Reduce spending idea
 

The way the system works now promotes inefficiency when it comes to spending. Instead of having to spend all of the budget allocated to each department or risk having their budget reduced (the way it is now); how about offering a bonus to all who work in that department based on the amount saved(not spent). For example spend only 90% of your budget and receive 50% of the remaining 10% and divide the money among all employees that helped save the taxpayer 5% (50% of the 10% saved/not spent). Eliminate the fear of reduced budgets and wasteful spending and give incentive to all employees to cut cost.

Does this idea have potential?

I see alot of wealthy public employees and a sudden drop in service provided. Maybe just offer it to the managers.....kinda like the private sector does.

Yeah, so if the Dept of Health decides to skip next years order of flu vaccines and eliminates all prenatal care for welfare baby-factories, they can pocket some nice "bonus" money.
I thought "skimming" from the till was considered a no-no?

It's a logical idea of rewarding a success, but we're dealing with GOVERNMENT employees, and "logical" would never enter into the equation for them.
Maybe kind of reverse the idea.
Instead of a bonus from the remainder of a budget not spent, how about penalizing them for recentile incriments above a certain level.
Say if they spend only 50% of the budget LEGALLY, not just cutting blindly, then they don't lose anything.
If they spend 60% they lose 5% of next years budget, or 1% of their
salary.
If they spend 70%, they lose 10% of the budget or 2% of their salary, and so on and so on.....!

Since positive incentives in government workplaces is like giving a trophy to the guy that made the trophy.
Maybe negative incentives would be more effective, like sticking the dogs nose in his indoor accident.

I really resent that remark about government workers, Tim.

Before you go bashing government workers, consider these tidbits:

The size of the workforce is smaller today than when Lyndon Johnson was president, yet there are about 110 million more Americans now.

In the past 10 years, 100,000 federal civil servants have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since 1992, 2,965 federal civil servants have been killed while on duty, including 24 in war zones. “Their sacrifice is just as dear” as the sacrifices by those in the military.

Its easy to take cheap shots at government workers. However, you are also taking cheap shots at outr nation's heros. You see, 30 percent of the government’s new hires last year were vets. Furthermore, according to John Berry, Director of teh Office of Personnel Management, hiring of vets increased by 2,000 last year compared with the year before, even as overall hiring dropped by 11,000; and 25 percent of civil servants are veterans.

So go ahead and take your cheap shots. Just as info, we have suggested changing the way our budgets are handled. That is not new. We asked for a mere 5% of the money saved to be carried over to the next year's budget (not for awards) with a cap on the max allowed for carry over (and a multi-year review to make sure our projected budgets were on target). However, Congress has other ideas since they handle the money and appropriations.

Enjoy your freedom...Many of us "government employees" helped ensure that you still have it.

Clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about, given there is overwhelming data that shows this not only doesn't work, but it is counterproductive. Great analogy :morons:

I'll take the "gang of 6's" proposal w/out even seeing it. If 6 people who are 180 degree different on their views can agree on a proposal, I'm sure 100% of the rest of us will hate it. That means it's prob. the best thing for the country.

you should be ashamed, not surprising that the montra will be that if you question the size of government you are attacking veterans and people who serve in the military "federal civil servants"....no differentiation between the military and the hacks in bloated government offices and programs...nooo? the "Tea Party hates the military and veterans and wants them out on the street" Self absorbed and shameless...and really icky :uhuh:
your last quote was truly pathetic....:uhuh:

hey genius....did you ask yourself why there may have been more federal civil servants during the Johnson administration based on the argument that they're trying to make?????

this from a very pro Obama, pro govt employee website

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Federal Workforce Subcommittee, is considering pushing legislation that "tries to cure all the ills in the current system" rather than taking the usual path of incremental change.

He and others are tempted not only by the new mood, but also by two stark realities:

•President Barack Obama's plans are expected to expand the federal work force by hundreds of thousands in missions as diverse as tracking stimulus spending, helping to manage the baby-boomer deluge that's confronting Social Security and increasing the foreign service.


•In addition, one-third of the current 1.9 million-member federal civilian work force is eligible to retire within five years.
As a result, the government will need to hire about 600,000 people during Obama's current term, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group.

For a bureaucracy that's known to take a year or more to hire a single employee, that's a major challenge. Lawmakers are seeking ways to overcome three longtime hurdles: the anti-government mind-set, cumbersome federal hiring practices and personnel retention problems.

A New World Order Out of Chaos (News Page)

What's important about such discussions is that policymakers and members of Congress are looking for ways to expand the federal work force effectively and make it more nimble.

However, for the first time in a long time, Lynch said, "We have opportunities now we didn't have before."

Most Federal Agencies Expand Staffs in 2011

President Obama’s ambitious budget and stimulus plans will require the government to hire scores of new workers, the Washington Post reports. Analysts put the number between 100,000 and 250,000 spread among various agencies, the biggest expansion of the federal workforce since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society days. Some agencies are already planning hiring initiatives; Veterans Affairs, for example, expects to add 17,000 to the payroll. The federal workforce has been in decline since Reagan, and many see this as an overdue boost. “We’ve had a government that has been starved,” said the president of the Partnership for Public service. But Republicans will likely complain Obama is expanding government. “What group of socialists got in the room and wrote this budget?” Newt Gingrich asked. - Obama's Plans Require a Lot More Hands Federal workforce could expand by 100-250K, Newser, March 3, 2009

Is government too big?

Some say the growth in the government's payroll is an unavoidable consequence of the challenges facing the nation — two wars, an ongoing terrorist threat and a troubled economy.

"In no way does this suggest the government is getting too large," said John Palguta, vice president of policy at the Partnership for Public Service. "There are significant workforce needs in the government, and we should be filling those. I think it's a fairly modestly sized workforce, given the nature of their tasks."
But conservative critics say it's a sign that the government has taken on too much, and worry unchecked spending growth will eventually bankrupt the nation.

"We're seeing a permanent increase in the size of the government workforce," said James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation. "Contrast that with what's happening in the private sector. The government is not tightening its belt. It would be better if everybody shared in the downturn, instead of public workers being insulated because Washington is not going to make any cutbacks."

...and your useless point is what Scott? Oh wait, you have no point. Go back under your rock, caveman...

you should be ashamed, and you know it :uhuh:

cavemen lived "under" rocks? I thought they lived in caves? can't even launch a proper insult:rotf2: