Excise tax and the Spanish-American War.

[miloblithe]

Did you see in the CBO where individuals account for 82% of govern revenue?

You are the one saying how under compensated government employees are. I know lawyers that are working for the government and even banks, they know they make less, but admit to working half the load they would work in a firm.
Pay is one issue, but heathcare costs and pensions are valuable benefits. Most people seek government jobs because of the high pay to work ratio, and benefits. I (maybe wrongly) believe most people that leave the government do so because of frustration, not pay.

So you want higher corporate taxes and higher import/export duties? I think most economists would argue against seeking government revenue primarily from import and export duties, like we did 200 years ago. The effect would be to drastically cut, if not eliminate, trade. Regardless, higher import duties are always passed on to the consumer as higher prices. Higher export duties cripple US industries (and eliminate the jobs of their workers). Higher corporate taxes? That might not be a bad idea. What about individuals who own their (or are their own) business? How would you tax them? We could tax certain things instead, putting higher taxes on consuming luxuries and harmful goods and lower taxes on consuming necessities and things that are beneficial to society. A well designed consumption tax might be good (although it would lead to a larger black market), but you're still taxing individuals. Really, I don't see much of a way around taxing individuals. What's your suggestion?

I didn't really mean that government employees are undercompensated. I'm just saying that calling them 'fat cats' is a little silly. There are a lot of advantages to government jobs. Stability is one. When I worked in software development, my contracting company had lost the bid for more projects from our client, so I was told on a Thursday afternoon at 4:00 that would be my last day and not to come in on Friday (because it was in a differerent accounting period). Luckily I had caught wind of the rumor that almost all of the employees in my office were going to be let go so I had already found another job (for more money) starting the next Monday. But that kind of crap would never happen in a government job: let go with one hour's notice. You're right about other government benefits: pensions, health care. They are also good on flex time and I imagine lots of other things. I would think they don't have people into lots of overtime. Whereas a lawyer working for a big firm might put in 70 hour weeks, a government lawyer may not ever have to work more than 40? I really have no idea if that's true or not.

(My current government job is a part-time position (internship) for graduate students, so I get none of these benefits, so you can stop accusing me of being a fat cat. )

 

[miloblithe]

Under Government and Military budget rules, it has been a use it or lose it world. If a Navy squadron did not use all of its fuel by Sept 30th, they had little justification for more the next year (picking on the Navy, all branches were/are as bad). So what would they do? For years (not anymore) they would launch the planes with full fuel on the 30th, and they would climb up and dump it. Yes dump it, cause in the Government world of smarts, this is how the budget works. INSANITY RULES.

I completely agree with you on that. As a kid, I remember some of my friends whose parents worked for the government would come home with piles of post-it-notes, pencils, pens, notepads, etc covered in their agencies logos around September/October because that was a good way of dumping a few extra thousand dollars at the end of the budget year. Agencies should (somehow) be rewarded for doing their job efficiently (in the sense of coming in under budget). The trick is to design that mechanism whereby they are rewarded.

 

[stubeeef]

Not a rational point in the first place, but, out of interest, who do you think would buy property on mars from you? Without a government to protect that land, providing policing to stop others stealing it, what use are any rights in land.

I will never understand why there are so many people determined to believe the government is against them, or stealing their money for their own ends. Even the US government isn't run for a profit. And donating money to charity, while comendable, doesn't mean you should be exempt from your own country. Do you use the roads? Have you flown in an aircraft? Neither streets nor air-trafic control are free.

If you want your government to save money and life to be cheaper for you, then persuade them to reduce the amount American farmers recieve in protectionist subsidy (also saving you all that red cross money, since africans would then have the chance of free trade with the states) and stop wasting money on unwinnable wars (drugs, terror).

There are many useful needs of Government. To provide for common defense, education, and infrastructure. No argument there. Some regulation is imparitive, no question there. There are Social obligations that SHOULD get met, no question there.
I have no problems with any countries protective measures to secure it's own infrastructure, food and energy supplies. Just not to the point of tossing money in the wind.
I find it crazy for government to grow to the point of uselessness. To obscound personal property for big development tax revenues. To encumber education and business to the point of stifilling both. To have to work more months to fund ineffective programs than I work to support myself.
The MARS thing was meant to be crazy, the point being that because someone doesn't agree with the method, does not mean they don't agree with the goal.
Government is what we make of it, and I wish to work to make it effecient and effective, a lofty and mostly unobtainable goal at this point. What drives me bonkers is that once a program is in existance, it is near impossible to stop it, whether or not it works. And it seems the worse it works, the more money we throw at it, instead of stopping it, and trying something else. Social Security is no where near what its intended purpose was, for good or bad, and knowing it is a train wreck for decades has not changed its course, what will it take?
Bloat made from good intent, is still bloat!

 

[stubeeef]

So you want higher corporate taxes and higher import/export duties? I think most economists would argue against seeking government revenue primarily from import and export duties, like we did 200 years ago. The effect would be to drastically cut, if not eliminate, trade. Regardless, higher import duties are always passed on to the consumer as higher prices. Higher export duties cripple US industries (and eliminate the jobs of their workers). Higher corporate taxes? That might not be a bad idea. What about individuals who own their (or are their own) business? How would you tax them? We could tax certain things instead, putting higher taxes on consuming luxuries and harmful goods and lower taxes on consuming necessities and things that are beneficial to society. A well designed consumption tax might be good (although it would lead to a larger black market), but you're still taxing individuals. Really, I don't see much of a way around taxing individuals. What's your suggestion?

Very simple, CUT GOVERNMENT! START WITH DPT OF ENERGY AND DEPT OF EDUCATION!

I didn't really mean that government employees are undercompensated. I'm just saying that calling them 'fat cats' is a little silly.

maybe not ALL fat cats but....not this either.

You know that government salaries are much lower for high-end jobs than are private sector salaries.

 

[bluemouse]

Very simple, CUT GOVERNMENT! START WITH DPT OF ENERGY AND DEPT OF EDUCATION!

*gags*
I wouldn't start cutting the Dept. of Education just yet. Have you seen some of the spelling around here?

-bluemouse

 

[miloblithe]

Very simple, CUT GOVERNMENT! START WITH DPT OF ENERGY AND DEPT OF EDUCATION!

OK. Some of the things you are cutting:
$9.0 billion for the national security activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration to include maintaining the safety, security, reliability and effectiveness of the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile; preventing the spread of materials, information, and technology of weapons of mass destruction by eliminating or securing nuclear materials and related infrastructure and providing the U.S. Navy with safe, effective nuclear propulsion plants.

Strategic Petroleum reserve (didn't find price tag)

$7.4 billion for nuclear waste site cleanup and construction. The government is responsible for disposing of the spent nuclear fuel generated by civilian nuclear power plants, government nuclear reactor facilities, and the high-level waste from the Nation’s defense activities.

$5.8 billion for research into different types of energy resources (clean coal, hydrogen fuel, nuclear and fusion power, etc.

$ 91 million to modernize and expand the Nation’s electricity delivery system and reduce the likelihood and impact of disruptions and blackouts.

$291 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program in order to cut the utility bills of 1.2 million low-income families while conserving energy. (that one's about efficiency, by the way)

$43 million for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) to accelerate assistance to those DOE contract employees and their survivors who have served our Nation as part of the nuclear weapons complex and suffered an illness because of exposure to toxic substances during such service.



OK. So do you actually want to cut Energy and jsut transfer all these programs to other departments? What would that accomplish. Or do you actually want to eliminate these programs?

 

[MongoTheGeek]

He is a pitful example.
Under Government and Military budget rules, it has been a use it or lose it world. If a Navy squadron did not use all of its fuel by Sept 30th, they had little justification for more the next year (picking on the Navy, all branches were/are as bad). So what would they do? For years (not anymore) they would launch the planes with full fuel on the 30th, and they would climb up and dump it. Yes dump it, cause in the Government world of smarts, this is how the budget works. INSANITY RULES.
Please view my post in the political thread on the Dept of Education, and methods they have used over the decades to reduce effecientcy and waste billions.

Yeah. A lot of the government works like that. Honestly if I ran the zoo, I would cancel all orders placed and money spent some arbitrary number of days before the 30th.

 

[stubeeef]

OK. Some of the things you are cutting:
$9.0 billion for the national security activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration to include maintaining the safety, security, reliability and effectiveness of the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile; preventing the spread of materials, information, and technology of weapons of mass destruction by eliminating or securing nuclear materials and related infrastructure and providing the U.S. Navy with safe, effective nuclear propulsion plants.

Strategic Petroleum reserve (didn't find price tag)

$7.4 billion for nuclear waste site cleanup and construction. The government is responsible for disposing of the spent nuclear fuel generated by civilian nuclear power plants, government nuclear reactor facilities, and the high-level waste from the Nation’s defense activities.

$5.8 billion for research into different types of energy resources (clean coal, hydrogen fuel, nuclear and fusion power, etc.

$ 91 million to modernize and expand the Nation’s electricity delivery system and reduce the likelihood and impact of disruptions and blackouts.

$291 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program in order to cut the utility bills of 1.2 million low-income families while conserving energy. (that one's about efficiency, by the way)

$43 million for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) to accelerate assistance to those DOE contract employees and their survivors who have served our Nation as part of the nuclear weapons complex and suffered an illness because of exposure to toxic substances during such service.

OK. So do you actually want to cut Energy and jsut transfer all these programs to other departments? What would that accomplish. Or do you actually want to eliminate these programs?

Dept of Energy was not created to do almost everything it now does.
discussion and solution

 

[stubeeef]

Mongo, I Was just having this discussion with a Navy Skipper, who told me one change they had was to return funds of unused fuel in a fund that the CO could use for other improvement programs, like upfitting some Morale quarters, or new working uniforms, etc....
I would like to see commanders be rewarded with a rating, similar to a credit rating, that would give them clout when they needed more. If this person had been lean and mean in the past, and is now asking for more, lets believe them, subject to documentation of the need.
Making money move from 1 pot to another is essential to maintain good financial success. Right now my reserve unit is running short of training funds for enlisted but is fat on funds for officers, but cannot cross dip. It is a nutz system. The extra money may get returned and redispersed at a higher level, and that will be more effiecent.

 

[miloblithe]

Here are your beloved CAGW suggestions:

1) Privatize Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs). PMAs were established in the 1930s to provide remote areas of the country with access to electricity. The electricity provided by PMAs is sold well below the actual cost of production; the federal government makes up the difference through subsidies.

2) Terminate all applied research and development programs within the energy supply conservation account. Opponents of this program claim that DOE may actually be crowding out private investment and that many of these programs are ideal for private industry.

3) Terminate all research and development activities in the fossil energy account (which are intended to help the coal, oil, and gas industries maintain their market share). This program has turned into a corporate handout to the multibillion-dollar oil companies to develop technologies from which they will ultimately benefit financially.

4) Rescind the $350 million in unobligated balances in the Clean Coal Technology account. The Clean Coal Technology Program was created in 1984 to assist private industry with developing commercial technologies that would use coal in environmentally sound ways. The GAO has cited numerous demonstration projects that are experiencing difficulty in meeting cost, schedule, and performance goals. DOE has been more than generous to participating companies by extending project deadlines several times to allow their sponsors to restructure them. It is time for that generosity to end.

5) Corporatize DOE's labs. This recommendation would create a board, comprised of academics and DOE and private-sector experts, that would oversee the labs. The labs would still be federally owned, but they would attempt to diversify their client base. Over time, a growing percentage of their business would be non-DOE work, in essence privatizing the labs.

1) Rural subsidies are many. Unsubsidized, the US will have few farms and virtually no small towns. They just aren't economically viable without redistributive intervention. However, do you think America would be better off with even more overcrowding into cities and suburbs and less domestic agricultural production capacity?

2) Do you really believe that government funding for research into non-fossil fuel energy sources "crouds out private investment"? Industries that require massive start-up costs are difficult to get off the ground without government intervention (investment). Many technological advances begin as government (often military) projects. Are you enjoying the Internet? No private investor could have developed nuclear power. And so on and so on.

3) Fine by me, but I'm one of those greenies who's anti-coal. Oil companies should have incentive into improving oil technologies. On the other hand, there are technologies that oil comanies don't necessarily have incentive to research, such as cleaner-burning fuels, safer transportation, etc.

4) same

5) Sounds interesting. The potential pitfall is that the government sounds like it would lose its ability to direct research, leaving our energy research (not to mention policy) in the hands of giant corporations that are interested in pursuing their own profits. That's fine when their profits and the national interest coincide, but when they don't it means that government support is hijacked for corporate gain and taxpayer expense (to whatever degree, see 3 and 4, in my opinion).


So, which of these five points to you agree with. Everything else was just transferring responsibilities to other departments, which is not likely to save money. You'd just be transplanting one beaurocracy within another. It's not like the military could take on the DOE's nuclear safeguarding responsibilities without adding a new beaurocracy (undoubtedly the one that already exists) to handle the job.

 

[stubeeef]

So, which of these five points to you agree with. Everything else was just transferring responsibilities to other departments, which is not likely to save money. You'd just be transplanting one beaurocracy within another. It's not like the military could take on the DOE's nuclear safeguarding responsibilities without adding a new beaurocracy (undoubtedly the one that already exists) to handle the job.

Won't bother me to take them all.
Dual beaurocracies have not only dual costs, but overlaping costs to the organization being regulated. How can you say eliminating a Cabinet level dept will not likely save money? That needs some expounding, without the government self gratifying speak.

 

[miloblithe]

I was just thinking more about cutting programs and why that's a difficult proposition:

Say you have a government that does two things: thing A and thing B. Each are pretty popular. I this country there are 99 people, and 66 are firm supporters of the government doing thing A. The other 33 believe that government shouldn't do thing A for some combination of moral or philosophical or selfish reasons. In the end though, the majority supports it, so thing A is done. Thing B is equally popular. 66 people support it and 33 people oppose it. Majority wins. Taxes are collected and the governemnt does thing A and thing B. Let's also assume that thing A and thing B fall on opposite sides of some kind of spectrum, so there are no people who oppose thing A who also oppose thing B. Let's also assume things A and B cost the same amount.

So what's the end result:

There are 33 people who like that the government does thing A but want the government not to do thing B, which would cut their tax bill in half.

There are 33 people who are perfectly happy. They like that their government does thing A and thing B and feel that their taxes are well spent.

There are 33 people who like that the government does thing B but want the government not to do thing A, which would cut their tax bill in half.

In total, 66 people want the government to be reduced in size so they can pay fewer taxes. However, even though most people want the government to be smaller, there are no programs to cut because every program enjoys majority support.

I think this is a lot like what happens in real life. Everyone could find programs that they would like to cut, but there are lots of people who want those programs to continue. Also, there are some programs that a majority of people might cut, but only because they don't really understand what the program does. That is why we have leaders and experts who may understand that a program is necessary while most people might not. This is understandable for small programs. And large program, the government should be actively explaining.
What I mean by this is not to say that there are absolutely no programs that could or should be cut, just that there are far fewer than any _one_ person might suggest.



"Dual beaurocracies have not only dual costs, but overlaping costs to the organization being regulated."

Well, some of their costs may be dual, but the majority would not be. Also, in some cases the costs of a merger can be higher than the efficiency saved by downsizing certain jobs. (Think about monopoly power and the inneficiencies that causes). Certainly you'll save on only having to design one logo, but you'll also lose on the political efficiency of dividing important aspects of governance up into different voices. Think about the cabinet. Is the cabinet likely to be effective (provide input to the president from important sectors of the economy/military/etc) if it is consolidated into too few voices? Likewise, if there are too many voices, the cabinet wouldnt' be able to do its job either. The question is are energy concerns themselves important enough to merit cabinet-level attention or are they acceptably rolled into other agencies that may regard energy as a relatively low priority. Other than cutting some degree of the high level of the beaurocracy, the rest of the program would likely have to be staffed by all the people currently staffing it.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

Mongo, I Was just having this discussion with a Navy Skipper, who told me one change they had was to return funds of unused fuel in a fund that the CO could use for other improvement programs, like upfitting some Morale quarters, or new working uniforms, etc....
I would like to see commanders be rewarded with a rating, similar to a credit rating, that would give them clout when they needed more. If this person had been lean and mean in the past, and is now asking for more, lets believe them, subject to documentation of the need.
Making money move from 1 pot to another is essential to maintain good financial success. Right now my reserve unit is running short of training funds for enlisted but is fat on funds for officers, but cannot cross dip. It is a nutz system. The extra money may get returned and redispersed at a higher level, and that will be more effiecent.

It sounds good to me. Perhaps not all of the money to improvement programs and transferring to improvements would be dependent on meeting readiness goals. If you save $1M on fuel but not all pilots have the needed flight time then no Playstation3 and Plasma TV for the Rec Hall.

Shuffling money between pots is a Good Thing but politically difficult with the entrenched bureaucracies.

 

[aloofman]

I think this is a lot like what happens in real life. Everyone could find programs that they would like to cut, but there are lots of people who want those programs to continue. Also, there are some programs that a majority of people might cut, but only because they don't really understand what the program does. That is why we have leaders and experts who may understand that a program is necessary while most people might not. This is understandable for small programs. And large program, the government should be actively explaining.
What I mean by this is not to say that there are absolutely no programs that could or should be cut, just that there are far fewer than any _one_ person might suggest.

There's a lot of truth to this and you're not the first person to notice it. I had a poli-sci professor who proclaimed that "majority rules" works in representative democracies only if it's a different majority on each issue. If one group is getting screwed every single time, it will have less incentive to work within the political system at all. Revolutions can start this way.

There's also the power of bureaucratic and political inertia. Once a government agency is created, it has employees, infrastructure, lobbying groups, political appointees, and entanglements with other agencies and departments. At some point this agency gets big enough that it's easier to keep it going than to try to change it. Often it requires overwhelming political support to do so.

Politicians also have an interest in creating government agencies, even those with legitimate purposes. They can claim they're doing something for their constituents, and have something tangible to hang their hat on come election time. It's much harder for an incumbent to say, "I saved taxpayers $500 million" than it is to claim credit for that gleaming government building in your district that hires local workers. Military bases are classic examples of this. And have you ever wondered why NASA's Mission Control center is in Houston instead of at Cape Canaveral where the launchpads are? Guess which state LBJ was from? And wow, it's now called the Johnson Space Center too....

 

[MongoTheGeek]

In total, 66 people want the government to be reduced in size so they can pay fewer taxes. However, even though most people want the government to be smaller, there are no programs to cut because every program enjoys majority support.

I think this is a lot like what happens in real life.

Close but in reality its 50 programs each supported by 2 people out of 100.

Or perhaps a dozen out of 435.

Well, some of their costs may be dual, but the majority would not be. Also, in some cases the costs of a merger can be higher than the efficiency saved by downsizing certain jobs. (Think about monopoly power and the inneficiencies that causes). Certainly you'll save on only having to design one logo, but you'll also lose on the political efficiency of dividing important aspects of governance up into different voices. Think about the cabinet. Is the cabinet likely to be effective (provide input to the president from important sectors of the economy/military/etc) if it is consolidated into too few voices? Likewise, if there are too many voices, the cabinet wouldnt' be able to do its job either. The question is are energy concerns themselves important enough to merit cabinet-level attention or are they acceptably rolled into other agencies that may regard energy as a relatively low priority. Other than cutting some degree of the high level of the beaurocracy, the rest of the program would likely have to be staffed by all the people currently staffing it.

Different voices cause more trouble.
Knocking out a cabinet position is a quarter mill. Taking out their staff and perks starts quickly adding up.

As for ideal size... 6-8. Anything more than that and people can't handle it well and meetings degenerate anything fewer than that and the leader person starts doing all the work.

Yes if the DOE gets cannibalized into other departments, war, commerce and interior then the DOE staff will likely preferentially get the ax. I don't know if there have been studies done as the best way to do the purge.

 

[miloblithe]

Close but in reality its 50 programs each supported by 2 people out of 100.

Or perhaps a dozen out of 435.

Different voices cause more trouble.
Knocking out a cabinet position is a quarter mill. Taking out their staff and perks starts quickly adding up.

As for ideal size... 6-8. Anything more than that and people can't handle it well and meetings degenerate anything fewer than that and the leader person starts doing all the work.

Yes if the DOE gets cannibalized into other departments, war, commerce and interior then the DOE staff will likely preferentially get the ax. I don't know if there have been studies done as the best way to do the purge.

Well, actually it's like thousands of programs some supported by large majorities some by small ones some opposed many unheard of.

As for 6-8, what are you basing this on? Opinion? A guess? Meetings in general? A country is more complicated than a taco factory.

 

[hoyboy9]

Kinda silly to say the Dem's are expanding federal power in the face of the latest republican activity.

Federal power used to keep a women on life support.

People in colorado and the rockies having their land torn up so natural gas companies can drill. here

Then we all know about the patriot act and it limiting our individual rights, in the name of expanding federal power.

Trying to limit individual rights, in the name of "saving the sanctity of marriage" Just like you say later, you dont need uncle sam dictating to you what you can and cant do, just leave ya alone.

Anyway, just dont like blanket statements, and singled you out, sorry.

You're absolutely right, Altair. However, the general gist of my post was that I am very unhappy with BOTH parties right now. I just picked a couple issues on each side that are annoying me right now. I guess I should have leveled my criticism of both parties more heavily and equally. ;-)

3) Fine by me, but I'm one of those greenies who's anti-coal. Oil companies should have incentive into improving oil technologies. On the other hand, there are technologies that oil comanies don't necessarily have incentive to research, such as cleaner-burning fuels, safer transportation, etc.

As a chemical engineer, I'm here to tell you that you shouldn't fear coal as much as you do. The reason for this is newer flue gas treatment technologies. Basically, take your run-of-the-mill coal fired plant, with the huge polluting smokestakes. Now, divert all of the gas coming off the smokestack and run it into a gas treatment facility. There are some amazing new technologies out there to completely clean this up. For example, take GreenFuel's new technology.

GreenFuel

They have a process that takes flue gas and turns it into BIODIESEL, using algae bioreactors. The leftover gas is harmless, and can be vented directly to the atmosphere.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

As for 6-8, what are you basing this on? Opinion? A guess? Meetings in general? A country is more complicated than a taco factory.

6-8 is what the military uses to organize. Its also the size of a patrol in Boy Scouts. Its also been proven out in game theory. Usefully its also the average persons "stack size" The number of items that they can concentrate on at one time.

Yes the US government is more complicated than a taco factory but the level of abstraction at the top is higher as well. He needs a good sense of the general purpose of each department and a good understanding of the leaders. Carters biggest problem was trying to run everything himself. No president since Hoover attempted that level of micromanagement.

Its been said that the last person to know everything was Leibnitz back in the 1600s. Napolean was the last person to run a whole war.

 

[stubeeef]

6-8 is what the military uses to organize. Its also the size of a patrol in Boy Scouts. Its also been proven out in game theory. Usefully its also the average persons "stack size" The number of items that they can concentrate on at one time.

Yes the US government is more complicated than a taco factory but the level of abstraction at the top is higher as well. He needs a good sense of the general purpose of each department and a good understanding of the leaders. Carters biggest problem was trying to run everything himself. No president since Hoover attempted that level of micromanagement.

Its been said that the last person to know everything was Leibnitz back in the 1600s. Napolean was the last person to run a whole war.

You rock!

 

[Josh396]

You rock!

I agree.. you know your stuff mongo

 

[MongoTheGeek]

I agree.. you know your stuff mongo

I know some of my stuff...

I know when to google for the rest

I remembered from my History of Science class in HS that there was someone who was the last person to know everything and that after that the volume of human knowledge was just so great that no one person could know it all. Google told me it was Leibnitz.

Napoleon came from World History in 10th grade.