The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

That's been a big mantra I put on this board before. Truth in Legislation act. A bill should be self-explanatory. Transportation bills shouldn't include money for museums. And this stiumuls package should be at least segregated by area - energy, transportation, tax breaks, etc.

 

I wouldn't mind that, but I would much rather see a line item veto if given the choice.

[Texsox]

I wouldn't mind that, but I would much rather see a line item veto if given the choice.

 

That would cause a seismic shift in Washington, and one I'd like to see. The grease is what gets both sides to agree, but what costs us in additional programs. It never is your program or mine. It always becomes let's do both! And bill the grand kids.

 

Image the negotiations when one side knows the President could veto the very concession that was made to get bipartisan cooperation.

[southsider2k5]

That would cause a seismic shift in Washington, and one I'd like to see. The grease is what gets both sides to agree, but what costs us in additional programs. It never is your program or mine. It always becomes let's do both! And bill the grand kids.

 

Image the negotiations when one side knows the President could veto the very concession that was made to get bipartisan cooperation.

 

If it really was that important to both sides, they could easily override the veto. Most of the time those "cooperations" mean stuffing some extras into a bill to bribe the other side to agree to it. That is what I want to end.

[Texsox]

If it really was that important to both sides, they could easily override the veto. Most of the time those "cooperations" mean stuffing some extras into a bill to bribe the other side to agree to it. That is what I want to end.

 

Agreed. But now think about negotiating when you know the President may be pressured to veto the stuffing? The other thing that gets weird is sometimes the stuffing is a better expense than what is in the bill already.

 

Where this gets ugly.

 

"Will your President support this item or will it get veto'd?"

"We have the White House on board"

"OK, bring it for a vote"

 

"this will never pass again"

[lostfan]

Expansion of executive power, which is an unacceptable compromise IMO. No thanks.

[southsider2k5]

Agreed. But now think about negotiating when you know the President may be pressured to veto the stuffing? The other thing that gets weird is sometimes the stuffing is a better expense than what is in the bill already.

 

Where this gets ugly.

 

"Will your President support this item or will it get veto'd?"

"We have the White House on board"

"OK, bring it for a vote"

 

"this will never pass again"

 

I don't care about the political points. I care about carving out the billions of dollars in extras that get used to grease the system. Ideally I would like to see it removed as a means of "compromise" and instead would have congress actually voting on the merits of a bill, instead of what bribes they received.

[StrangeSox]

Expansion of executive power, which is an unacceptable compromise IMO. No thanks.

 

Yeah, line-item vetoes make me really uncomfortable. It's nice to think of the President cutting pork, but we all know it would be heavily abused. And what if the pork comes from his own party? Why would Obama want to line-item anything in his own bloated stimulus package?

Edited January 28, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

I don't care about the political points. I care about carving out the billions of dollars in extras that get used to grease the system. Ideally I would like to see it removed as a means of "compromise" and instead would have congress actually voting on the merits of a bill, instead of what bribes they received.

 

Exactly. But also remember it is how some good stuff gets passed by the minority party. For example, the GOP would have problems getting things they want through right now. So they wait until the Dems need them, and tack it on. This could be things that we agree with. I would dislike seeing the GOP neutered for the next two years.

[Cknolls]

More change we can believe in But this change I think I like:

 

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/2...term-cia-sites/

[lostfan]

Not sure else to post this, but Obama obviously hasn't memorized the layout of the White House yet and tried to go thru a window thinking it was a door. Made me chuckle.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You want to cut some government waste? Here is a target rich environment - the Postal Service.

 

The mail has basically no competition, and should be run at cost. Plain and simple. And yet, this agency actually spends all kinds of money on advertising. Seriously - they spend 9 figures a year on advertising. That is 100% waste, right there.

 

And this year, the USPS may need to cut back service because they are so deep in the hole. The provision of necessary government services should charge what they cost - not more, not less. Its really damn simple. If they can't make their expectations, then raise the prices. If fewer people use it... GOOD. That is less money going to a government agency, and probably some of it goes to other areas of the private sector.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Not sure else to post this, but Obama obviously hasn't memorized the layout of the White House yet and tried to go thru a window thinking it was a door. Made me chuckle.

 

Put Bush in that situation instead and you have talk show fodder for a month. With Obama? Not so much.

[kapkomet]

You want to cut some government waste? Here is a target rich environment - the Postal Service.

 

The mail has basically no competition, and should be run at cost. Plain and simple. And yet, this agency actually spends all kinds of money on advertising. Seriously - they spend 9 figures a year on advertising. That is 100% waste, right there.

 

And this year, the USPS may need to cut back service because they are so deep in the hole. The provision of necessary government services should charge what they cost - not more, not less. Its really damn simple. If they can't make their expectations, then raise the prices. If fewer people use it... GOOD. That is less money going to a government agency, and probably some of it goes to other areas of the private sector.

Really?

 

[lostfan]

Really?

I would argue that the USPS advertises because they have solid competition.

[kapkomet]

I would argue that the USPS advertises because they have solid competition.

Yes, they do. I worked in that side of the business for a pretty long while.

 

[mr_genius]

 

Edited January 29, 2009 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

Yes, they do. I worked in that side of the business for a pretty long while.

 

For a basic letter I'd imagine they'd be hard to beat, but for any sort of bulk packaging I usually think of UPS or FedEx first.

[Balta1701]

I would argue that the USPS advertises because they have solid competition.

The issue I think I'd take with that is that I'm pretty sure by law the only people allowed to put things in your mailbox are your USPS letter carriers. Other services can bring things to your door, but in terms of mail, that's something of an enforced monopoly.

[lostfan]

The issue I think I'd take with that is that I'm pretty sure by law the only people allowed to put things in your mailbox are your USPS letter carriers. Other services can bring things to your door, but in terms of mail, that's something of an enforced monopoly.

But they don't advertise going "hey, we're the USPS, we can mail your letters!" and if I had to guess without being informed, I imagine the cost of stamps doesn't turn a profit for them either. They advertise the services they compete with.

[hawksfan61]

I have done a lot of work for the post office, more on the technical side, but its pretty interesting to get a glimpse into their operations. The post office has generally turned a profit, outside of the last year or two with the explosion of fuel costs which has greatly impacted their operations. They make their hay off of bulk mail and packages, on that Christmas card to Grandma I can almost guarantee their losing. I have been in a lot of USPS facilities, and I don't think most people realize how big an agency it really is and how many people they employ. They are one of the few "government" institutions that I don't think could be beat by private enterprise in the cost effectiveness and quality of their service. UPS may be great at delivering my stuff from Amazon, but something tells me they could be a lot less efficient at delivering my Aunt's birthday card.

[kapkomet]

I have done a lot of work for the post office, more on the technical side, but its pretty interesting to get a glimpse into their operations. The post office has generally turned a profit, outside of the last year or two with the explosion of fuel costs which has greatly impacted their operations. They make their hay off of bulk mail and packages, on that Christmas card to Grandma I can almost guarantee their losing. I have been in a lot of USPS facilities, and I don't think most people realize how big an agency it really is and how many people they employ. They are one of the few "government" institutions that I don't think could be beat by private enterprise in the cost effectiveness and quality of their service. UPS may be great at delivering my stuff from Amazon, but something tells me they could be a lot less efficient at delivering my Aunt's birthday card.

I've also worked extensively for the USPS and done some heavy contract analysis for business done with them (especially Christmas, called CNET) HASP, WNET, etc.

 

It's not as bloated as you would think. I'll leave it at that.

[hawksfan61]

I've also worked extensively for the USPS and done some heavy contract analysis for business done with them (especially Christmas, called CNET) HASP, WNET, etc.

 

It's not as bloated as you would think. I'll leave it at that.

 

I don't doubt for a second they aren't that bloated. They have tons of employees and thousands of facilites, but its because they handle an enourmous volume of mail. I had a negative view of the post office before I got a look behind the scenes.

[kapkomet]

I don't doubt for a second they aren't that bloated. They have tons of employees and thousands of facilites, but its because they handle an enourmous volume of mail. I had a negative view of the post office before I got a look behind the scenes.

I need to choose my words carefully about this subject. They aren't THAT bloated, but there's some places where it's pretty fat.

 

[santo=dorf]

Put Bush in that situation instead and you have talk show fodder for a month. With Obama? Not so much.

Like this?

[hawksfan61]

I need to choose my words carefully about this subject. They aren't THAT bloated, but there's some places where it's pretty fat.

 

They are kind of a government agency, although technically they have been de-coupled from government legally for a little while now, a certain amount of bloating is assumed