the size of the federal government

[carlfense]

Have any of you ever managed an organization?

Yes.

 

Both bottom line and efficiency are important.

Sure. Which is more important?

[BigRedBuster]

Have any of you ever managed an organization?

Yes.

 

Both bottom line and efficiency are important.

Sure. Which is more important?

 

 

Neither.

[rawhide]

Size is not more important.....wait...wut???

[JJ Husker]

I don't care about the "size" of the government. The number it employs or the payroll means little in the big picture. However, I am concerned about what the gvmt is involved in and how efficient it is. Near as I can tell it tries to do and control way too many things and waste and inefficiency is a huge problem. You've heard the saying "there's an app for that" well, with our gvmt, there's an agency for that. We let them get their fingers in things they don't belong in and they aren't held accountable for the things they should be involved with. Thus the feeling that it is too big.

 

So, to summarize, you completely reject factual data, numbers, mathematics, and logic, and instead believe your 'feelings' instead?

 

I thought people that did this were pot-smoking California liberals, but then again, Fox News is my echo-chamber of choice...

 

You missed the point....Again.

 

2.7M employees means nothing if you don't consider what they do and how well they do it.

According to your logic, you can tell which company is better based on company A having 500 employees and a payroll of $25M or company B having 200 employees and a payroll of $11M. So tell me Mr. numbers and facts genius, which company is better?

 

Maybe I'm not the dope smoker here.....

[StPaulHusker]

I don't care about the "size" of the government. The number it employs or the payroll means little in the big picture. However, I am concerned about what the gvmt is involved in and how efficient it is. Near as I can tell it tries to do and control way too many things and waste and inefficiency is a huge problem. You've heard the saying "there's an app for that" well, with our gvmt, there's an agency for that. We let them get their fingers in things they don't belong in and they aren't held accountable for the things they should be involved with. Thus the feeling that it is too big.

 

So, to summarize, you completely reject factual data, numbers, mathematics, and logic, and instead believe your 'feelings' instead?

 

I thought people that did this were pot-smoking California liberals, but then again, Fox News is my echo-chamber of choice...

 

You missed the point....Again.

 

2.7M employees means nothing if you don't consider what they do and how well they do it.

According to your logic, you can tell which company is better based on company A having 500 employees and a payroll of $25M or company B having 200 employees and a payroll of $11M. So tell me Mr. numbers and facts genius, which company is better?

 

Maybe I'm not the dope smoker here.....

 

You said maybe. So there is a chance, right?

[knapplc]

I don't care about the "size" of the government. The number it employs or the payroll means little in the big picture. However, I am concerned about what the gvmt is involved in and how efficient it is.

 

Picking and choosing which part of this post I respond to, I +1'd this. We may have different ideas on what the government should be involved in and where it gets its efficiency, but overall we can agree on this. ^^^

[JJ Husker]

 

Maybe I'm not the dope smoker here.....

 

You said maybe. So there is a chance, right?

Hey hey hey, no need to limit a persons options......

[JJ Husker]

I don't care about the "size" of the government. The number it employs or the payroll means little in the big picture. However, I am concerned about what the gvmt is involved in and how efficient it is.

 

Picking and choosing which part of this post I respond to, I +1'd this. We may have different ideas on what the government should be involved in and where it gets its efficiency, but overall we can agree on this. ^^^

 

Agreed. And I doubt our views on those things vary very much either. (sorry-wanted to use vary very in a sentence together)

[strigori]

I don't care about the "size" of the government. The number it employs or the payroll means little in the big picture. However, I am concerned about what the gvmt is involved in and how efficient it is.

 

Picking and choosing which part of this post I respond to, I +1'd this. We may have different ideas on what the government should be involved in and where it gets its efficiency, but overall we can agree on this. ^^^

 

Agreed. And I doubt our views on those things vary very much either. (sorry-wanted to use vary very in a sentence together)

What areas do you think they should exit?

[JJ Husker]

What areas do you think they should exit?

I'm not sure total exit of any area really covers what I think. Possibly the USPS would be fine in the hands of private business so they could get out of that all together.

It's more a level of involvement issue imo. We need the federal government for issues pertaining to the general safety and welfare of our citizens, in cases where it is beyond the capability of the states to reasonably provide such services. I would like to see the feds reduce their role in virtually everything except national security interests such as military, CIA, and FBI. I think the states could be more efficient and accountable to the people in most other areas; social services, commerce, education, etc.

 

The biggest problem I see with the Feds is that once these departments and agencies grow to encompass the whole country, that is where we run into them being disconnected from the people and thus not being efficient with resources and being held accountable. It's really the same problem in very large companies. OSHA, IRS, social services, etc. could all be scaled back and many functions returned to the state level. I think the feds could provide general guidelines, regulations, and oversight and leave the day to day operations in the hands of those closer to the people they serve. Of course this would require shifting most of the tax revenue down to the state level but I think it would make them more responsive and accountable to the people. It would also allow for more innovation in solving problems. Maybe Nebraska discovers a better way to manage education. Other states could emulate their program and those that don't might risk losing population base.

 

IDK, I haven't thought a whole lot about it, I am just quite certain things could be much better than the status quo. Much of this feeling is driven by my disgust for our federally elected officials. I don't feel even marginally represented and it seems no matter who we vote for, the same sh#t happens and gets worse every year. Maybe I'm getting old and crotchety but things just seem way out of control and virtually unfixable nowadays.

[deedsker]

^^^^

I am young and I feel the same way.

[zoogs]

How about, hmmmm, re-tasking the USPS. Change their job from delivering junk mail, to auditing agencies for waste. Eventually, the scales will start tipping the other way. Maybe!

 

So...you want to take an area of the government that is self-sufficient in terms of funding, bring them back in the fold, and then pay them using taxpayer dollars to audit various agencies for efficiency?

 

Doesn't the GAO already exist for that?...if they're not doing a good enough job, is the solution to throw more money at the office until it does?

[strigori]

What areas do you think they should exit?

I'm not sure total exit of any area really covers what I think. Possibly the USPS would be fine in the hands of private business so they could get out of that all together.

It's more a level of involvement issue imo. We need the federal government for issues pertaining to the general safety and welfare of our citizens, in cases where it is beyond the capability of the states to reasonably provide such services. I would like to see the feds reduce their role in virtually everything except national security interests such as military, CIA, and FBI. I think the states could be more efficient and accountable to the people in most other areas; social services, commerce, education, etc.

 

The biggest problem I see with the Feds is that once these departments and agencies grow to encompass the whole country, that is where we run into them being disconnected from the people and thus not being efficient with resources and being held accountable. It's really the same problem in very large companies. OSHA, IRS, social services, etc. could all be scaled back and many functions returned to the state level. I think the feds could provide general guidelines, regulations, and oversight and leave the day to day operations in the hands of those closer to the people they serve. Of course this would require shifting most of the tax revenue down to the state level but I think it would make them more responsive and accountable to the people. It would also allow for more innovation in solving problems. Maybe Nebraska discovers a better way to manage education. Other states could emulate their program and those that don't might risk losing population base.

 

IDK, I haven't thought a whole lot about it, I am just quite certain things could be much better than the status quo. Much of this feeling is driven by my disgust for our federally elected officials. I don't feel even marginally represented and it seems no matter who we vote for, the same sh#t happens and gets worse every year. Maybe I'm getting old and crotchety but things just seem way out of control and virtually unfixable nowadays.

 

I think the problem gets into there are many states that are not willing to be responsible on matters. Take Texas, without OSHA or the EPA, they would be little better than China for work conditions or environmental quality. And something like environmental quality then ends up spreading to nearby states. Imagine if South Dakota decided to let businesses pollute the Missouri river, everyone down river would suffer for it We are one country when you get down to it, and many to most things should have a standard across the whole nation.

 

Shifting the tax base from a Federal tax to more state and local, would have some very bad side effects for the lesser population states. Take the highway money. A state like Nebraska, or Wyoming, or Montana, with large land mass and small population would have backbreaking taxes to offset the loss of Federal money. Infrastructure things like the interstate system and power grids, or the projects the Army Corp of Engineers handle, are in the best interests of everyone to be well maintained, and are well worth being subsidized by everyone, as many who do not live in a state benefit from these things.

 

I understand feeling unrepresented, not being a GOP member living in Nebraska. But that doesn't mean there are not good reasons for the existence of many of the federal programs.

[JJ Husker]

I think the problem gets into there are many states that are not willing to be responsible on matters. Take Texas, without OSHA or the EPA, they would be little better than China for work conditions or environmental quality. And something like environmental quality then ends up spreading to nearby states. Imagine if South Dakota decided to let businesses pollute the Missouri river, everyone down river would suffer for it We are one country when you get down to it, and many to most things should have a standard across the whole nation.

 

Shifting the tax base from a Federal tax to more state and local, would have some very bad side effects for the lesser population states. Take the highway money. A state like Nebraska, or Wyoming, or Montana, with large land mass and small population would have backbreaking taxes to offset the loss of Federal money. Infrastructure things like the interstate system and power grids, or the projects the Army Corp of Engineers handle, are in the best interests of everyone to be well maintained, and are well worth being subsidized by everyone, as many who do not live in a state benefit from these things.

 

I understand feeling unrepresented, not being a GOP member living in Nebraska. But that doesn't mean there are not good reasons for the existence of many of the federal programs.

 

I agree and didn't intend to imply otherwise. That is why I would still maintain oversight and enforcement at the federal level to deal with the states that do run afoul of acceptable guidelines. And the large infrastructure type things would still need federal involvement.

 

There are good reasons for most all of the federal programs. My problem is that most of them are simply too large and unwieldy. Responsiveness and accountability have taken a back seat to bureaucracy and cronyism. Theory indicates that larger should be more efficient but, experience indicates that in the case of government, or even very large companies, huge size is a detriment. I believe it has become too easy for the governed (we the people) to accept waste, inefficiency, and non-accountability at the federal level because we simply don't have much ability to right the ship and effect change. My gut tells me effecting such change would be easier on a smaller scale at the state or local level.