sawyer's interview of bush

[zimv20]

i'm watching it now, on PrimeTime

according to bush:
1. saddam was a threat to the US
2. there's no difference between HAVING WMD and being able to eventually develop them
3. nuclear weapons (material?) will be found in iraq
4. bush wants saddam executed

more as it comes in

[zimv20]

interesting take on "the news". bush gets his news from condi and andrew card, 'cuz they give him "the facts".

further, he doesn't read newspapers because they "editorialize".

other:

- blamed Congress for overspending
- would support constitutional amendment against gay marriage
- claims he believes in judicial restraint
- supports states rights, until state courts violate sanctity of man/woman marriage

[zimv20]

sorry, lost interest when they started talking about Elf and reality TV shows

[Frohickey]

I think that military spending should be 42% of the Federal budget, and the Federal budget should be fixed percentage of GDP.

Weird, we have Democrat presidents cutting military budgets, while Republican presidents raise military budgets. Is there a chart of military budgets. I wonder if you adjust for inflation, if military budgets have been running at a fixed rate if you average out the D/R tendencies.

A constitutional amendment would mean that the states/people have decided to grant the power to the feds to regulate marriage. Seems wrong to me that the feds should do so, but if the 75% of the states ratify it...

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I think that military spending should be 42% of the Federal budget, and the Federal budget should be fixed percentage of GDP.

If you're going to pick a number out of the air, it might as well be that one.

I think the military should get the money they need to do the job required of them, not some arbitrary, fixed chunk of the budget.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
If you're going to pick a number out of the air, it might as well be that one.

I think the military should get the money they need to do the job required of them, not some arbitrary, fixed chunk of the budget.

The number was not picked out of thin air... (erp... the number is supposed to be 43.75%) :P

There are 16 purposes of legislative power, and fully 7 of the 16 are for military... from To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations all the way down to To provide for organizing, arming and discipling, the milia....

Thats 7 out of 16, or 43.75%.

That would also mean that we get better post offices, smoother roads, better patent office research staff, fully staffed lower courts, since each one will get 1/16th of the budget as well.

[mactastic]

Hey, why not. 42 is the meaning of life after all. That's a fairly significant reason to have it determine military spending.

So Frohickey, what would you do with the other 58%?

And you would advocate having reduced the money the military has gotten over the last few years, particularly since 9/11, because the federal government hasn't been collecting as much money since the economy went belly-up? Maybe that would be an incentive for some in the military to want something like a war to stimulate the economy and boost their budget?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

There are 16 purposes of legislative power, and fully 7 of the 16 are for military...

how... communist of you.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
There are 16 purposes of legislative power, and fully 7 of the 16 are for military...
Thats 7 out of 16, or 43.75%.

Did it ever cross your mind that sometimes it might cost less or more than 1/16 of the budget to do an adequate job of any of those 16?

I really don't think the patent office needs a sixteenth of the budget to operate. And what happens if the military needs more money and taxes must be raised?
Everyone else gets more, too? Wow.

For someone who's attacked government waste in the past, your plan embraces pointless wastefulness.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm really confused about conservative philosophy these days. Apparently it's now not just ok, but desirable, to create huge new entitlement programs that virtually guarantee waste, fraud and abuse. Just so long as the right hogs are being slopped, I guess. I can't see any other guiding principles at work anymore.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'm really confused about conservative philosophy these days.

it's to win

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Did it ever cross your mind that sometimes it might cost less or more than 1/16 of the budget to do an adequate job of any of those 16?

I really don't think the patent office needs a sixteenth of the budget to operate. And what happens if the military needs more money and taxes must be raised?
Everyone else gets more, too? Wow.

For someone who's attacked government waste in the past, your plan embraces pointless wastefulness.

If the patent office doesn't use its 1/16th of the budget, then it goes to the Treasury for when its needed. Pretty soon, the Treasury will have lots of money, and we can have a big tax cuts for a few years. ;)

[Sayhey]

LOL, Frohickey that may be the silliest budget proposal I've ever heard! Most folks at least try to have some actual need behind the monies allocated. Even the the worst pork barrel junkie in the Pentagon gives a program to Congress in order to justify its billions.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If the patent office doesn't use its 1/16th of the budget, then it goes to the Treasury for when its needed. Pretty soon, the Treasury will have lots of money, and we can have a big tax cuts for a few years. ;)

you know it does not work that way. Every agencies thought is "if we don't spend our budget we will lose it". Hence the dumping of perfectly good office furniture off the deck of the ship. etc.

Frohickey, don't you think there should be some accountability in military spending before you go and give them this huge chunk of change? Right now there is no accountability in military spending. They do not have to account for their spending. Every other agency does.

Don't you think there should be some limits to the revolving door between the pentagon and military suppliers/lobbyists? The woman that signed the military tanker airplane contract with Boeing was in job negotiations with Boeing while at the same time as procurement negotiations. It resulted in a terrible contract for the american taxpayer.

Why are congress people telling the military what weapons to buy? Pork.

So we have this huge budget but no money left over when we need it. No money for the extra costs of war.

Frohickey, if we have some accountability, some efficiency (military is least efficient sector of govt.), get congress out of the decision making process for weapons programs (the generals know what they need), and save some budget for times of war, don't you think that would be better?

I am sure anyone here, conservative of liberal, would agree with this. All we need is political will.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
you know it does not work that way. Every agencies thought is "if we don't spend our budget we will lose it". Hence the dumping of perfectly good office furniture off the deck of the ship. etc.

Frohickey, don't you think there should be some accountability in military spending before you go and give them this huge chunk of change? Right now there is no accountability in military spending. They do not have to account for their spending. Every other agency does.

Don't you think there should be some limits to the revolving door between the pentagon and military suppliers/lobbyists? The woman that signed the military tanker airplane contract with Boeing was in job negotiations with Boeing while at the same time as procurement negotiations. It resulted in a terrible contract for the american taxpayer.

Why are congress people telling the military what weapons to buy? Pork.

So we have this huge budget but no money left over when we need it. No money for the extra costs of war.

Frohickey, if we have some accountability, some efficiency (military is least efficient sector of govt.), get congress out of the decision making process for weapons programs (the generals know what they need), and save some budget for times of war, don't you think that would be better?

I am sure anyone here, conservative of liberal, would agree with this. All we need is political will.

The way I would do it is this. Every federal agency that operates at a surplus, meaning it doesn't use its budget, gets to have a 1% bonus for each employee, calculated from the unused portion of the budget. So, 99% of the unused portion goes back to the Treasury, 1% goes to the federal employees that worked hard to be efficient. You make people's greed work for you. :)

The way it currently is, federal agencies use its budget or else it loses it all with no incentive for the employees to be more efficient. Also, every few years or so, when a govt agency/program is malfunctioning, you have Congressional committee studyies saying that it needs more money to work. So, the federal agency gets more money, wastes it, fails, and gets more money. Pretty pathetic, no?

[wwworry]

I agree. There should be some incentive. Right now there is no connect between military budgets and the job at hand. (other departments too).

Mostly it comes down to some politician trying to prove how tough he is.

[mactastic]

Then you gotta have a watchdog to make sure the gov't employees aren't cutting too many corners in order to ensure the biggest bonus possible. It sounds like todays system in reverse. Instead of incentive to waste you have an incentive to shortchange the taxpayer on what their taxes pay for.