Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-05-2011, 09:05 AM   #1
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Lightbulb 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?
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 05-05-2011, 09:43 AM   #2
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
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.
buckman is offline  
Old 05-05-2011, 12:59 PM   #3
FishermanTim
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
FishermanTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Hyde Park, MA
Posts: 4,152
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.
FishermanTim is offline  
Old 05-05-2011, 07:56 PM   #4
Chesapeake Bill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 204
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.
Chesapeake Bill is offline  
Old 05-06-2011, 07:22 AM   #5
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by FishermanTim View Post
Maybe negative incentives would be more effective, like sticking the dogs nose in his indoor accident.
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

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 05-06-2011, 07:25 AM   #6
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
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.
PaulS is offline  
Old 05-07-2011, 05:51 AM   #7
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill View Post
I really resent that remark about government workers, Tim.

Before you go bashing government workers, consider these tidbits:

"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". Big names come together for Public Service Recognition Week - The Washington Post

[COLOR="Blue"]Public employees have had to play a lot of defense lately.

At the state level, conservative governors and legislatures have made a pinata of employee unions. In Washington, federal workers have seen a stream of proposals to freeze their pay and cut their retirement.

On Tuesday, it was time to play offense, and a high-powered team took the field.

Five top-level Obama administration officials gathered to praise federal employees and mark the annual Public Service Recognition Week during a town hall program, held in a building named for a man known for his put-downs of government. Showing their appreciation were Secretaries Kathleen Sebelius of Health and Human Services, Shaun Donovan of Housing and Urban Development, and Ray LaHood of Transportation; General Services Administration head Martha Johnson; and John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management.

One big take-away from the meeting for Max Stier, president and chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, which organizes the annual recognition week, was the importance of having agencies’ top leadership focus on talent issues.

“If we don’t have leadership in government investing in the workforce, nothing else will succeed,” Stier said. (The Washington Post has a content-sharing relationship with the Partnership for Public Service.)

The town hall was one of a number of events and proclamations happening around the country this week. Missing this year, because of the budget crunch, are the booths and displays that federal agencies have often set up on the National Mall.

The rotunda of the Ronald Reagan Building turned out to be a fine setting for a capacity crowd of federal workers who heard the officials praise their lot. In addition, the partnership released a letter from more than a dozen administration officials demonstrating their appreciation for government employees.

The program began with a video from first lady Michelle Obama, whose concern for federal workers has been demonstrated by her visits to more than 20 agencies and bases since her husband took office.

“Folks like you devote your lives, and sometimes risk your lives, to serve this country, often with little fanfare or recognition,” Obama said on the video. “Your work is vital, and it’s worthy of the passion that you show.”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.
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
your last quote was truly pathetic....

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?????

Last edited by scottw; 05-07-2011 at 06:00 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:22 AM   #8
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
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."
scottw is offline  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:25 AM   #9
Chesapeake Bill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 204
...and your useless point is what Scott? Oh wait, you have no point. Go back under your rock, caveman...
Chesapeake Bill is offline  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:28 AM   #10
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill View Post
...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

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

Last edited by scottw; 05-07-2011 at 06:49 AM..
scottw is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com