military

because of the pending "sequester" I became aware of the fact that there are 800,000 civilians in the U.S. military. Along with 1,400,000 active military that totals roughly 2.2 million employed in armed services. Another 100,000 reserves. This of course is before we get into defense contractors, etc. Is this just a bit excessive? You talk about forgien entanglements.

I am a staunch advocate of a strong national defense but I chose to cut defense spending in this poll...and I would choose to cut almost ALL government spending.

Even if we wanted to give everyone everything and become the full on nanny state some would have us be, the government spending still needs to be managed better and not wasted. Now we not only waste money on people who don't want to do anything along with the ones who really need it, we also waste it with inefficiency.

The Pentagon needs to cut spending by increasing efficiency.

Also, is it really a "cut" if they get less of an increase than they were supposed to get? If all you math guys did your math the same way our government does theirs, you'd never get any work!!!

I think most, if not all, government institutions could make do with at least a 25% cut across the board. Baseline budgeting is a huge problem in this country. Think of back in the day when you were in school and the member of a club, whether it be chess club, poetry club or whatever. Every year your club had a budget. That budget funded trips (or a portion of) and events throughout the year. If there was any left in reserve, did it go towards future members of that club? No, they blew the budget on a year end party. Why, because if they didn't spend the $2,000 or whatever they received in the budget process, they wouldn't receive that same amount next year, or a possible increase. The school board would say "Why do we need to give your club $2,000 when you only spent $1,200? In every government office you will hear the phrase "Did we make budget this year, or this month or quarter" That phrase means a different thing to a corporation. A corporation means did we reach revenue goals, in a government office it means did we spend all our allocated money. However when a government body is faced with a 4% increase in funding instead of a 5% increase they want it is portrayed as a "devastating cut" and they threaten to fire police officers, fire fighters, teachers or close libraries. It's a wonder they never threaten to fire the gentleman at the DMV who seems to be on coffee break 8 hours a day for 5 days a week.

Quote: Gabes22

I think most, if not all, government institutions could make do with at least a 25% cut across the board. Baseline budgeting is a huge problem in this country. Think of back in the day when you were in school and the member of a club, whether it be chess club, poetry club or whatever. Every year your club had a budget. That budget funded trips (or a portion of) and events throughout the year. If there was any left in reserve, did it go towards future members of that club? No, they blew the budget on a year end party. Why, because if they didn't spend the $2,000 or whatever they received in the budget process, they wouldn't receive that same amount next year, or a possible increase. The school board would say "Why do we need to give your club $2,000 when you only spent $1,200? In every government office you will hear the phrase "Did we make budget this year, or this month or quarter" That phrase means a different thing to a corporation. A corporation means did we reach revenue goals, in a government office it means did we spend all our allocated money. However when a government body is faced with a 4% increase in funding instead of a 5% increase they want it is portrayed as a "devastating cut" and they threaten to fire police officers, fire fighters, teachers or close libraries. It's a wonder they never threaten to fire the gentleman at the DMV who seems to be on coffee break 8 hours a day for 5 days a week.

yes, only in government is an increase in spending considered a cut

2.2 million is a bit under 1% of the population. I don't have a huge deal with that number as the military gives the best ROI in government.

I would rather see the poverty-industrial complex cut down to size. That is where the bigger problems lie.

Quote: AZDuffman

2.2 million is a bit under 1% of the population. I don't have a huge deal with that number as the military gives the best ROI in government.

I would rather see the poverty-industrial complex cut down to size. That is where the bigger problems lie.

good point, 50,000,000 on food stamps....that's like feeding 25 US militaries or feeding the military 25x's more.....

I voted to cut, but not for the amount of troops or pay for the military itself. I know first hand there is a lot of wasted money. My son just went to Afganastan (He's an Army Ranger). They just paid him a TON of money for moving when he graduated from Ranger School.

1. The Army would have pain for a moving company to move his stuff. They also offer 90% (I'm pretty sure on that number) of the moving company cost if you move yourself. So he packed up a truck and moved himself. It cost him a few thousand dollars and some time to pack and drive, but he made about $5,000 off the deal.

2. The Army paid for his spouse to relocate. $5,000 (or something close to that). She moved when he moved all of his stuff, so there was no real cost to them.

I'm sure there's a TON of stuff like that. Just that expense by itself, $10,000 times let's say 200,000 new military members per year?? 2 billion dollars???

ZCore13

Quote: RonC

Now we not only waste money on people who don't want to do anything along with the ones who really need it, we also waste it with inefficiency.

The Pentagon needs to cut spending by increasing efficiency.

Every politician, every business owner, every CEO who actually doen't have the balls to name an actual program or department or entitlement to cut says "We will save money by increasing efficiency". You need a leader who will say---- as an example---- We don't need to see constant advertisements for the Marines on sporting events..... that budget is cut in half.... We now fund museums 20 billion per year.... we will cut that to 10 billion.... There are 100 freaking TSA officers at the Buffalo airport... cut 10 of them now! Sell naming rights to the White House.... ("The Glidden Paints White House")? Just saying we were going to increase our budget by 3% but will only increase it by 2% just doesn't cut it.....

Quote: SOOPOO

Every politician, every business owner, every CEO who actually doen't have the balls to name an actual program or department or entitlement to cut says "We will save money by increasing efficiency". You need a leader who will say---- as an example---- We don't need to see constant advertisements for the Marines on sporting events..... that budget is cut in half.... We now fund museums 20 billion per year.... we will cut that to 10 billion.... There are 100 freaking TSA officers at the Buffalo airport... cut 10 of them now! Sell naming rights to the White House.... ("The Glidden Paints White House")? Just saying we were going to increase our budget by 3% but will only increase it by 2% just doesn't cut it.....

I don't necessarily disagree with you but saying that we will inrease inefficiency can be very specific--and, if I was privvy to enough info to determine what works and what doesn't work, I'd tell you specifically what inefficient practices to cut. It may be adding 30 days to the standard non-combat tour length to cut moving costs or it may be eliminating entire departments.

Cutting Marine ads? That is a simple target but during my many years in recruiting for the Marine Corps, it is not a very big budget and, short of a draft, we NEED people to think about joining the Marine Corps. Those ads are pretty efficient at doing so...

I thinkyou hit the nail on the head with your comment about CEO's...the SecDef needs to be treated like a CEO by the "Board of Directors" (Congress/President) and forced to detail the cuts that will work the best...least decrease in preparedness and most bang for the buck.

The last thing we need is 500 politicians telling everyone what they think needs to be cut...tell the CEO's what to do and make them report what they did...

Quote: SOOPOO

Every politician, every business owner, every CEO who actually doen't have the balls to name an actual program or department or entitlement to cut says "We will save money by increasing efficiency". You need a leader who will say---- as an example---- We don't need to see constant advertisements for the Marines on sporting events..... that budget is cut in half.... We now fund museums 20 billion per year.... we will cut that to 10 billion.... There are 100 freaking TSA officers at the Buffalo airport... cut 10 of them now! Sell naming rights to the White House.... ("The Glidden Paints White House")? Just saying we were going to increase our budget by 3% but will only increase it by 2% just doesn't cut it.....

I have yet to walk into ANY government office building or whatever (whether it be a DMV, a police station, a court house, a VA, a SS office, etc) and felt that this place was moving at peak efficiency and that each and every employee was dedicated to genuinely serving the public in the most polite and efficient manner. Until that happens, I will continue to believe that the government is wasting our money and they could cut costs without laying off enough employees without cutting into what they can provide.

Ha!

I can walk into any business and see a plethora of inefficiencies and poor business processes. A large part of my job is to do business process improvement, and there is plenty of pork in the head offices of many very profitable industries. The inefficiency is rampant just as much as it is in government.

The difference is that it is our money at stake when it comes to government.

Food stamps and other welfare programs are functions of unemployment. If you make under the poverty line, you qualify. Even if you work full time at minimum wage, you qualify. So, raise the minimum wage and bring meaningful American jobs back onshore. That will bring in more government revenues and lessen the need ot pay out welfare benefits.

I voted to cut the military budget, but I think that every program needs to be looked at.

Quote: boymimbo

Ha!

I can walk into any business and see a plethora of inefficiencies and poor business processes. A large part of my job is to do business process improvement, and there is plenty of pork in the head offices of many very profitable industries. The inefficiency is rampant just as much as it is in government.

The difference is that it is our money at stake when it comes to government.

Food stamps and other welfare programs are functions of unemployment. If you make under the poverty line, you qualify. Even if you work full time at minimum wage, you qualify. So, raise the minimum wage and bring meaningful American jobs back onshore. That will bring in more government revenues and lessen the need ot pay out welfare benefits.

I voted to cut the military budget, but I think that every program needs to be looked at.

How will raising the cost of labor cause more of a demand for it and bring jobs back onshore?

boymimbo, isn't that rude to tell somebody how much they should pay their employees? After all they are not your employees.

The government has a mandatory minimum wage. What is the goal of minimum wage? Governments can use it as a tool to fight poverty and to raise the standards of living. Raising the minimum wage would reduce the handouts that it would need to give the underemployed (those who are working full time but are still below the poverty line). It transfers those costs to the consumers who would be paying more for those goods and services most affected by the changes in wages (the service industry). You'll be paying more for fast food, groceries, and entertainment, but at least the workers who are servicing you aren't themselves on food stamps.

Quote: AZDuffman

How will raising the cost of labor cause more of a demand for it and bring jobs back onshore?

It won't. Note that my sentence "Raise the minimum wage and bring meaningful American jobs back onshore" are two separate statements and represent different goals.

The government should be doing other things, like simplify the tax code and regulation, lower corporate tax rates, and offer incentives for businesses to remain in America.

I really don't think the minimum wage needs raising. If a husband and wife both worked in the fast food industry making $10/hr at 40 hours/week that would be $21,600 per person or $43,200 for the household. Are you a Rockefeller? No, but that is more than enough to live on

Mc Donald's here pays 7.50 an hour and most employees can only get 29 hours max. Throw a few kids into that equation too.

That is still $31,200 for a couple and I didn't say it had to be McDonald's. Enough to live on and not be on welfare.

Quote: Gabes22

I really don't think the minimum wage needs raising. If a husband and wife both worked in the fast food industry making $10/hr at 40 hours/week that would be $21,600 per person or $43,200 for the household. Are you a Rockefeller? No, but that is more than enough to live on

Better yet if all you are qualified to do is work a mw job you should really reconsider getting married and starting a family.

Quote: boymimbo

It won't. Note that my sentence "Raise the minimum wage and bring meaningful American jobs back onshore" are two separate statements and represent different goals.

The government should be doing other things, like simplify the tax code and regulation, lower corporate tax rates, and offer incentives for businesses to remain in America.

You must have missed the news. The USA just reelected the guy who wants to raise taxes, increase regulation, and sues employers for opening high-paying manufacturing plants I. The USA.

IMHO we need to get rid of the federal mw and let the states set a level right for themselves.

very true AZ. All you need to know about people's priorities is look at what they spend their money on. If you are wise with your money you can live reasonably comfortably on whatever wage you are being paid in this country. It's the whole comparing yourself to others and wanting what they have that gets people into trouble. That is when they buy stuff they can't afford or rack up high interest credit card debt, or purchase a vehicle that they can't make the payments on.