What a mess !!!

[Rich]

Okay, i'll flip that coin with you. Can you give me an honest reason why they shouldn't be included in the pain that the rest of the country is going through?

Yes, I can. Because recessions come and recessions go. It is simply an economic cycle. Government workers shouldn't be getting pink slips and salary / benefit cuts right this moment any more than they should be getting huge bonuses, raises, added benefits, and a hiring spree when the economy is doing well. The government is just different from the private sector in that regard. It needs a stable, experienced long term work force. If you want to get and keep decent people working for the government vs. the private sector, you have to give them some kind of premium. The security and benefits packages are that premium that keep most government workers happy where they are. Otherwise, they couldn't compete for talent with the private sector. The government can't afford to be losing all its qualified people every time there is a recession and hiring all new people every time the economy is doing better. That would be a nightmare.

Truth is, most businesses that are well-run don't have to slash jobs, pay and benefits every time there is a recession, either. Unfortunately, Wall Street puts such a premium on short term gains and losses that many fall into that trap in order to satisfy the almighty quarterly earnings balance sheet. But the government doesn't have to and shouldn't.

Again, i'm not "demonizing" anyone or "angry" at all. Funny how the extreme definitions keep coming up for anyone with an opposing view of the liberal contingent here.

When you single out a group of people and say they aren't feeling the pain everyone else is, and therefore they need to have some pain inflicted on them to make things "fair" because they enjoy too nice of a standard of living, it sure sounds like you are demonizing them to me. I mean you are basically saying that just because they chose to work in a government job vs. a private sector job, that they should have to endure pay cuts and/or salary freezes, layoffs, benefits cuts any time there is an economic recession. During the economic boom times, do you think they should get huge bonuses, stock options, etc, just like the private sector?

The easy, rational, workable solution to this complex problem is simple. Quit spending money you don't have...

That's easy enough to do. End the wars, slash the military budget in half, and quit giving money away to other countries for no good reason. And raise taxes on the wealthy back to a reasonable level. That should pretty well erase the deficit and put us back into a surplus.

 

[Len44]

Actually no, I was correct in my statement. There will be no COLA for FY2011 due to the CPI not showing a measurable rise. Had it gone up, there would have been a cost of living increase.

Actually yes, you were absolutely wrong in your statement...at least according to, um, Fox News. It was about the ONLY thing they got right in this link generally bashing President Obama, Democrats, Federal Workers, and Our Federal Government...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/12/03/federal-pay-freeze-isnt/

 

[Jimna]

That's easy enough to do. End the wars, slash the military budget in half, and quit giving money away to other countries for no good reason. And raise taxes on the wealthy back to a reasonable level. That should pretty well erase the deficit and put us back into a surplus.

It really is THAT easy, well said Rich. :clap:

 

[Len44]

That's easy enough to do. End the wars, slash the military budget in half, and quit giving money away to other countries for no good reason. And raise taxes on the wealthy back to a reasonable level. That should pretty well erase the deficit and put us back into a surplus.

Or tax folks on their actual (total) income, including stock options, deferred compensation, etc, etc. Also, stop the insane practice of capping social security taxes -- if someone makes $500,000.00, I see no reason why ANY of that income should be exempt from payroll tax. Currently, the wealthiest pay a much smaller portion of their income in taxes than those with a more moderate income.

 

[timm]

So let's get this straight. We don't want to cut anything related to government workers pay even though many in the private sector have endured many cuts. When times get bad why are gov employees supposed to be insulated?? Oh yes - the evil wealthy!! Let's demonize the wealthy!! Let's pick on them instead right? That makes it all right. Who here thinks the gov is one lean efficient machine?? I digress.

 

[mcmd]

It really is THAT easy, well said Rich. :clap:

Actually, we can never be debt-free, as our current financial system is debt-based. While the "major control" of money creation rests with our central bank, in a fractional reserve banking system "money" is largely created in the banks when a loan is taken out. For those inclined to understand how this money creation process works, a document called "Modern Money Mechanics", originally written by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 1961 is available here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Modern_Money_Mechanics.pdf

(Double-click on it to download a copy for yourself - page three is particularly instructive...)

Remarkably, as every dollar represents a debt (hence the term "Federal Reserve Note", with "note" defined as a written evidence of debt), the astonishing conclusion is that if all debt were extinguished, there would be no money in circulation! Of course, that'll never happen as money is a far too useful a tool as a means of control in waging class warfare!

That said, being aware of this particular means of control in our lives is a good first step in understanding the reality of governmental debt/deficits. Debt ceilings aren't limits, they're targets!

 

[Rich]

When times get bad why are gov employees supposed to be insulated??

Again: Because the government doesn't function like a private company. The government must continue to fulfill its functions regardless of the state of the economy. A private company can cut production in half, shift jobs overseas, cut salaries and jobs, etc., to deal with changing economic conditions, because ultimately a private company's sole reason for being is to sell a good or service, which is at the whim of the economy. Governments have a very different function that is not economic cycle dependent. They must fulfill their duties regardless of the economic cycle. And if they want to maintain quality, experienced people to fulfill those positions, they need to provide a stable career structure. Otherwise, their workers are going to flock to the private sector where they can often get better jobs for better pay and bigger bonuses.

Oh yes - the evil wealthy!! Let's demonize the wealthy!! Let's pick on them instead right? That makes it all right. Who here thinks the gov is one lean efficient machine?? I digress.

Why would I demonize myself? Seriously? I said the wealthy should pay reasonable income taxes, as they did before the Bush tax cuts. How is that demonizing them? I appreciate saving all that money over the last decade or so, I really do. But I think the country would be in a lot better shape today without the unnecessary wars or the unnecessary tax cuts.

As far as government efficiency goes, that is an entirely different topic. I never said we couldn't achieve efficiency gains in the government. I just think that is small potatoes compared to things like the military budget and entitlement spending. Those two items make up about 2/3 of our yearly budget.

 

[timm]

Well I think it boils down to fiscal responsibility and if you are telling me that governments don't need to be fiscally responsible by reducing spending when deficits get out of hand (and that would include looking at it's workforce) then I would disagree. This seems to be the attitude dc has as well. Just what I want a bunch of people insulated from the problems of the rest of the country.

 

[Rich]

Well I think it boils down to fiscal responsibility and if you are telling me that governments don't need to be fiscally responsible by reducing spending when deficits get out of hand (and that would include looking at it's workforce) then I would disagree.

I never said that. I said governments don't need to be hiring/firing, raising and lowering salaries, benefits, etc., in response to economic booms and recessions. The deficit is another matter entirely. The deficit got out of hand because we cut taxes and engaged in two unnecessary wars. (Remember, when Bush took over not that long ago, we had a yearly budget surplus and the ability to start paying down on the long term debt). It can easily be addressed by reversing those situations (end the wars and raise the taxes). As for fiscal responsibility, the government payroll is miniscule in comparison to entitlement programs (which make up 2/3 of our yearly budget) and military spending. So tell me, how fiscally responsible do you want to be in cutting Granddad's social security benefits or refusing medical treatment for Grandma's terminal illness? How much do you want to eviscerate our armed forces? Because those are the difficult decisions that are actually going to make a difference in the long term fiscal health of our government. But nobody wants to touch those political hot-button issues. Much easier to try to save a few hundred million cutting federal salaries, while the deficit continues to soar into the trillions!

Just what I want a bunch of people insulated from the problems of the rest of the country.

There is a whole class of very rich people in this country that are completely insulated from the problems of the rest of the country. Does that not bother you? You don't think maybe they should pay a little more of their fair share to support our government and all that it does? And what about the military? We spend almost $700 billion a year on our military, which is the largest defense budget in the world (almost half what our entire planet spends on military expenditures). Think maybe there is a little room for cutting out some waste there? We have 1.5 million people on active duty. If we are going to cut government payrolls, why should they be sheltered from those cuts? Wouldn't want a bunch of people insulated from the problems of the rest of the country like that, now would we?

 

[timm]

No - I think everyone should pay 'their fair share'... I do not believe anybody should 'pay a little more of their fair share'.

We weren't talking about anyone's social security pay out or medical benefits - and I am not sure how you went there. We were talking about government jobs. I was saying that the market should determine their payscale - and you were saying they should be fairly insulated from economic markets - and that if they were not - I guess people would leave the government jobs and the governement wouldn't have the people to support it? And where would these people go? To the private sector where the people's income is all ready depressed from this economy?

On one hand - you want to cut entitlements...and on the other you argue that Grandad's SSN and medicare benefits should be spared... when in fact they are entitlements. Granted - I am not FOR that at all... I am all for all of the little people in the world - because quite frankly I am one of them... I just don't think someone else should be paying my tab. Seems like there are certain 'acceptable' entitlements I guess.

At least that is my short synopsis of it...

 

[97ChameleonTA]

I never said that. I said governments don't need to be hiring/firing, raising and lowering salaries, benefits, etc., in response to economic booms and recessions. The deficit is another matter entirely. The deficit got out of hand because we cut taxes and engaged in two unnecessary wars. (Remember, when Bush took over not that long ago, we had a yearly budget surplus and the ability to start paying down on the long term debt). It can easily be addressed by reversing those situations (end the wars and raise the taxes). As for fiscal responsibility, the government payroll is miniscule in comparison to entitlement programs (which make up 2/3 of our yearly budget) and military spending. So tell me, how fiscally responsible do you want to be in cutting Granddad's social security benefits or refusing medical treatment for Grandma's terminal illness? How much do you want to eviscerate our armed forces? Because those are the difficult decisions that are actually going to make a difference in the long term fiscal health of our government. But nobody wants to touch those political hot-button issues. Much easier to try to save a few hundred million cutting federal salaries, while the deficit continues to soar into the trillions!

But that is exactly what you have been countering me with in the previous posts. I don't buy the "government is special" line. Plain and simply, the government workforce is, in many cases, fulfilling jobs that aren't necessary to run our country. The federal government has become a bloated pig with multiple agencies employing a great deal of people to solve things that don't need solving. Our government should be in place to run the infrastructure of our country and provide a military. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see the nanny state that our government has become.

There is a whole class of very rich people in this country that are completely insulated from the problems of the rest of the country. Does that not bother you? You don't think maybe they should pay a little more of their fair share to support our government and all that it does? And what about the military? We spend almost $700 billion a year on our military, which is the largest defense budget in the world (almost half what our entire planet spends on military expenditures). Think maybe there is a little room for cutting out some waste there? We have 1.5 million people on active duty. If we are going to cut government payrolls, why should they be sheltered from those cuts? Wouldn't want a bunch of people insulated from the problems of the rest of the country like that, now would we?

So basically what you're saying is, "redistribute the wealth". Isn't that in Chapter 1 of the Marxist manifesto? I mean really, the term "more than their fair share" should make anyone wretch. Why is it that the government workers don't have to do their fair share at all? Your argument is circular.
Social Security is a great example. You say that there shouldn't be a salary cap on SS deductions but what you may not realize is that cap is there because there is also a cap on SS distributions.

And, when considering cuts to the military, remember one thing, freedom isn't free.

 

[97ChameleonTA]

Actually yes, you were absolutely wrong in your statement...at least according to, um, Fox News. It was about the ONLY thing they got right in this link generally bashing President Obama, Democrats, Federal Workers, and Our Federal Government...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/12/03/federal-pay-freeze-isnt/

No, I wasn't. Please note, in the link below there are references to the bills signed by Obama. Feel free to research them yourself, I have. Not one of them mentions COLA. Regardless of the semantics, they aren't being cutoff completely from having more money put in their pockets.

http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/569.cfm

Also, read this and tell me it isn't a COLA proposal.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/02/budget_15_pay_raise_for_civili.html

 

[Rich]

No - I think everyone should pay 'their fair share'... I do not believe anybody should 'pay a little more of their fair share'.

How do you determine what is "fair" then? If someone who doesn't have to work for a living is making millions of dollars on dividends or stock sales, how much of that is it "fair" for them to pay in income or capital gains taxes? The same percentage as someone who is working their butts off to make $30,000 a year? What is "fair" in that situation?

We weren't talking about anyone's social security pay out or medical benefits - and I am not sure how you went there.

I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly. The fact that you weren't talking about SS or medical benefits is kind of my point. Cutting government payrolls is like removing a piece of straw from a haystack when you are talking about reducing the size of the deficit. If you really want to do what you say you want to do, then you have to address entitlement programs, which make up 2/3 of the National Budget! The fact that you are harping on "fiscal responsibility" by cutting federal employee payrolls while ignoring the elephant in the room suggests you have no concept of the magnitude of the problem you wish to address.

We were talking about government jobs. I was saying that the market should determine their payscale - and you were saying they should be fairly insulated from economic markets - and that if they were not - I guess people would leave the government jobs and the governement wouldn't have the people to support it? And where would these people go? To the private sector where the people's income is all ready depressed from this economy?

Yes, that's a great idea! Let's get rid of all these federal employees and flood the private markets with more labor than they can use, so we have that many more people on unemployment. That will certainly help us get through this recession. NOT!

And our government will function so much better with less employees and less satisfied employees. Highways and infrastructure will improve. Social security checks will arrive on time. VA hospitals will have the best doctors. Polluters of the environment will be punished quicker. The IRS will be able to audit more tax returns. The FDA will be able to approve blockbuster new cancer drugs faster. The SEC will be able to crack down on more market scammers. The DOE will be able to conduct more safety inspections of the Nuclear Plant near your home town. And on and on . . .

NOPE. All of that stuff will suffer. Along with a million other things you may not even realize your government did for you.

On one hand - you want to cut entitlements...and on the other you argue that Grandad's SSN and medicare benefits should be spared... when in fact they are entitlements.

I argued nothing of the sort. I simply posed the problem. And you fell right into it with this statement:

Granted - I am not FOR that at all... I am all for all of the little people in the world - because quite frankly I am one of them... I just don't think someone else should be paying my tab. Seems like there are certain 'acceptable' entitlements I guess.

This is where the rubber meets the road if you are serious about fixing the budget. Everybody thinks the deficit is too large and lawmakers need to fix that. But the only way to really fix it is to get serious about cutting entitlement programs (I'll say it one more time: 2/3 of our yearly budget) and military spending (another 1/5 of our budget). Without dealing with those two major expenditures, anything else is just window dressing. It sounds good and gives you a happy feeling, but does absolutely nothing to achieve your stated goal. You classically help me make my point by showing the average person's response to that need: Nobody wants to hurt Grandma and Grandpa -- the little people, as you say.

Everybody wants to balance the budget; nobody wants to take the difficult steps that would actually be necessary to do it. So the politicians offer us window dressing and empty rhetoric, and some "worthy" sacrificial lamb like federal employees, and we lap it up.

 

[Rich]

I don't buy the "government is special" line. Plain and simply, the government workforce is, in many cases, fulfilling jobs that aren't necessary to run our country. The federal government has become a bloated pig with multiple agencies employing a great deal of people to solve things that don't need solving. Our government should be in place to run the infrastructure of our country and provide a military.

I never said government is special. I said it serves a very different function than the private sector and because of that, it is necessary to address pay and benefits a little different than we do in the private sector. Quite plainly, the government is not a business, and can't afford to act like one.

That issue has nothing to do with how bloated our government has become. I made no statement on the need to trim the fat and make our government more efficient. I simply stated that your knee-jerk response that federal jobs, salaries and benefits should fluctuate with economic conditions was an unworkable idea.

So basically what you're saying is, "redistribute the wealth". Isn't that in Chapter 1 of the Marxist manifesto?

No, what I am saying is that we should be required to support our government in proportion to our wealth. Those who make very little should pay a smaller percentage of what they make to support the whole. Those who make bucketloads should pay a larger percentage in taxes to support our country's infrastructure. Seems pretty simple to me.

Nice job though, trying to demonize me with inflammatory rhetoric while avoiding actually addressing the logic of my arguments. That would make Rush proud.

Why is it that the government workers don't have to do their fair share at all? Your argument is circular.

No its not. You are confusing separate issues. Government workers that make a lot of money should pay a larger percentage of that money in taxes. This is separate and apart from the issue of whether their salaries and benefits should fluctuate in every economic cycle. You never answered my question: Should higher level government executives get huge multi-million dollar bonuses when the economy is doing well, just like in the private sector? Why does your argument work one way when things are bad, but not the other way when things are good?

And, when considering cuts to the military, remember one thing, freedom isn't free.

Again, lots of flag-waving rhetoric, with little logical analysis. There are lots of free countries in the world who spend a tiny sliver on their military what we spend. So we spend up more defending their freedom. Does that make sense? Again, look at the numbers. We spend half as much as the entire world combined! Does that sound like maybe it is just a little out of proportion with our need to defend our shores? Or maybe it is less about defending our shores, and more about enforcing our will on the rest of the world. The Iraq war would be a prime example of that. How exactly did that multi-trillion dollar war ensure my freedom? Really. I would like an honest answer from you on that one.

 

[timm]

Rich --

You went way farther into this topic than I was going... I'll just make my point - and it is quite simple... I don't like any particular group being targeted to help subsidize others. The thread started with the complaint that federal workers were being targeted and demonized because someone made a comment re: a 2 year pay freeze not necessarily being what everyone else in the country was feeling pain wise.

My point is - if you are on the side that you should not target someone (i.e. federal employees) - then your belief should be that others should not be targeted either (i.e. the wealthy). To do so would be hypocritical.

 

[Rich]

Rich --

You went way farther into this topic than I was going...

Yes, I believe actual in-depth analysis does more to solve our problems than throwing out recycled sound bites.

I'll just make my point - and it is quite simple... I don't like any particular group being targeted to help subsidize others.

Ultimately, if you want to tackle the budget problems and the escalating deficits, then you have to target some groups who are taking a larger share of spending than others. That's the nature of the beast. My argument has been that (a) targeting federal employees for the sole reason that they aren't "sharing the pain" as others during a recession makes no logical sense, and (b) that targeting federal workers while ignoring entitlement and military spending does nothing to solve the problem of exploding deficits. Nothing. Nada. Absolutely nil.

It isn't necessarily a matter of "subsidizing others." It is a question of what is fair in sharing the burden of the cost of our government. You have deftly avoided answering that question.

The thread started with the complaint that federal workers were being targeted and demonized because someone made a comment re: a 2 year pay freeze not necessarily being what everyone else in the country was feeling pain wise.

Correct. The argument was posed that federal workers should "feel the pain" of economic recession just like private sector workers. I made several arguments as to why that should not necessarily be the case. I have yet to hear a logical refutation of any of the arguments I posed.

My point is - if you are on the side that you should not target someone (i.e. federal employees) - then your belief should be that others should not be targeted either (i.e. the wealthy). To do so would be hypocritical.

My stance is not hypocritical. You, as Chameleon before you, are conflating two separate issues: pay and benefits vs. taxation rates. Whether pay and benefits for federal employees should fluctuate with economic cycles is a completely different topic than how they should be taxed. I explained that clearly above, but you still don't seem to get it. There is nothing hypocritical about my arguments. I don't think federal employee wages and benefits should have to fluctuate with our economic cycles, and I think to do so would be a bad thing. There are several logical reasons for that belief, explained above.

I also think taxation rates should reflect overall wealth and income and those who are making more should pay a larger share of that income to support the government, whether they work for the federal government or the private sector. I think that a graduated tax rate like that is fair. I don't see any hypocrisy in that argument.

What I see as hypocritical is saying we should cut federal workers pay and benefits because the deficit is out of control, but we shouldn't touch entitlements or military spending or bring back a higher tax rate on the wealthy.

 

[97ChameleonTA]

I never said government is special. I said it serves a very different function than the private sector and because of that, it is necessary to address pay and benefits a little different than we do in the private sector.

Why? What makes an administrative assistant working for the DOE any different than one working for Dell? On one hand, you want to slash the budget of the one part of our government that is unique, the military. On the other, you say the civilian government workforce should be treated differently than the private sector civilians. It makes no sense.

Quite plainly, the government is not a business, and can't afford to act like one.

You're absolutely right on this point. In it's current form, it obviously can't seem to act as a responsible government either. Any business that operated fiscally the way our government has would be nothing more than a faint memory. Maybe if the government acted a little more like a responsible business model we wouldn't be in this mess.

That issue has nothing to do with how bloated our government has become. I made no statement on the need to trim the fat and make our government more efficient. I simply stated that your knee-jerk response that federal jobs, salaries and benefits should fluctuate with economic conditions was an unworkable idea.

I think it has everything to do with a bloated government. I'm all for trimming the fat. I just don't consider it a knee-jerk reaction to look at all areas of spending, and that includes personnel.

No, what I am saying is that we should be required to support our government in proportion to our wealth. Those who make very little should pay a smaller percentage of what they make to support the whole. Those who make bucketloads should pay a larger percentage in taxes to support our country's infrastructure. Seems pretty simple to me.

Not sure how you don't see that happening now. We are taxed on a graduated scale. Someone making $30K/year is in a much lower tax percentage bracket than someone making $500K. Regardless, even if the tax percentage was the same, say 15% across the board, the person making $500K is paying $75K in taxes and the one making $30K is only paying $4500. How is the wealthy one not doing their part?

Nice job though, trying to demonize me with inflammatory rhetoric while avoiding actually addressing the logic of my arguments. That would make Rush proud.

How am I demonizing you? Wait, aren't you wealthy? Which is it? The poor government worker or the wealthy poster with a different viewpoint? I can't possibly be demonizing both as they are polar opposites in the financial spectrum, right?

No its not. You are confusing separate issues. Government workers that make a lot of money should pay a larger percentage of that money in taxes. This is separate and apart from the issue of whether their salaries and benefits should fluctuate in every economic cycle. You never answered my question: Should higher level government executives get huge multi-million dollar bonuses when the economy is doing well, just like in the private sector? Why does your argument work one way when things are bad, but not the other way when things are good?

My argument works both ways. Government workers that make a lot of money already do pay a larger percentage in taxes, just like their private sector counterparts. I've not once said to take money away from them, unless you consider it highway robbery having them pitch in a little to their own pensions and healtchare. Oh, the horror of having to contribute 5% to their own retirement...

And to answer your question: When the government turns a huge profit, I have no problem with big bonus payouts.

Again, lots of flag-waving rhetoric, with little logical analysis. There are lots of free countries in the world who spend a tiny sliver on their military what we spend. So we spend up more defending their freedom. Does that make sense? Again, look at the numbers. We spend half as much as the entire world combined! Does that sound like maybe it is just a little out of proportion with our need to defend our shores? Or maybe it is less about defending our shores, and more about enforcing our will on the rest of the world. The Iraq war would be a prime example of that. How exactly did that multi-trillion dollar war ensure my freedom? Really. I would like an honest answer from you on that one.

I'm not in complete disagreement with regard to foreign aid. I believe we should be taking care of our own before we're giving multi-billion dollar handouts to kickstart farming and irrigation projects in Ethopia . But when it comes to military presence, it is what you don't see that is the benefit. In the grand scheme of things, we have no idea what not protecting freedom abroad would lead to. I, for one, am not willing to find out. As a first gulf war veteran, I can speak with certainty that Saddam did have biological weapons. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask any Kurd in Iraq prior to our "invasion".

 

[Kevin]

The point I would make is that we shouldn't even be discussing rolling back government salaries, they should have never grown so high in the first place. At one time, everyone knew that when you went to work for the government, you probably weren't going to make the money you could by having a comparable job in the private sector. But most people felt the jobs were balanced due to the fact that government workers received better benefits, much better in many circumstances. Now, not only do they still have far better benefits, but for many positions, the salaries have become better than one can get in the private sector as well. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, "Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers." I don't mind spending money, but I like to think that I get the best value on the dollar. When I shop for new audio speakers, I want the best "bang for the buck". When the government takes my money, in the form of taxes, I also like to think I'm getting good value. I don't feel that I do. When you read that Bernie Madoff was investigated no fewer than 6 times by the SEC, due to warnings about possible fraud, and nothing wrong was ever found, only to find out later that SEC employees spent hours a week surfing porn during working hours on taxpayer paid computers, you can get an idea as to why their investigations didn't prove very fruitful. If you don't think this sort of wasteful abuse of money doesn't go on all the time in government, then you're really quite naive. This isn't to say all government programs are unnecessary, nor is it to say that all government employees are bad workers. But when you don't need to compete for the services that you render or show that you are offering a better product as does the private sector, and yet you can raise salaries and benefits by higher than average percentages- just by passing the buck to others, and even to future generations, this is just a perfect recipe for waste. The best way to prevent this waste is by keeping government as small as possible in the first place.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Don't know if this makes much sense within the context of trimming the fat but if the Republicans have their way, EPA, social services, education, planned parenthood and other, what I consider to be vital programs, will incur significant cuts. As an example, my understanding is that the current proposal calls for a 30% cut in EPA funding. Some argue that the proposed aggregate cuts will also have a negative impact on the current recovery and unemployment rate.

So if you are one of the people who don't need or depend on these services, consider yourself very lucky.

One example I find interesting is what is occurring in Pinedale, WY. For those unfamiliar, this area has seen explosive growth in gas and oil exploration over the last 10 years. As a result, this pristine mountain town (population 2,000 +/-), which sits at the base of the Wind River Mountains, is experiencing air pollution above and beyond EPA levels. Residents have reported adverse health impacts when the levels rise to a certain point. The only way to address the issue, other than cutting back on production, is to have a strong monitoring system in place to check for air borne pollution.

If the EPA funding is cut, I would fully expect that production will stay or rise above current levels and, assuming the cuts take place, the EPA pollutant monitoring will be scaled back due to lack of funding. So here we have a town that "is doing its part" to produce USA energy, which the government receives money from energy taxes, but less effort will be made to address the direct negative impacts of the activity on the community. Something doesn't seem quite right with this picture.

Frankly, I hope (in a very twisted way), that the Republicans get their way. Notwithstanding the fact that the proposed cuts will have a miniscule / meaningless impact of the current debt load, I think it will have a huge negative impact on many people's lives and bring to the fore front the fallacy and ill advised logic of these "purported" savings.

Trim responsibly? You bet. Do it with chainsaw, probably not the best idea. In the end, I hope common sense reigns but I hold out little hope for that silly concept.

GG

PS: I'm a government employee, haven't had a raise in 5 years, and don't expect to see one before I retire. Any yes, I do (horror) help pay for my pension and other benefits.

 

[twich54]

Hey Gordon, interesting topic, Natural Gas, for here in Pa we sit atop the Marcellas Shale Play (2nd largest deposit in the world supposedly) and we have had all kinds of 'barb' back and forth over the drilling and the enviromental issues surounding it.

Having just attended a Public hearing last week it was interesting to see the 'pro' drilling contingent outnumber the NIMBY's and Enviro's probably 12 to 1. Myself I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence........I'm all for energy independence.......common sense and the responsibility that goes along with it.......I'm not so sure we can pull it off.