State of the Union 2025 Edition

#676
#676
Grand Vol said:
I might agree if you didn't have multi year contracts built into a system. Not that I agree with them and could be fine with single year contracts, but that would add manpower issues in the long run by having to have teams to sort that out.
Click to expand...

The first round would be a bugger bear but after that it would be doable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and GroverCleveland
#677
#677
hog88 said:
Why not bigger cuts for all? Why bigger cuts in defense than the rest?

I don't know why we couldn't but 10% or more out of every budget item.
Click to expand...
We wouldn’t miss it.

Count me among those with no problem with across the board cuts. I believe the Constitution should be amended to require a balanced budget with the exception of a declaration of war by Congress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol, Orange_Crush, volfanhill and 1 other person
#678
#678
GroverCleveland said:
We wouldn’t miss it.

Count me among those with no problem with across the board cuts. I believe the Constitution should be amended to require a balanced budget with the exception of a declaration of war by Congress.
Click to expand...

That would have lead to a complete reset in 2008-2010. I'm not saying your are wrong or right, but that would have been the outcome.
 
#680
#680
hog88 said:
The first round would be a bugger bear but after that it would be doable.
Click to expand...

Agree and disagree. It doesn't help the long term projects that can't really lose long term funding because of their nature. I'll use my sacred cow NASA as an example...

Their 2025 budget is $25.4 billion. A proverbial drop in the bucket budget wise, but includes a great deal of long term items that will run multi year or sometimes even decades long. Take the New Horizon mission for example. It launched in 2006 with the express mission of exploring Pluto. It didn't arrive until 2015. So, during that time, they still had to monitor the craft, make sure it was on target, do course corrections, do long term studies of the Pluto environment, etc. They had to allocate money every year to do the routine "maintenance" on the craft until it arrived.

So, long term contracts work in this situation. Was there likely "waste" built into that program? Probably. But the answer to that isn't just "cut 20% next year and hope for the best." It's better to reward savings over the fiscal year (maybe in the form of bonuses or the like) and use the remainder to say, pay down the debt or move to a program that justifiably ran over budget than to just cut outright.

"Here's your budget... if you save 10% or more you get back 20% of that for you and your team in an annual bonus."

It makes coming in under budget and not rushing to waste the money at the end of the fiscal year (here's looking at you DoD) a reward rather than the system we currently have. Do you spend a little more? Yes, but you also save a LOT more when the independent players have a stake in the game.

But that's not a game you can do after one year of studies. Over a three year period is a pretty good start before trimming the "fat" off a budget. "Hey, you spent an average of $170K less than budgeted the last three fiscal years. We're going to cut your budget by $150K next year since you're doing fine." That also makes finding new savings even more important to managers and comptrollers.
 
#681
#681
BreatheUT said:
Have you ever had someone hate you so much that even good deeds or the slightest quip trigger them? It's glorious.
Click to expand...
Can't say I've ever known anyone to hate me, but I applaud your ability to make lemonade when life gives you lemons.
 
#682
#682
Grand Vol said:
Agree and disagree. It doesn't help the long term projects that can't really lose long term funding because of their nature. I'll use my sacred cow NASA as an example...

Their 2025 budget is $25.4 billion. A proverbial drop in the bucket budget wise, but includes a great deal of long term items that will run multi year or sometimes even decades long. Take the New Horizon mission for example. It launched in 2006 with the express mission of exploring Pluto. It didn't arrive until 2015. So, during that time, they still had to monitor the craft, make sure it was on target, do course corrections, do long term studies of the Pluto environment, etc. They had to allocate money every year to do the routine "maintenance" on the craft until it arrived.

So, long term contracts work in this situation. Was there likely "waste" built into that program? Probably. But the answer to that isn't just "cut 20% next year and hope for the best." It's better to reward savings over the fiscal year (maybe in the form of bonuses or the like) and use the remainder to say, pay down the debt or move to a program that justifiably ran over budget than to just cut outright.

"Here's your budget... if you save 10% or more you get back 20% of that for you and your team in an annual bonus."

It makes coming in under budget and not rushing to waste the money at the end of the fiscal year (here's looking at you DoD) a reward rather than the system we currently have. Do you spend a little more? Yes, but you also save a LOT more when the independent players have a stake in the game.

But that's not a game you can do after one year of studies. Over a three year period is a pretty good start before trimming the "fat" off a budget. "Hey, you spent an average of $170K less than budgeted the last three fiscal years. We're going to cut your budget by $150K next year since you're doing fine." That also makes finding new savings even more important to managers and comptrollers.
Click to expand...
you would have to be careful with incentivizing the cuts. you will get a lot of middle managers from the private field who will cut staffing right before the report, to make it look like they are saving money, and then turn around and hire replacements pointing out the deficiencies with their current staffing levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#683
#683
LouderVol said:
you would have to be careful with incentivizing the cuts. you will get a lot of middle managers from the private field who will cut staffing right before the report, to make it look like they are saving money, and then turn around and hire replacements pointing out the deficiencies with their current staffing levels.
Click to expand...

It also has the advantage of making managers and senior leaders look at their budgets and say "yeah, we can take our trash out and mop the floors while saving $XXXXX per year in custodial fees."

The military did it for decades before someone decided they were too good for it.

I agree with what you are saying, but that's where a smart IG or independent oversight agency comes into play calling out such nonsense.

"Seems you fire a bunch of staff every year before budget deadlines then don't meet your responsibilities and have to rehire the same people next fiscal year... perhaps it's time for you to move on and find employment elsewhere."

It's like the old saying about shoot one, train a thousand. You get rid of those playing the system and there's likely a whole mess of young, eager people to take their place who will be more efficient.
 
#684
#684
GroverCleveland said:
We wouldn’t miss it.

Count me among those with no problem with across the board cuts. I believe the Constitution should be amended to require a balanced budget with the exception of a declaration of war by Congress.
Click to expand...
War on poverty... spend that money!
 
#686
#686
Grand Vol said:
It also has the advantage of making managers and senior leaders look at their budgets and say "yeah, we can take our trash out and mop the floors while saving $XXXXX per year in custodial fees."

The military did it for decades before someone decided they were too good for it.

I agree with what you are saying, but that's where a smart IG or independent oversight agency comes into play calling out such nonsense.

"Seems you fire a bunch of staff every year before budget deadlines then don't meet your responsibilities and have to rehire the same people next fiscal year... perhaps it's time for you to move on and find employment elsewhere."

It's like the old saying about shoot one, train a thousand. You get rid of those playing the system and there's likely a whole mess of young, eager people to take their place who will be more efficient.
Click to expand...
yeah, you know its the government we are talking about right? the same government that you provided an example of them deciding the military was too efficient...
 
#688
#688
hog88 said:
Why not bigger cuts for all? Why bigger cuts in defense than the rest?

I don't know why we couldn't but 10% or more out of every budget item.
Click to expand...
Obviously the size of the cuts would be a point of negotiation.
Also obviously, the smaller the cut the greater the chance of it receiving enough votes.
Finally, defense is the most bloated.......and it's larger percentage would help passage - among the serious minded.
 
#689
#689
Grand Vol said:
Agree and disagree. It doesn't help the long term projects that can't really lose long term funding because of their nature. I'll use my sacred cow NASA as an example...

Their 2025 budget is $25.4 billion. A proverbial drop in the bucket budget wise, but includes a great deal of long term items that will run multi year or sometimes even decades long. Take the New Horizon mission for example. It launched in 2006 with the express mission of exploring Pluto. It didn't arrive until 2015. So, during that time, they still had to monitor the craft, make sure it was on target, do course corrections, do long term studies of the Pluto environment, etc. They had to allocate money every year to do the routine "maintenance" on the craft until it arrived.

So, long term contracts work in this situation. Was there likely "waste" built into that program? Probably. But the answer to that isn't just "cut 20% next year and hope for the best." It's better to reward savings over the fiscal year (maybe in the form of bonuses or the like) and use the remainder to say, pay down the debt or move to a program that justifiably ran over budget than to just cut outright.

"Here's your budget... if you save 10% or more you get back 20% of that for you and your team in an annual bonus."

It makes coming in under budget and not rushing to waste the money at the end of the fiscal year (here's looking at you DoD) a reward rather than the system we currently have. Do you spend a little more? Yes, but you also save a LOT more when the independent players have a stake in the game.

But that's not a game you can do after one year of studies. Over a three year period is a pretty good start before trimming the "fat" off a budget. "Hey, you spent an average of $170K less than budgeted the last three fiscal years. We're going to cut your budget by $150K next year since you're doing fine." That also makes finding new savings even more important to managers and comptrollers.
Click to expand...

Maybe I’m seriously under thinking this but multi-year projects/contracts typically have projected annual spend per year. So take the New Horizon project and say it’s an X billion dollar deal, in 2026 the projected spend is X billion and here are the line items that make up that number.

That’s one section of NASAs budget request for that year.
 
#690
#690
LouderVol said:
yeah, you know its the government we are talking about right? the same government that you provided an example of them deciding the military was too efficient...
Click to expand...

Well, times are changing as they say. We have a brief window to bring necessary change to the system. Budgeting and manpower requests should be on the table
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#691
#691
Grand Vol said:
Well, times are changing as they say. We have a brief window to bring necessary change to the system. Budgeting and manpower requests should be on the table
Click to expand...
I will believe its changing when I see actual changes. right now they are rearranging deck chairs from the left side of the Titanic to the right side and claiming that will fix the hole in the ship.
 
#692
#692
walkenvol said:
Obviously this is only my opinion, but do the democrats think their behavior last night appealed to any voters outside of their committed core democratic folks? They just lost the election by a fairly substantial margin. To become competitive in the midterms, they have to win favor with the swing voters. These swing voters recently sided with Trump so his policies had to of been more appealing to them as his personality is an acquired taste which I’ve yet to find very palatable. Instead of the Dems supporting issues that are highly popular such as secure borders, men banned from women’s sports, and cutting government waste / fraud they are simply wholesale opposing everything Trump does. I just don’t see how this strategy improves their future situation at the voting booths.
Click to expand...
You just summed up my feelings pretty well. Didn’t vote for either candidate and to be clear, I’ll NEVER find Trump palatable. He has been and remains an abominable human being. Skipped last night and future speeches because l can’t stomach 5 minutes of his 💩. But the 3 issues you mention are extremely important and I side with the Republicans on them. Especially the border situation and cutting fraud/waste. So if Trump can fix those issues, I support the effort. However, cuts are like walking a high wire. Not enough or too many will be problematic. But he was elected to make change and we need to see how he does. History will be the judge.

Also as a recent retiree, I also have a vested interest in the health of Social Security and Medicare and I’m especially interested to see how these are handled. There are a whole bunch of boomers out there who are going to very unhappy if those are messed with. Having said that, there are going to have to be changes in the programs along with a realistic discussion of healthcare costs to ensure viability 10 years from now and beyond. Hopefully the waste cuts and fraud elimination will help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol
#693
#693
hog88 said:
Maybe I’m seriously under thinking this but multi-year projects/contracts typically have projected annual spend per year. So take the New Horizon project and say it’s an X billion dollar deal, in 2026 the projected spend is X billion and here are the line items that make up that number.

That’s one section of NASAs budget request for that year.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the reward is up front even if paid over X years, so, X amount per year to the total of whatever the original award was. It would be an annual line item, yes, for whatever amount decided. The incentive is to look at the total annual number and try to slash from there.

We're saying the same thing, but the devil in the details is looking at the annual money allocated and saving and spending less from there.

As Louder pointed out, government in its basic nature hasn't done it this way and is culturally ingrained to spend every dime because they will get less the next year if they don't. Because there's been no incentive to change to something more efficient.

Plus, when a system only rewards efficiency with an attaboy and pat on the back, it leads to fraud in the outsourcing where either the agency responsible gets kickbacks or promises of a position in "retirement."
 
#694
#694
LouderVol said:
I will believe its changing when I see actual changes. right now they are rearranging deck chairs from the left side of the Titanic to the right side and claiming that will fix the hole in the ship.
Click to expand...

Easy fix. Don't hit the iceberg to begin with.
 
#696
#696
LouderVol said:
well the guy captaining the ship right now is responsible for almost 1/6th of the total damage done, so your trust isn't very well placed imo.
Click to expand...

I don't trust anyone. We're just going hypothetical here on the whole issue. Like I said, the system encourages inefficiency and over spending. There has to be a cultural shift in the mentality of government agencies to promote efficiency. The best (easiest) way to do that is through individual financial incentives.
 
#698
#698
GroverCleveland said:
Unfortunately, we've been backing up and ramming that s.o.b. over and over again for the last 60 years.
Click to expand...
yeah, but if we just back up a little further, and hit it with even more speed we WILL get thru. and that is not only the best option, its the ONLY option we have. but we do have the choice of hitting it with the left side or the right side of the ship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#699
#699
LouderVol said:
well the guy captaining the ship right now is responsible for almost 1/6th of the total damage done, so your trust isn't very well placed imo.
Click to expand...
I'd like to point out that the President, while certainly having influence, cannot vote one single dime of spending. The best times we've had is a Democratic President with a Republican Congress. The Rs constrain (notice I did not say control) POTUS' spending. The worst is all Dem POTUS and Congress. Right behind that is a R POTUS with a D Congress. For some reason, R POTUS' think they can spend themselves into popularity. Idiots.

It royally pissed me off with W the way he spent money the last two years of his last term. Not particularly happy with the way Trump ended his first term, but I give him something of a break because the government was dealing with something completely new that last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top