Government Jobs and Spending Must be Eliminated- Slaying the Government Monster
Posted: Saturday, March 27, 2010
by Jon Searles
Jobs in business and industry are what makes this country's wheels roll. Job infrastructure builds around the ability of a city, county, state, and country to build industry and business that is providing goods and services needed locally, regionally, nationally, or even globally. How long would a city filled with only restaurants, convenience stores, and Starbucks last without surrounding business and industry with employees to use the services. I am not saying that the coffee server's job serving you a latte is less important than the engineer designing the motor for a new renewable energy wind farm, but I will tell you that the coffee employee would not have the job without the engineer, but the engineer would be fine without the extra jolt of caffeine. This same relationship goes for government jobs, you just don't need a tax office, vehicle tag office, schools, city hall, street department, nor any other government offices without the engineer or the coffee brewing support staff.
In New England, where I live, municipalities are considering regionalizing services. That would mean 4-5 cities along the shoreline of Connecticut could close personnel and payroll offices and consolidate resources into one office. I personally wonder why they just do not contract with a business that provides such services and completely cut the government jobs involved but I am pleased they are thinking a little more clearly. Government job pay is normally on pace with local economies but medical, vacation, and retirement benefits eclipse what is offered to your normal office worker.
Hopefully we will realize that tightening our belts and resetting our economy, both privately and publically, will stay and we will not (borrowing a quote from World War II) "awaken the sleeping giant" of inefficiency, excess, and waste. Some ideas to seriously consider are:
1. Close the U.S. Post Office -Actually set U. S. Postal Service rates at what they cost instead of subsidizing the U.S. Post Office. If they cannot be 100% profitable, then they should be closed or sold.
2. Privatize all prisons . It is already shown that private prisons are more cost effective. Just something about the ability of a company to be hired and fired keeps them working to be better at what they do. Oversight would need to be properly set, but it would be possible. Abuses of prisoners are the most cited concern for not privatizing.........and that's a problem? While I don't condone abuse, it is a demographic I would be less concerned about.
3. Close local government offices . Contract services for anything that you do not need a city or state department for to save on cash. City street departments, payroll departments, trash collection, and any department that can be contracted by a private company. Sure, you may need a manager to oversee the programs, but that could cost much less.
4. Decrease NASA funding and set a goal to begin profiting from technologies developed at NASA and require a percentage of their budget comes from profitable ventures. We also must cut funding during severe deficit years. We do not need to plan on visiting Mars if California is going bankrupt.
5. Make Congress decrease spending . Set a goal to decrease all budgets associated with United States Congress by 10% a year until a balanced budget is set. They would definitely move a little faster.
6. Eliminate Congressional earmarks. Congressional earmarks that allow for everything from the Alaskan "bridge to nowhere" to a $400,000 Teapot Museum need to be eliminated UNLESS a balanced budget exists. I am not opposed to a Congressman or woman trying to earmark money for a project or program that is important to his or her constituents, but if the money is not in the budget to pay for the more essential and deserving government programs, why should we pay for "pork barrel" pet projects that could total $16 billion in 2010 (March 12, Orlando Sentinel). Balance the budget and you get to buy something special. Wow, it is the same concept I have been teaching my children. If you have extra money, you can buy something you just don't need.
7. Require a smaller national government. Make it a goal to eliminate or combine at least 5% of government agencies every year. Decreasing budgets, combining assets, eliminating extra levels of management. Sounds like business? If you have time, go to the link http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml and take a look at the list of government agencies that exist. Surely some could be combined or share staplers?
8. Reduce the single biggest budget item . Find efficiency experts and military experts that could work together to find synergies in the management of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. All must be preserved but how can they share assets more than they do now and find cost cutting opportunities that do not weaken national security.
9. Don't give money to those that don't support the U.S.. Stop pouring money into other countries unless they meet a defined set of rules. I hate to say we will give money if we have your support, but it just makes sense. Humanitarian aid is different. We should not pay until we get support instead of paying and wait for support. I would not give money to countries that will not change or commit completely to change.
10. Eliminate the IRS . A flat tax for all Americans would make more sense and maintain a fairness not seen in the tax code. If you want to decrease tax to the bottom 20% of wage earners by giving them a flat tax of 10% and asking the richest Americans to pay 25% you could maintain the liberal idea that the "haves" should help the "have nots", but imagine the bureaucracy cost you would eliminate!
11. Eliminate paying agricultural subsidies for crops such as milk, wheat, corn, soy, etc... Giving money to grow less than profitable crops just seems stupid. Farmers are amazing people and will find ways to grow these more profitably. The ironic part is that it is more big business that takes advantage of the money the government pumps into food than a farmer working to feed his or her family.
There are a wide variety of arguments for each item listed above. Many of the arguments are tied more with emotional and nostalgic thought than business sense.
Ultimately our goal would be to eliminate government jobs and overspending. Many of you may hold government jobs or have friends who work for the government and may be a little insulted by my suggestion. Contrary to my list of budget cutting and control measures I would like to see increases in education and programs for the elderly that would probably make them the single largest budgetary items, but that is for another day and another article.
Ultimately it is not the government's job to keep government jobs available. Their goal should be to decrease the size of government while stimulating the economy. Our increasing tax dollars just give them reason to continue spending.
This Article has been viewed 574 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)Very good article. Your ideas are very sound. I don't think we are in the political environment where your ideas will become reality. Not yet away, for two primary reasons:1)The congress does not want the flat tax because it would disable the system they use to buy votes with entitlements.2) Asking an elected official to make government smaller, more efficient, less powerful and less expensive is like asking a CEO to make his company smaller and less profitable.The only way to achieve the things you talk about is for the people to demand them by voting in people who want to create them and voting out those who don't. It really is up to the people.Please log in to respond to this comment.Deborah,I just hope we can vote people that can avoid being corrupted by the system they are joining. Thanks for reading and you made very good points.Please log in to respond to this comment.
Jon. many intelligent and logical suggestions. However and that however, the real hard to digest question, why can't these type of suggestions ever seem to be implemented? Like I say, the hardest thing many of us must come to grips with is the question that perhaps their actions are not the intended result? In my opinion one must step back from the obvious and logical and yes common sense and take a real look at the issues at hand in a different light. That is the real possibility that there is more then meets the eye happening. If we throw everything into the pot, as business people, their, our leaders, cough, actions do not make sense, logic, unless and that unless the unbelievable their actions are not intended to help? I know, how hard that is to digest but one, that if considered, just might make more sense then all the questions of why? Best wishes and my sincere thanks for your support, Robert. PS, as you have always known I love this nation, do not condone violence and truly believe their is more to what is happening then many understand. It is being played out each and everyday all cross this planet and it is as clear as day when messed together.Please log in to respond to this comment.Robert,Forgive me for being slow to respond. I seem to have less and less time each day to read and write. Thank you for your comments. I forgot who said it but unfortunately "Common sense isn't as common as we might think." Everything must be brought out into the light, but they have been dealing in the dark of the back room for so long, it is going to be hard to change. Thank you for reading and God bless.Please log in to respond to this comment.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.