The Republican Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

It appears that your new RNC chair, replacing Steele, will likely be Rience Priebus.

 

[Balta1701]

It appears that your new RNC chair, replacing Steele, will likely be Rience Priebus.

Announcing his departure, Steele told his party, "And now, I exit stage right." He then proceeded to exit stage left.

[Jenksismyhero]

Doubt it gets done, but yay! I'd also be in favor of more defense cuts, but this is a start.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whis...n-spending-cuts

 

 

[Balta1701]

Doubt it gets done, but yay! I'd also be in favor of more defense cuts, but this is a start.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whis...n-spending-cuts

At least we know you're still not serious enough to care about the deficit. Pretending a "non-binding spending freeze at 2006 levels" is practical? Ha. Not just politically practical. You actually can't do it. You'd have to give up plenty of prized homeland security programs. And then pretending that there's no inflation (and hence having a couple percent cut per year)?

[Balta1701]

Let me ask a different way to try to illustrate how lazy, silly, and un-serious "across the board" spending freezes like that are.

 

Are you in favor of cutting the budget for enforcement of immigration along the southern border by 50% this year?

 

The budget for that project has been boosted by nearly 100%, from about $10 billion to about $20 billion, since 2006.

[Jenksismyhero]

Balta, what you fail to grasp in these arguments is that these decisions don't happen in a vaccum. It's not just cutting or freezing spending and then stepping away. That's one step out of many. Unlike the morons in Illinois, you pass legislation to deal with the spending and THEN you figure out a way to work going forward.

 

I'd be fine with cuts in Homeland security. s***, I'd be fine with scrapping the entire worthless department. We have national intelligence agencies. Cut Homeland Security and divert a portion of the budget to those agencies that already exist. Problem solved. No need to waste billions and billions on this bulls*** security theater.

 

And yeah, I'd be fine cutting the border protection spending, if at the same time we enact laws like the one they tried to pass in Arizona. Make it absolutely crippling to do business with illegal immigrants.

 

There's a million things I'd do IN ADDITION to spending freezes and cuts.

[Balta1701]

Balta, what you fail to grasp in these arguments is that these decisions don't happen in a vaccum. It's not just cutting or freezing spending and then stepping away. That's one step out of many. Unlike the morons in Illinois, you pass legislation to deal with the spending and THEN you figure out a way to work going forward.

This has never worked and will never work. It's pretending. You can't cut something if you're not willing to say what you're cutting. It's like when Bush cut taxes dramatically and how that effectively starved the beast and forced all sorts of cuts (that never actually happened).

And yeah, I'd be fine cutting the border protection spending, if at the same time we enact laws like the one they tried to pass in Arizona. Make it absolutely crippling to do business with illegal immigrants.

Of course...somehow, you have to enforce these rules. Which is where a lot of the new spending went...employment enforcement efforts. So, you want to cut back on the enforcement efforts and expand the enforcement efforts.

[Jenksismyhero]

This has never worked and will never work. It's pretending. You can't cut something if you're not willing to say what you're cutting. It's like when Bush cut taxes dramatically and how that effectively starved the beast and forced all sorts of cuts (that never actually happened).

Of course...somehow, you have to enforce these rules. Which is where a lot of the new spending went...employment enforcement efforts. So, you want to cut back on the enforcement efforts and expand the enforcement efforts.

 

What more do you need than reducing the budget for X department? They don't have to say what they're cutting (and/or not spending in the future), let the department head figure out the details.

 

And you really don't. You could double or triple the size of your employment audit force. 35k a year to a college graduate. Employ 100 of them, whatever, it's cheap. You don't need to spend a gazillion dollars to do this. And it's like any law you try to enforce, you're never going to get everyone, but if you get enough you change people's attitudes. You make them choose whether saving x amount every year is worth losing their entire business. The key is making the penalty so severe that people aren't going to take the risk of getting caught. And if employers aren't hiring here, there's no illegal immigration anymore, cuz there's no point.

 

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

What more do you need than reducing the budget for X department? They don't have to say what they're cutting (and/or not spending in the future), let the department head figure out the details.

 

If you just give an "x dollars" or "x%" cut figure, you don't know what you're cutting. You're not really examining efficiency and necessity of programs.

 

And you really don't. You could double or triple the size of your employment audit force. 35k a year to a college graduate. Employ 100 of them, whatever, it's cheap. You don't need to spend a gazillion dollars to do this. And it's like any law you try to enforce, you're never going to get everyone, but if you get enough you change people's attitudes. You make them choose whether saving x amount every year is worth losing their entire business. The key is making the penalty so severe that people aren't going to take the risk of getting caught. And if employers aren't hiring here, there's no illegal immigration anymore, cuz there's no point.

 

But this brings us back to the whole problem of causing stigma against hiring anyone who is an immigrant or might be an immigrant. How far does a company have to go to do due diligence to verify someone's visa or SSN is legitimate? How much more is that going to cost them than hiring someone with no potential immigrant ambiguity?

 

You're also putting an expensive burden on any small businesses who may want to hire for low-wage jobs (typically what illegal immigrants are getting). Will a general contractor go through the time and effort to verify a bunch of laborers' backgrounds extensively at the risk of expensive litigation/fines, or will they just pass them over and hire the white guy who was born and raised here?

 

This just creates a massive government program with no funding and shifts the burden to business at the risk of severe penalties.

Edited January 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

If you just give an "x dollars" or "x%" cut figure, you don't know what you're cutting. You're not really examining efficiency and necessity of programs.

 

 

 

But this brings us back to the whole problem of causing stigma against hiring anyone who is an immigrant or might be an immigrant. How far does a company have to go to do due diligence to verify someone's visa or SSN is legitimate? How much more is that going to cost them than hiring someone with no potential immigrant ambiguity?

 

You're also putting an expensive burden on any small businesses who may want to hire for low-wage jobs (typically what illegal immigrants are getting). Will a general contractor go through the time and effort to verify a bunch of laborers' backgrounds extensively at the risk of expensive litigation/fines, or will they just pass them over and hire the white guy who was born and raised here?

 

This just creates a massive government program with no funding and shifts the burden to business at the risk of severe penalties.

 

I fail to see why it's not sufficient for Congress to submit it's budget with a 20% across the board reduction or whatever to X department. You give the head of that department a heads up that he's going to get X amount total for the year, he/she will make the necessary changes. Congress doesn't need to appropriate a specific amount of staples the Department of Health and Human Services can purchase in order to effectuate a cut in government spending.

 

How is that causing a stigma? You put the onus on the employer to do whatever they can to ensure they're hiring a legally documented worker. If they get stuck with fakes, then so be it, that's not actionable. I don't think it would be anymore expensive than it is right now for employers who already do a lot of that work. Who doesn't take copies of that information from potential employers? Can we not create (if it isn't already) a database to SS#'s and names just to double check? There's going to be people that get by, sure.

 

Again though, the important part is the penalty. It's what happens if you get caught. I don't think we should force businesses to be scared so much that they won't hire anyone who looks like they're illegal, but I think you could create a plan which is fair to everyone involved. There are people out there knowingly hiring illegals. Those are the people i'm concerned about.

 

And i've always said, shore up the job situation and you don't need a fence. If people can't make money here, they won't come here. They'll invade Canada.

 

[StrangeSox]

I fail to see why it's not sufficient for Congress to submit it's budget with a 20% across the board reduction or whatever to X department. You give the head of that department a heads up that he's going to get X amount total for the year, he/she will make the necessary changes. Congress doesn't need to appropriate a specific amount of staples the Department of Health and Human Services can purchase in order to effectuate a cut in government spending.

 

How do you know if that 20% makes any sense at all, or if it will leave the department of X in shambles and functionally inoperable?

 

How is that causing a stigma? You put the onus on the employer to do whatever they can to ensure they're hiring a legally documented worker. If they get stuck with fakes, then so be it, that's not actionable. I don't think it would be anymore expensive than it is right now for employers who already do a lot of that work. Who doesn't take copies of that information from potential employers? Can we not create (if it isn't already) a database to SS#'s and names just to double check? There's going to be people that get by, sure.

 

Again though, the important part is the penalty. It's what happens if you get caught. I don't think we should force businesses to be scared so much that they won't hire anyone who looks like they're illegal, but I think you could create a plan which is fair to everyone involved. There are people out there knowingly hiring illegals. Those are the people i'm concerned about.

 

I think you'd need to actually describe (at a high level, not detail) a hypothetical system, how checks would be performed, how it'd be enforced and what the penalties would be. The stigma against remotely-potentially-illegal workers depends on exactly what employers have to check and what penalties they face even if they make good-faith efforts (but the government believes and prosecutes otherwise). If hiring someone from Mexico who you believe to be legal exposes you to significant liability, the Mexican is at a severe disadvantage to someone born a US citizen.

 

And i've always said, shore up the job situation and you don't need a fence. If people can't make money here, they won't come here. They'll invade Canada.

 

I think you sort of have that backwards, though. Barring the most recent and current economic situation, there's a supply-demand issue due to immigration laws. The only way to shore up the job situation is to staff those jobs with legal immigrants, migrants or citizens, but that doesn't seem possible given current immigration laws.

Edited January 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I can tell you this, my company went through a spending cut this last year, and every department was REQUIRED to cut spending by 20%, which included quite a few hard decisions as well as some re-educating people on more efficient methods of doing their daily jobs. It's funny private industry can do this whenever necessary, but the government cannot...

[StrangeSox]

Seems like a way for upper management to pass the buck of making hard decisions without actually examining if some departments are over-performing or under-performing.

[Y2HH]

Seems like a way for upper management to pass the buck of making hard decisions without actually examining if some departments are over-performing or under-performing.

 

No, what it seems like is how the real world operates.

 

As for "upper management" not wanting to make "hard decisions", they laid off about 12 executives. So, so much for that as an excuse, eh?

Edited January 21, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

In good times, do companies perform "Across the board" investments? That would make no more sense than across the board cuts. It might not make sense to cut every single department by 20%--maybe some can really only afford a 15% without it significantly impacting functionality, but another could absorb 25%. "Dumb" cuts still just pass the responsibility of detailed analysis and may hurt the company more than analytical cuts.

[Jenksismyhero]

How do you know if that 20% makes any sense at all, or if it will leave the department of X in shambles and functionally inoperable?

 

 

 

I think you'd need to actually describe (at a high level, not detail) a hypothetical system, how checks would be performed, how it'd be enforced and what the penalties would be. The stigma against remotely-potentially-illegal workers depends on exactly what employers have to check and what penalties they face even if they make good-faith efforts (but the government believes and prosecutes otherwise). If hiring someone from Mexico who you believe to be legal exposes you to significant liability, the Mexican is at a severe disadvantage to someone born a US citizen.

 

 

 

I think you sort of have that backwards, though. Barring the most recent and current economic situation, there's a supply-demand issue due to immigration laws. The only way to shore up the job situation is to staff those jobs with legal immigrants, migrants or citizens, but that doesn't seem possible given current immigration laws.

 

 

20% was a made up figure. They can speak with department heads and figure out a percent to cut based on whatever criteria they come up.

 

I'm not sure what the system is. I'm just throwing out an alternative to Balta's BS "cutting government spending never works because you're a conservative and conservatives don't like the idea of cutting border control" argument.

 

Illegals are taking a lot of jobs no? They're keeping wages low. Get rid of them, employers are forced to pay reasonable wages and people will fill them.

[Jenksismyhero]

In good times, do companies perform "Across the board" investments? That would make no more sense than across the board cuts. It might not make sense to cut every single department by 20%--maybe some can really only afford a 15% without it significantly impacting functionality, but another could absorb 25%. "Dumb" cuts still just pass the responsibility of detailed analysis and may hurt the company more than analytical cuts.

 

I think most of the government programs in that list were programs where all the government has to decide is "do we hand out X or Y?" It's not a "how much money will we lose" analysis.

[Y2HH]

In good times, do companies perform "Across the board" investments? That would make no more sense than across the board cuts. It might not make sense to cut every single department by 20%--maybe some can really only afford a 15% without it significantly impacting functionality, but another could absorb 25%. "Dumb" cuts still just pass the responsibility of detailed analysis and may hurt the company more than analytical cuts.

 

Having to cut 20% doesn't mean you have to make "dumb" cuts at all. Especially after 10 straight years of NO cuts at all. After such a span of time of no cutting, it's EASY to come up with a mere 20%, anyone that cannot do so should fire themselves for being too stupid to run that section of a company.

 

And let's not even get into the government spending since they've never cut anything in their history...they should easily be able to come up with 20% across the board without even trying.

 

And yes, like an above poster said, the 20% figure isn't necessarily set in stone, it's just an example, but an example my company happened to implement.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

I think most of the government programs in that list were programs where all the government has to decide is "do we hand out X or Y?" It's not a "how much money will we lose" analysis.

 

Maybe significant cuts to domestic quality of life programs isn't a great idea during a substantial recession?

[Y2HH]

Maybe significant cuts to domestic quality of life programs isn't a great idea during a substantial recession?

 

Raising the IL taxes by 70% during a recession isn't a good idea either, but they did that...while telling us they're actually INCREASING spending.

[Jenksismyhero]

Maybe significant cuts to domestic quality of life programs isn't a great idea during a substantial recession?

 

Tough titties as they say. Everyone else has suffered, those people can take a hit too.

 

 

[Chet Lemon]

Brent Bozell, a longtime conservative activist who runs the Media Research Center, put it even more succinctly: “There are a number of candidates talking about running I could support — but if you were to ask me who turns me on, it’s Mike Pence.”

 

Bozell is part of the group of Washington-based Republicans pushing Pence who are getting organizational and media help from the conservative public relations firm CRC.

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/...l#ixzz1BhSjuEfU

[NorthSideSox72]

Across the board, all-department cuts of X% are ineffective and will make things worse, not better. You would be cutting 20% of some programs that actually help the economy and should be left alone... and cutting 20% of some agencies that should be cut 50% or eliminated all together. Its nonsensical, and the only reason its done in either the private sector of government is desperation and/or laziness.

 

[StrangeSox]

Tough titties as they say. Everyone else has suffered, those people can take a hit too.

 

Uh, I think the people relying on government aid for sustenance and housing feel some suffering regardless of the economic situation. Because of the current economic situation, more people are having to rely on these programs just to get by. Cutting them will hurt the people who can afford it least.

Edited January 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Across the board, all-department cuts of X% are ineffective and will make things worse, not better. You would be cutting 20% of some programs that actually help the economy and should be left alone... and cutting 20% of some agencies that should be cut 50% or eliminated all together. Its nonsensical, and the only reason its done in either the private sector of government is desperation and/or laziness.

 

Thank you.

 

Y2HH, I don't care if your company's management took the generally lazy, less-effective route instead of using this as an opportunity to cut inefficiencies and redundancies in the best possible way. Sure, when you make atb cuts, department heads are going to look to cut the waste out, so you may do some good. But you can also cut too much from departments, turning them non-functional or reducing their profitability. Or maybe Department X has 50% that can be cut (old methods, old technology, shrinking markets, etc.) while Department Y only really has 10% (newer tech, needs R&D money) they can cut without undermining their capabilities.