane for 114 trips in 17 months. President Obama needs to pick up the pace to catch up.)
Then I would fire about half the radicals in Obama's Administration, No other President in History has had as many czars and advisor as Obama. But then if you would have voted for a guy with some business experience maybe he wouldn't need so many advisers. :wink:
(Here is a business person from IBM: reasons for czars. Also you might do a search on Presidential czars through past administrations and see if he might need to appoint some more so he will have had his fair share.)
Analysis: Czars and the Bureaucracy
By Mark A. Abramson
[email protected] May 29, 2009
On the campaign trail Barack Obama vowed to change the way Washington does business. As president, his management reform agenda still is evolving, but there are signs he is beginning to fundamentally transform the way government approaches big problems. As Obama appoints a series of strategic czars, the outline of a 21st century government is emerging.
The czar phenomenon is reflected in the rising number of White House special assistants for "x, y and z," as well as special envoys, special representatives and special advisers at the State Department. While there has long been a statutory czar at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, for example, recent appointments have followed suit. To name a few, Steve Rattner was named lead adviser on auto industry issues -- better known as the car czar. Nancy-Ann DeParle was appointed counselor to the president and director of the White House Office of Health Reform -- aka health czar. And on Friday, the president announced a new White House cyber czar would be named to work on the threat to national security from hackers or terrorists.
While the term "czar" is getting ubiquitous, these positions are a far cry from the czarist Russia image. Today's government czars lack such dictatorial authority. It is more correct to call them collaborators, since their role is to bring together people from different agencies, sectors and nations. These jobs are nonhierarchical and have no direct control over anyone. Modern-day czars must instead use persuasive, partnership skills.
E-MAIL THIS ARTICLE PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION COMMENT ON THIS STORY
RELATED STORIES
* Stimulus czar is well-prepared for new role 03/25/09
* Observers worry White House 'czars' have too much power 03/13/09
* Interior chief names 'recovery czar' 03/09/09
* Obama taps Sebelius, DeParle to oversee health reform 03/02/09
* With two jobs comes big balancing act for performance chief 01/09/09
We are seeing a subtle shift to a two-track government that melds this role of designated problem-solver and the traditional bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies actually are very good for certain functions. They are good at routines, such as sending out monthly Social Security checks. They are good, most of the time, in responding to emergencies for which they have been trained and are prepared. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's effective and rapid response in tracking and analyzing the recent flu epidemic is one example. Bureaucracies are not very good at (and often resistant to) working across boundaries with organizations they do not control and with whom they often compete for resources.
Government czars are designated problem-solvers who are consciously placed outside the traditional bureaucracy, giving them several advantages in getting their job done.
For starters, they aren't bogged down with managing a large organization. Running a department is full-time job in itself and often requires a different set of leadership skills than problem-solving and bringing together disparate groups. Government has seen the emergence of a critical managerial class, which specializes in running organizations. But it's an all-consuming task for executives, leaving little time to focus on a specific challenge.
Designated problem-solvers can focus exclusively on one set of issues until they are resolved. George Mitchell, appointed special envoy for Middle East peace, and Richard Holbrooke, as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, are prime examples. Middle East peace, it seems, should be the jurisdiction of the assistant secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs or the secretary of State. But those leaders have myriad other responsibilities on their plate.
Government czars have the ability to reach across boundaries to work with the public and nonprofit sectors, state and local governments, and even other nations. This is a far cry from the traditional agency-centric bureaucracy.
But both the bureaucracy and designated problem-solvers have important roles in 21st century government. Without great fanfare, it seems the president Obama is creating the government of the future.
Then I'd cut the First Lady's staff in about half. or is there a competition on who can waste more money on Press Secretaries and event coordinators? :???:
(Here is a break down of staff for First Ladies from Fact Check: Michelle 24 Laura 24 Hillary 19 Nancy 24. Should she not have as many as her predecessors.)
Then would be Pelosi's booze and flower budget, she seems to think she is spending her money and not the money of the struggling tax payers. :roll:
(I do not like Nancy she has become a lightening rod for the democrat party and needs to step down. She is to decisive for America. I have searched and only found that a person in her position can only have a maximum of $40000 for personal expenses and a expense report would have to be filed to be reimbursed. Please point me to any websites that explains the expenses better.)
And last I would go line by line of any bill crossing the President's desk and veto any earmark in it. Hey wasn't that one of Obama's broken promises. :wink:
(We had a line item veto that Bill Clinton signed into law and it was repealed by the supreme court The first case was brought by Democrat senators and one Republican. The supreme court threw their case out because they had no standing, because they could they could not show where it would damage them. New York sued and the supreme court accepted their argument and declared the law not constitutional. In 2003
President Bush asked for a line item veto and the request did not get any where. Yes I think we need a line item veto.)
As far as raising Taxes I'm one that believes that if you cut taxes employers will hire more people that will be paying taxes and in turn will not be collecting government unemployment or welfare. But hey I think history has proven this works but you libs are just to stubborn to learn from history. Or have the libs written that part out of US History books already. :?
(America is living in a different century than when cutting taxes would stimulate the economy, but this is a different time than times in past history when the cutting of taxes would work. For one thing we do not have the industrial base we had in the past. Back at that time you could buy a tractor made in America now the majority of them come from overseas from an overseas company. Some still carrying the American badge that made them so popular in the past. Taxes are as low as they will be for some time. To make a business work you have to have enough income to satisfy the expenses of the business. The government is a big business and will either have to raise taxes or cut spending. Where do you cut that is the hard part, some might suggest social security and medicare. Let us say we cut these out totally, then each of us that has an elderly parent will be saddled with an expense and responsibility of their health care and well fare. Does each and every one of you have the means to do that.)
As far as Brown, with me the jury is still out. I'm glad he won as now maybe the Dems in Washington will stop and think if they can loose a seat they have held for decades then no seat is safe in 2010. They better wake up and take the Tea Parties and town hall meetings seriously and stop the name calling of voters that just want to be heard. So in my eyes Brown did his job by beating Coakley even after Obama campaigned for her. All the rest of what he does is what he will be judged on by the Mass electrate if he plans on being re-elected in 2012. Talk is cheap, Lies are costly and Actions are what counts. Obama and the Dems should remember that.
(I think that you will see Brown as an independent that will weigh each item on the nations agenda as to what is right and fair. Will he hunt with the democrats or the republicans. no one knows that at this time. Only time will tell right now he looks very promising to me. In six months his voters may be hollering lier lier pants on fire. As far as TEA party candidates it will be very hard to marshall anyone to run as the two major parties have pretty well stacked the deck against any third party by making it hard and expensive by creating petitions that are nearly impossible to fulfill. Ask Ross Perot he spent a fortune becoming a third party candidate.)
BTW I didn't know it was torture to defend your party. :wink: