Agenda for the Next Administration

[SuperHornet]

I pretty much agree with you here. I do have a few caveats, though, and would appreciate hearing your thoughts on them.

A. Did those reduction percentages come from a vacuum? Across-the-board cuts make no sense to me. I COULD see, however, a forced review of operations to see where extensive cuts could be made, focusing on which functions could be reduced or dissolved entirely. A sunset review (as is currently done in TX and has been proposed in CA) could potentially save billions without mandating unfeasible reductions in areas that can't sustain such.

B. The self-deportation thing comes from the heart, I'm sure, but may be difficult to implement in terms of recordkeeing and enforcement. If it can be made to work, that may be a good way to go about it, though.

C. Completely disagree about term limits. We're seeing in Cali what a mess term limits can present. One is constantly turning over new incumbents, and just as they're learning a VERY difficult job, they're gone. I agree that people such as Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and Frank HAVE to go. But the way to do it is to vote them out. Mandating constant turnover brings inexperienced people who end up in budgetary gridlock as we've seen in Cali ever since term limits were passed.

[native]

I pretty much agree with you here. I do have a few caveats, though, and would appreciate hearing your thoughts on them.

A. Did those reduction percentages come from a vacuum? Across-the-board cuts make no sense to me. I COULD see, however, a forced review of operations to see where extensive cuts could be made, focusing on which functions could be reduced or dissolved entirely. A sunset review (as is currently done in TX and has been proposed in CA) could potentially save billions without mandating unfeasible reductions in areas that can't sustain such.

B. The self-deportation thing comes from the heart, I'm sure, but may be difficult to implement in terms of recordkeeing and enforcement. If it can be made to work, that may be a good way to go about it, though.

C. Completely disagree about term limits. We're seeing in Cali what a mess term limits can present. One is constantly turning over new incumbents, and just as they're learning a VERY difficult job, they're gone. I agree that people such as Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and Frank HAVE to go. But the way to do it is to vote them out. Mandating constant turnover brings inexperienced people who end up in budgetary gridlock as we've seen in Cali ever since term limits were passed.

Good post, SH! I agree with your idea about a sunset law, and agree that term limits sometimes create as many problems as they solve.

[kalm]

End corporate welfare, re-instate glass steagal, do away with Freddie and Fannie, allow a bunch of banks on Wall Street to fail, utterly destroy the retirement nest eggs of several generations, and blamo - you have the gigantic re-set that we really need and that nobody has the guts to accept or endure.

Nice platform to run on eh?

At least the New Deal included a bit of infrastructure spending. I'll give you that, kalm.

But your fears of free enterprise (NOT unfettered as you falsely claim) are unfounded. There is a difference between reasonable and fair regulation and blatant un-Constitutional political payola. There is a difference between an efficient safety net and massive income and wealth redistribution for political purposes. Obama made a bad situation much, much worse. We can either continue to slide into economic mediocrity, or we can boldly reclaim the future. Niether Obamanomics nor another New Deal are paths to a successful future.

Don't go soft on me now Nate, Reaganomics is equally as bad. Let's crash the whole system and start over.

The banks and shareholders lose, the pensioners loose, social welfare recipients lose, corporate welfare recipients lose, the downward wealth re-distributionists lose, the upward wealth re-distribuitionist lose.

I'm armed, and can hunt, fish, garden, and have access to a nearby water supply. Not to mention an inviation to Cid1990 and Houndawg's compound if things get rough.

Let's get real free market market on their ass and let the chips fall where they may.

[TheDancinMonarch]

I agree completely.

Me three!

Ditto.

[AZGrizFan]

At least the New Deal included a bit of infrastructure spending. I'll give you that, kalm.

But your fears of free enterprise (NOT unfettered as you falsely claim) are unfounded. There is a difference between reasonable and fair regulation and blatant un-Constitutional political payola. There is a difference between an efficient safety net and massive income and wealth redistribution for political purposes. Obama made a bad situation much, much worse. We can either continue to slide into economic mediocrity, or we can boldly reclaim the future. Niether Obamanomics nor another New Deal are paths to a successful future.

Don't go soft on me now Nate, Reaganomics is equally as bad. Let's crash the whole system and start over.

The banks and shareholders lose, the pensioners loose, social welfare recipients lose, corporate welfare recipients lose, the downward wealth re-distributionists lose, the upward wealth re-distribuitionist lose.

I'm armed, and can hunt, fish, garden, and have access to a nearby water supply. Not to mention an inviation to Cid1990 and Houndawg's compound if things get rough.

Let's get real free market market on their ass and let the chips fall where they may.

kalm, I'm beginning to think this may be the only way.

A hard reboot.

[kalm]

Don't go soft on me now Nate, Reaganomics is equally as bad. Let's crash the whole system and start over.

The banks and shareholders lose, the pensioners loose, social welfare recipients lose, corporate welfare recipients lose, the downward wealth re-distributionists lose, the upward wealth re-distribuitionist lose.

I'm armed, and can hunt, fish, garden, and have access to a nearby water supply. Not to mention an inviation to Cid1990 and Houndawg's compound if things get rough.

Let's get real free market market on their ass and let the chips fall where they may.

kalm, I'm beginning to think this may be the only way.

A hard reboot.

It may be forced on us whether we like it or not.

[UNHWildCats]

This thread is like a conk orgy right?

[dbackjon]

1) In general, agree. There are federal agencies that have been underfunded, like the Interior Department, with billions of dollars of over due infrastructure repairs. This would have been a great place for stimulus money. The Interior Department could use some trimming - there are units in the National Park System that don't need to be in Federal hands. The ones that are deemed necessary, should be fully supported though. Most are close to self-sustaining through users fees - those users fees need to stay in the Parks, though. In addition, grazing, drilling, etc leases need make more money, instead of subsidizing private enterprise.

2) I see you trot out the standard RW list of "bad" departments. I have mixed opinions on the DOE. There is a lot of good in having NATIONAL Education standards and goals. Just not sure the DOE does it well. Ag can use trimming - again, raise users fees, end timber/grazing/mining subsidies. Repeal the Mining Act of 1872, which gives away BILLIONS of dollars of minerals to now mostly foreign companies.

What specifically in DOL and HHS would you cut so drastically?

3) Agreed. Does that include Veteran's benefits? Congressional benefits?

4) Disagree. Raise the retirement age, eliminate the cap on taxable income, SS is in the black for centuries.

5) Why? What good would this do? Anyways, the US government never owned the property, and doesn't now. Another tired RW "demon" that changes NOTHING.

6) We need to strength health care. Our healthcare system still is broken. Single payor is the only answer

7) So you want to surrender? What do we do about Al-Queda and the Taliban?

8) What would you set the benefit cap at?

9) ABSOLUTELY APPOSE. BAD, BAD IDEA

10) Border Fence is not the answer. Walls/Fences never work, and give false sense of security.

11) Interesting proposal...will have to chew on that one

12) Who pays for emergency care for legal workers? (temp visa)

13) Mostly agree. Temporary situations may dictate short-term "czars" Of course, if Congress would stop playing games with nominations and vote in a timely manner on them, this wouldn't be an issue

14) disagree - they are still elected officials. The country can't come to a halt for 2 months.

15) Disagree strongly on term limits. Term Limits are a disaster. We have them in Arizona, and only lead to more lobbyist influence. Agree completely on pensions.

16) Disagree on student Loans - this is an area the private sector has not done well on. the US has greatly benefited from it.

Fannie and Freddie need some reform, but are still valuable to the US.

[AZGrizFan]

This thread is like a conk orgy right?

1) In general, agree. There are federal agencies that have been underfunded, like the Interior Department, with billions of dollars of over due infrastructure repairs. This would have been a great place for stimulus money. The Interior Department could use some trimming - there are units in the National Park System that don't need to be in Federal hands. The ones that are deemed necessary, should be fully supported though. Most are close to self-sustaining through users fees - those users fees need to stay in the Parks, though. In addition, grazing, drilling, etc leases need make more money, instead of subsidizing private enterprise.

2) I see you trot out the standard RW list of "bad" departments. I have mixed opinions on the DOE. There is a lot of good in having NATIONAL Education standards and goals. Just not sure the DOE does it well. Ag can use trimming - again, raise users fees, end timber/grazing/mining subsidies. Repeal the Mining Act of 1872, which gives away BILLIONS of dollars of minerals to now mostly foreign companies.

What specifically in DOL and HHS would you cut so drastically?

3) Agreed. Does that include Veteran's benefits? Congressional benefits?

4) Disagree. Raise the retirement age, eliminate the cap on taxable income, SS is in the black for centuries.

5) Why? What good would this do? Anyways, the US government never owned the property, and doesn't now. Another tired RW "demon" that changes NOTHING.

6) We need to strength health care. Our healthcare system still is broken. Single payor is the only answer

7) So you want to surrender? What do we do about Al-Queda and the Taliban?

8) What would you set the benefit cap at?

9) ABSOLUTELY APPOSE. BAD, BAD IDEA

10) Border Fence is not the answer. Walls/Fences never work, and give false sense of security.

11) Interesting proposal...will have to chew on that one

12) Who pays for emergency care for legal workers? (temp visa)

Living proof all gays are not created equal.

[ODUsmitty]

I pretty much agree with you here. I do have a few caveats, though, and would appreciate hearing your thoughts on them.

A. Did those reduction percentages come from a vacuum? Across-the-board cuts make no sense to me. I COULD see, however, a forced review of operations to see where extensive cuts could be made, focusing on which functions could be reduced or dissolved entirely. A sunset review (as is currently done in TX and has been proposed in CA) could potentially save billions without mandating unfeasible reductions in areas that can't sustain such.

B. The self-deportation thing comes from the heart, I'm sure, but may be difficult to implement in terms of recordkeeing and enforcement. If it can be made to work, that may be a good way to go about it, though.

C. Completely disagree about term limits. We're seeing in Cali what a mess term limits can present. One is constantly turning over new incumbents, and just as they're learning a VERY difficult job, they're gone. I agree that people such as Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and Frank HAVE to go. But the way to do it is to vote them out. Mandating constant turnover brings inexperienced people who end up in budgetary gridlock as we've seen in Cali ever since term limits were passed.

SH-

Your service to the country is appreciated. Just over 10 years in the Navy myself, most in nuclear power.
A. You are correct about the percentage. My belief is that most departments could easily absorb a 20% cut and still fulfill the functions that are absolutely vital. I also agree that such cuts would cause a reaction similar to local budget cuts, where instead of eliminating beaurocracy, many managers would cut vital services to make a political point - ever wonder why teachers, police and firefighters are always on the chopping block when local governments face shortfalls, yet other less vital functions remain relatively untouched? Takes a special politician or leader to call bullshit when that happens. Your more surgical review could be done after the first round is completed.
B. Lots of details to be worked out, but seems to be a more realistic repsonse that either forcible deportation or blanket amnesty (to which I am dead opposed). And I understand that such actions would raise the cost of several value-added products from illegal labor, like housing, landscaping, etc; but this is a price I'd be willing to pay.
C. I'd have welcomed some Federal Budgetary Gridlock during the past 18 months! However, your point is well-made.

[SuperHornet]

Bilas: Good to see you were among the Navy elite. I started there myself. Getting booted at the 22-week mark of NFAS (clearly, I was gunning for Nuke ET) was the best thing that ever happened to my Navy career, though. At the time, I was thinking of going sub, but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have worked out very well in subs. While I admire those that go there (the civilian nuke industry could take lessons from Rickover's Navy), being a surface and green-side RP was great.