Being an Okie (educated there, anyway), I have to admit that there are a few things I like about Senator Coburn. His brutal honesty in matters like this is refreshing,...

sadly, I don't agree with ANY of his policies, but he is blunt and I like that about him.

Senator Coburn, the report does not make you all look like jackasses, it simply shows that you all are jackasses ....... if you spent as much time legislating and governing as you do raising funds and campaigning for the next election maybe ya'll would be better at your job!

You mean it makes them all look like Scott Walker?

Yes, indeed, it do.

Scott Walker: Closed to people. Open to business.

This is probably one of only a few times when I agree with Senator Coburn, it does make them all look like "jackasses". As Clara said, he says what he means and I also appreciate that.

Like the jackass comments!! That Coburn is blunt and we need more of that in Washington. Do what needs to be done and say what needs to be said.

Now, EVERYONE needs to sit back and really look at the facts. NOT what the media is reporting on only. The media will only tell you the story they want you to hear. Just like the posts regarding jobs; so much conflicting information out there regarding what happened under Bush and Obama. Guarantee that the "liberal" media is going to make Obama look like a saint and Bush like the devil. EVERYONE read the articles with a fine tooth comb as it's not the real picture. The media likes to create hate and discontent; they are fear mongers.

I have the feeling that Sen. Coburn was getting ahead of the curve with his statement, and making hay while the sun shineth.

Regardless of his comments, however, the GAO report supposedly is to include concrete recommendations for addressing many of the problems listed. If so, it will become an extremely valuable technical tool that actually could result in tangible progress. This is the kind of practical, as opposed to ideological, approach to governing that the American public wants from Washington. Of course, there are going to be issues - turf wars, opposition from lawmakers whose districts are where the oxen get gored, and, naturally, the interests of those actually affected by proposed cuts or reforms.

One of the true tests of whether Congress - both parties - are "listening to the people" will be whether at the end any programs or benefits enjoyed by groups who make big political donations and spend tons on costly lobbyists are spared while others not so well-promoted bear the brunt. Ultimately, value delivered for dollar spent is one important measure, but so also are the public policy purposes behind some programs. If the cuts slash some kinds of important services but preserve breaks for business, then the truth again comes out.

This just in -- Dane County judge issues temporary restraining order to re-open the Wisconsin Capitol to protesters.

Scott Walker: Closed to people. Open for business. Paranoid. Unconstitutional.

Anna,

I like your new "signature". I'd buy that bumper sticker any day of the week.

It is interesting that only one party willingly identifies itself with the jackass.

There you go Anna M. - get out of the law and into the bumper sticker field. The culmination of all those witty statements.

Sounds good to me.

lhaselden-

Despite being re-elected last November with more than 70% of the vote, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has already announced that he will not seek a 3rd term.

You're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to Coburn.

Thank you, Spankster and Bryan. Like Walker, I'm now open for business.

But I'll need to add, "Loser in court."

Good thing all those incompetent public employees have competent lawyers.

Our former attorney general beats Walker's current attorney general. Sweet.

get out of the law and into the bumper sticker field.

Oh, pish, Spanky. You know you'd miss me. ;-)

I think the report really indicates for the support of Bill Gates and co. or Steve Jobs and co. (co. is small on purpose)

They need to get with a program, literally!

write the bill and forget about it! They need a realtime calculator!

Of course I'd miss you. Like I said before "your" side needs you around here to lend some actual credability. It is, afterall the side that brings us daily insights from Bev and Fiesty.

But as for prevailing on the TRO, that's not much of a victory, is it? So after today, when Walker "wins" what will the protestors do next? Give up and ramp up for next election, or head out and make more "Walker is...Hitler/Gaddfy/Mubarack" signs?

Also are you at all troubled by the $200 billion in "waste" found? After all wasn't it just yesterday that "your" side said any real cuts to the budget would mean people would literally die? Are those folks going recant and admit the budget is totally jacked up and indefensible? Of course not.

Has Trumka bought Obama a pair of comfortable walking shoes yet?

Spanky,

So an idiot calling an idiot an idiot!

Congratulations!

As I disrespect you I also call for RESPECT, you would not know what fire was if it wasn't for the people before you!

Sen. Tom Coburn (R) told a few reporters yesterday that the report "makes us all look like jackasses."

LOL, Tom, you think this report makes you look like jackasses? No, it's just more confirmation of what most of us already know.

2 words, TERM LIMITS

Simple solution to the problems in Washington.

Constitutional ammendment that has three sentences.

1. No congress person, or senator may serve more than 16 years.

2. No lawyer may be elected as a congress person or senator, or president.

No congress person or senator , as representatives of the citizens , may be paid more than the average wage in the United States.

This report sounds like it is proof that the Government is too big and, as I have posted many times before in need of thousands of cuts. When a Government creates 15 offices to do this job and 20 to do that and they are all doing the same job then they are obviously too big.

Also the Govt needs to go into each of its Departments and streamline. The Govt is still doing business the way they did it 50 years ago. Therefore the claim that they need all those Departments and all of those people to do them.

Obama chose Daley to be his Chief of Staff. Daley stated in his first days on the job how he would trim the Department of Commerce to approx 22,000 people and cut billions from their budget and make them much more effective than they are right now. Since then no new ideas from Daley and no action on his observations about his old Department.

Anybody on this sight that still thinks that the Govt should not be cut needs to have his or her head examined. Only an idiot would try to argue for a position so indefensible as the spending levels of our current Government.

These Offices and Departments need to be cut on top of the plans already made for cuts in the Budget. I know most on the left will argue that you can't go in and cut deeply into an entitlement program and not do it any harm. Right???? On the other hand wasn't all the left touting Obama's health care plan which was to be funded on the basis of cutting Medicare by $500-600 billion dollars?

Talk about flip flop. Obama can supposedly take hundreds of billions out of a program that benefits the elderly and the disabled and create another entitlement program and you are all for it. So the only way a cut is good is, not when it reduces spending but rather, when it is used to create another program where other people will have to pay for you another entitlement.

Cut them all by 10 % . All lets include congress salary and health care lets make that retro-active .

i am tired of hearing from the right ..we are broke it must be the dems fault.

i am tired of hearing from the left .. we are broke it must be the pubs fault .

Cut 10% from every last program .

No one should be surprised by the GAO report - the evil that Government brings to its citizens is its ability to self propgate. Redundant programs increase the size of the Federal workforce, adds levels of bureacracy and management but does at that point provide opportunities for upper mobility for the Federal workforce. The increased cost and wasted monies are a given.

Interestingly enough what propegates at the Federal level is often duplicated at the state and local level. Still waiting for the States and local GVT to do their own assetments of redundant programs, overlapping responsibilities and inflated GVT work force.

One reason there all these government jobs is cronyism. Making and giving government jobs as payment for party loyalty, and both parties are guilty of this. Cut all this waste and throw these bums out on their asses and let them find a job out in the real world like the rest of us instead of living on our dime.

Good deflection, Grand.

The truth is massive federal government spending on "public health" and "education" bureacracies is as inefficient and self-defeating as spending in other areas...

"As government expands, liberty contracts"

I'll agree that spending in these areas needs to be better used/controlled. But cutting it out entirely is never an answer - especially when the only reason to make those draconian cuts is to satisfy partisan pipe dreams and long standing vendettas against the bottom 99%.

Grand:

You and the rest of these Liberals need to stop touting Ed Shultz. He is the one that started all of this 99% talk. 99% of the people in America is not POOR. They are not broke.

Partisan pipe dreams??????? What is this Healthcare law that the Dems passed? What is the repeal of DADT? If those were not pipe dreams what were they?

If it was true about vendettas against 99% of the people in this country; the Dems would win EVERY election with 99% of the vote.

In politics for every lie, misinformation, or whatever that can be said about a Republican, there is a Democrat that the same thing can be said about. THEY ARE ALL POLITICIANS.

Yeah, they have a personal vendetta against the bottom 99%... That's getting old. Should be interesting to see Obama's response. I'm sure he will be unwilling to cut the jobs, but we will see. Too many believe today that the government is meant to provide jobs, instead of representing the people. If these jobs can be cut, they should be. It may sound cold, but it is not the responsibility of the government, and by extension the taxpayer, to provide jobs 10 that could be done by 3.

Nice try Bob.

The real truth is massive, duplicative federal government spending on "defense" bureaucracies are more inefficient than spending in other areas because it does not have a direct effect on the development of our workforce and it does not make our workforce more productive, in comparison to other areas...

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." I like Reagan quotes too... LOL.

InThe Middle (or should I say "off the derp cliff"):

Healthcare reform was a long overdue attempt to overhaul the state of health insurance and prescription drug coverage.

DADT repeal was an action to end legalized discrimination in the ranks of the military that resulted in the discharge of thousands of talented individuals that only wanted to serve America, at a cost of millions of dollars in lost training and resources. Repeal was also widely supported by the public, so if you think about it, repeal was a case of Congress doing what the people wanted.

Grand you missed the mark on this one. Do you honestly the report found all the waste? The report scratches the surface of our bloated government.
Obama will assure us that all this waste will end under his watchful eye but the fact is it will not. There is no competition and profit motive anywhere in the government and that includes education and public programs!

Hey, guys. By far the most important fact -- fact, not opinion -- is this: We don't have the money. The politicians in Washington have gotten us in so deep that now we must cut legitimate, effective programs in addition to the wasteful, corrupt programs. Sorry, the easy options are gone. The powers-that-be have mortgaged your future and it's time to pay up.... or go on a taxpayers strike, hmmm. Survive!

ChiCity

Yeah, they have a personal vendetta against the bottom 99%... That's getting old. Should be interesting to see Obama's response. I'm sure he will be unwilling to cut the jobs, but we will see. Too many believe today that the government is meant to provide jobs, instead of representing the people. If these jobs can be cut, they should be. It may sound cold, but it is not the responsibility of the government, and by extension the taxpayer, to provide jobs 10 that could be done by 3.

But, it's the government that is main player here. Have you seen the jobs created by multicorporations going across the sea? You know they'd rather send the jobs overseas because they have so much uncertainty here in the state. Pleease, people are hungry for work and that is certain!!!

Also It’s all about “when” the GOP promises of jobs creation will finally come to fruition

House Speaker Boehner it's been 55 days, 9 hours 52 mintues, and x seconds still we have 0, nada, zilch no jobs. Mr Boehner the next time you pick up your gravel can you tell us American when will there jobs?

http://whenarethejobs.com/

Therefore, you can't blame the President for taking initiative when it's the GOP/TeaBaggers influencing this paucity with their fears and smears against the President.

"Also It’s all about “when” the GOP promises of jobs creation will finally come to fruition..House Speaker Boehner it's been 55 days, 9 hours 52 mintues, and x seconds still we have 0, nada, zilch no jobs. Mr Boehner the next time you pick up your gravel can you tell us American when will there jobs"

So , Bev, as of today the "JOBS" scoreboard shows this:

GOP Congress= 0 jobs

Obama Administration = minus 4.3 million jobs

DarnThatDream,

Correct! I read so many opinions and they all seem to care less that we "don't have the money". Our (USA)account is OVERdrawn! Americans must get a kick out of "kicking the can" down the road. Archie Bunker once said that "what made America great is that we can buy the things we cannot afford". Too sad that many Americans believe they are entitled to goods and service, even if they cannot afford them;therefore, it is the govt responsibilities. Ask them to pay more taxes for the goods and service, they say only the rich should pay for them. The "American leach" will suck the greatness right out of America, the sad thing about it, our Federal and State govts are setting the example. Stupid is as stupid does!

Bob,

how long as prez O had (can you include the seconds, it so cute).

Bobo - if you're going to make a comparison to an "administration" you have to make it apples to apples - or you're misleading:

Bush Administration=minus 5million jobs

Obama Administration=minus 4.3million jobs

There, that's better.

Bob-1887910

So , Bev, as of today the "JOBS" scoreboard shows this:

GOP Congress= 0 jobs

Obama Administration = minus 4.3 million jobs

Where did you get that "voodoo math?"

Obama's stimulus created up to 3.3 million jobs, CBO says

http://www.thegrio.com/politics/obamas-stimulus-program-created-up-to-33-million-jobs-cbo-says.php

Job Loss, Health Care and Bankruptcy

January 25, 2011

8 million jobs were lost during the recent recession, but most of them were lost under Bush, before Obama took office.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/job-loss-health-care-and-bankruptcy/

Hey Bev, how many days, hours and minutes has it been since the Obama has been annointed? Where are the jobs?

I do see a significant amount of debt, but no jobs from his administration. Where are all those shovel-ready projects? Have you seen any saved-jobs anywhere due to his administration?

He has been in charge, along with Nancy and Harry, to produce programs to stimulate job growth longer than the Republicans now in control of the House.

As for VooDoo math Bev, how about explaining the JOBS SAVED criteria for reporting purposes? Even the Obama administration couldn't explain the methodology of computating this report.

Again Bev, you complain a lot, try to explain and educate others on your position today.

Where are the Obama Administration jobs Bev?

8 million jobs were lost during the recent recession, but most of them were lost under Bush, before Obama took office.

Maybe they were lost while Bush was still president, but you have to take a much bigger look at who controlled Congress in that period. ALL 8 million jobs were definitely lost while the Democrats controlled both chambers of congress after Jan. 2007. That says MUCH more than who was pesident at the time.

Careful AZ, the lefties don't like those facts. Congress does control the purse strings in this country and as Congress goes so goes the country. The left also loves to talk about Clinton's budget but they always forget that the Republicans forced him to do what was right for his budget.

Beverly, another cute distortion of the facts. Republicans are being stonewalled by the Senate. When the Republicans tried to slow the Democratic agenda, they were called the party of no and the Democrats pushed through lame duck legislation against the proven will of the country (unless you try to spin the shellacking at the polls as something other than a national response to the direction the democrats were taking us). Now that the democrats are doing it, these same people seem to think it is patriotic- look at Wisconsin. Similarly, the same people that said they didn't need republican support to pass bills are appealing for negotiation and compromise. Hypocritical to say the least.

People who correlate who the president was as the main factor of economic indicators are often idiots.

Hahahaa...you weasels will slip and slither anywhere to try and make a point. How about Before 2007? How do you explain the trillion+ in debt we incurred during Bush II BEFORE Democrats took over congress???? The six years of deficit spending before a democratic congress got to write a budget????

Tim,

Maybe a quick explanation would be that during the Bush years Congress was split. Both parties took us to war and both parties spent plenty of money. In fact everytime Bush wanted to cut spending he was demoized from the left. After 2006 Congress was totally controlled by the Democrats. Do you understand "super majority"? Speaking of writing a budget, what did the Democrats do last year?

I'm not slipping and slithering anywhere, I am giving you facts. By the way, speaking of slipping and slithering, where are the weasel Democrats from Wisconsin?

ChiCity

Beverly, another cute distortion of the facts. Republicans are being stonewalled by the Senate. When the Republicans tried to slow the Democratic agenda, they were called the party of no and the Democrats pushed through lame duck legislation against the proven will of the country (unless you try to spin the shellacking at the polls as something other than a national response to the direction the democrats were taking us)

The republicans presented nothing different. Surely, you can understand that. Republicans were up to the scam and rob ideas—again; of course the reaction would "Hell No".

That shellacking had everything to do with the millions of dollars of negative ads and mis-information funded by the anti-government polluters , the Koch Brothers. According to federal lobbying reports, Koch Industries’ top issues include energy, environmental, tax and homeland security policies.

Due to Citizens United now we can understand why America is for sell. This is a bum’s rush for greed and betrayal from the robber barons.

Wake up!!!

JH, it doesn't sound like you know our government.

Republicans controlled both the senate and the house from the 104th through the 109th congress (1995-2006), with the only exception during that time being the senate during the 107th congress. Another words, dummy, for the four years from 2003-2006 the senate, house and presidency were all controlled by republicans...who ran budget deficits, and were quite good at it.

Hahaha - again JH, you just don't lie the truth...it's an "inconvenient truth" (LOL I bet that quote gets some laughs!) that Wisconsin's constitution requires a quorum. Better men than Wisconsin Democrats have run out avoiding a quorum, including, among others, President Lincoln and your lover Bob Packwood...you are such a dope.

JH-479998

Do you understand "super majority"? Speaking of writing a budget, what did the Democrats do last year?

That super majority consisted of conservative Dems (republicans in dems clothing). However, despite the lack of help the democratic congress got from republicans and conservative Dems (republicans in dems clothing) it was still most productive.

With filibusters that skyrocketed under the Republican minority in 110th Congress) which wanted to make certain President Obama and the country fail [A SHAME] so the greedy ,scamming, republicans could win the back White house to do the same thing again it; the Dems did a lot.

In fact it was the most productive Congress in nearly half a century allowed the President to sign...

An $814 billion economic-stimulus package credited with creating 3 million jobs* and giving a tax cut to 95 percent of Americans.**

• Health insurance reform with the landmark Affordable Care Act.

• Financial services reform with the landmark Wall Street Accountability Act.

• Making college loans more affordable.

• The "Cash for Clunkers" program, which helped rejuvenate the auto industry.

• New consumer protections for credit card users.

• Making it easier for women to challenge pay discrimination.

• Increasing federal regulation of tobacco products.

• Cracking down on waste in Pentagon weapons acquisition.

• Making attacks based on sexual orientation a federal hate crime.

• Giving businesses tax incentives to hire unemployed workers.

• Giving tax credits to first-time homeowners.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

Despite their best efforts to undermine their own country and to inflict greater economic hardship and pain on their fellow American citizens, the "disloyal opposition" of obstructionist Republicans in the Party of No largely failed.

I'm not slipping and slithering anywhere, I am giving you facts.

Really?

then you would agree In October, the U.S. economy created 171,000 jobs?

In November 2010, the U.S. economy created 93,000 jobs

in December 2010, the U.S. created 121,000 jobs

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/11/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-tells-cpac-canada-created-more-jobs-ja/

By the way, speaking of slipping and slithering, where are the weasel Democrats from Wisconsin?

Haven't you heard; they are in an undisclosed location in Illinois? So I can't say.

Beverly, it was all the negative campaigning? If I recall, both sides were negative campaigning. If the Koch brothers were on one side, the unions were on the other. You can continue to rationalize it any way you want. People saw that throwing money at problems, without fixing the problems, is not a solution. Consequently, those who advanced that solution were voted out.

Beverly, would you agree that these 3 million jobs created are now slowly beginning to disappear, because the stimulus money has mostly dried up? Similarly, that the stimulus did nothing to confront what created the mass of debt in the first place? From an ROI perspective, it cost far more to "create" these jobs than it would have to just give them money.

"Hey Bev, how many days, hours and minutes has it been since the Obama has been annointed? Where are the jobs?"

Gotta agree with the 'cracker on this one, ESPECIALLY since Obama extended those 'job-creating' tax rates for the wealthy! Right, Safe??

Grand Moff - you are EXACTLY right - we need to cut the redundancies that we are paying for. It is not that we need SMALLER government, we need SMARTER Government. The best way to reduce spending is to examine WHERE the money is going .

Now THIS type of Governmental review I can support.

We will be surprised to find MILLIONS of dollars that we didn't know we had available when we start getting rid of and/or consolidating redundant departments.

For all of the bluster and talk that the GOP/TP has had, why wasn't this done YEARS ago?

Beverly,

That was a large amount of legislation to pass in the time they had. The unintended consequences are always my first thought when the government does anything BIG. Here are a couple of points I want to make. I don't have time to touch the other items right now, I will try to get on later. Please read and try to be open minded. BIG legislation is very scary to me, since there are so many things that can be overlooked.

1) Cash for Clunkers, a short term boost, has indirectly led to a spike in used car prices. People chose to not Lease cars since buying was better deal. Leased cars are mostly sold as used cars when the lease is up. So now there is a supply shortage of these cars. This in turn jacks the price up. So government has picked winners (those who traded in a clunker) and losers (those who can only usually afford a used car).

2) college loans are not more affordable. The government has taken the private sector competition out of the mix, which led to further layoffs. Again, the govt picked winners and losers. This one I think will play out over years and years since the government has almost complete control of the whole student loan system now.

ChiCity

Beverly, it was all the negative campaigning? If I recall, both sides were negative campaigning. If the Koch brothers were on one side, the unions were on the other. You can continue to rationalize it any way you want. People saw that throwing money at problems, without fixing the problems, is not a solution. Consequently, those who advanced that solution were voted out.

But, if you go to the center for responsive politics you will see the unions are out matched by 7 outside groups. There were 10. the people throwing the money at the problem; in addition to lies and mis-information is the Koch Brothers .


Karl Rove, one of the tentacles of the Kochtopus with the American Cross roads admitted 2x on Fox.

Rove: "Every one of those 600,000 people had several hundred dollars worth of union dues going into the political coffers of their union to spend on politics. So yeah, you keep having a couple hundred thousand people each year. If a half a million people leave the labor union movement every year, pretty soon you start having a crimp in the political budget of these unions, it has a direct effect on the Presidential elections."

Out of the mouth of the man himself. As Ed says, that might be the most honest thing he's ever said.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/ed-schultz-outlines-fox-media-strategy-agai


Beverly, would you agree that these 3 million jobs created are now slowly beginning to disappear, because the stimulus money has mostly dried up? Similarly, that the stimulus did nothing to confront what created the mass of debt in the first place?

Yes, I would to some extend; Chitown. But, only because the stimulus was not large enough. On the other hand, I would say had it not been a stimulus; it would have been much worse. So the answer to your second question is no.

@AZChzhd

Maybe they were lost while Bush was still president, but you have to take a much bigger look at who controlled Congress in that period.

See post #2.25 - Tue Mar 1, 2011 12:48 PM EST

Thanks for helping to make my point. Obama and the democrats are not worried about the plight of the working man than, they are worried about their campaign contributions drying up. Why do you think they are so against making union dues not mandatory? So, this is a win-win for Republicans. That being said, it is still consistent with the republican goal of cutting spending. You act like this is some new strategy to hurt the democrats. It isn't. By definition, if the republican and democrats are on the opposite side of the aisle on issues, what is good for one is bad for the other. This isn't profound. Until the SCOTUS changed the law regarding campaign contributions, the democrats enjoyed an enormous advantage in political spending. Now, the playing field is more level.

I am a right leaning centrist. I believe that government and public employees should not receive benefits that are so unproportionate to their private sector equals. I have experience dealing with union people, and can tell you first hand that the system is ridiculous. No accountability, bloated wages and pensions, this is just fact. How would you respond to the fact that the number of government workers making over $150,000 has more than doubled on Obama's watch?

The CBO says that, in 10 years, interest on the debt will cost $844 billion annually.

Nearly $1 trillion per year diverted from federal government revenue...simply to service interest on the debt.

Who do you suppose will suffer more from this diversion of resources in order to service our debt?

Put another way...who will suffer most from the consequences of the debt crisis?

The wealthy...or the poor?

I wonder how President Obama would answer that question?

Beyond...

"Uhhhh..."

If you still can't get your head above water after cutting expenses, you have to start looking at increasing your income - either changing jobs or working overtime. In Government terms, that means raising taxes. It was purely idiotic for Bush to give a tax break when we started to experience deficits, and it's purely idiotic for our Gov't to extend those tax breaks as we twirl the drain.

A "budget" lays out both expected expenditures and income...it's time to close all the corporate loopholes, raise taxes IN ADDITION TO cutting welfare benefits. I say whack everybody...

ChiCity

Thanks for helping to make my point. Obama and the democrats are not worried about the plight of the working man than, they are worried about their campaign contributions drying up. Why do you think they are so against making union dues not mandatory? So, this is a win-win for Republicans

Gosh, I hope not. A win-win for Republicans would mean there would be a one party rule; since the Republicans have more money in their coffers.

Republicans don’t care about people unless they are taking care of the rich people like them.

It’s stupid, imo, to think the hard working middle class, suddenly, should not inherit the land in America. Soon we'll be like countries in the underdeveloped nations; and possibly undergo the same turmoil as in the Middle East.

JH and all the like minded posters, the facts and only the facts please:

Between 1978 to 2005 Federal Spending increased 9.9% with a Democratic President; increased 12.1% with a Republican President.

Same years the Federal Debt increased 4.2% with a Democratic President while increasing 36.4% under a Republican President.

At the same time the GDP increased 12.6% with a Democratic President and increased 10-7% with a Republican President.

I will even source this to the US Treasury by way of Wikepedia

daryl-2183015-

You're missing the point. President Obama's budget proposal for the coming fiscal year (2012) totals $3.7 trillion in spending...of that, $1.1 trillion, nearly 30%, is deficit spending.

The CBO estimate is that $13 trillion in new debt will be added in the next 10 years unless President Obama and Congress do something NOW to alter the present course.

I thought that was the whole point of the President issuing an executive order creating a commission to help him deal with the debt crisis.

Instead, he's pretty much ignored the findings and recommendations of his own bipartisan panel.

The CBO is simply pointing out the likely results of continuing down the present path.

they'd rather send the jobs overseas because they have so much uncertainty here in the state.

They'd rather send jobs overseas because labor is cheaper and there are fewer regulations.

Mixed bag - the commission recommended tax increases...I don't think anyone will touch that one! Besides, no one ever listens to the commissions...

Not exactly, Tim-

The commission recommended across-the board cuts in government spending AND tax increases.

Both will be necessary to steer away from the abyss.

Right now it's pedal-to-the-metal over the cliff.

Mixed bag, I wasn't excluding other recommendations of the commission, I just pointed out that they did recommend tax increases - an idea that no one is going to touch. I think we should whack everybody with higher taxes...and remove all the corporate tax loopholes.

Jesse, I don't let any of my 10th graders pass math unless they understand that a correlation does not imply cause and effect. Televisions' news/opinion readers do not understand t hatand neither do many of the viewers. If teachers' salaries go up as the temperature rises, does that mean that higher teachers' salaries caused higher temperatures? Or that higher temperatures caused higher salaries? That both rose as a result of something else? Or might they, in fact, have no relationship at all? My 10th graders know. Regards....

Tim, do corporations really pay taxes? Aren't taxes just included in the price of things that we buy from them? It's an honest question, but I lean towards the notion that corporations do not pay taxes, rather they are simply tax collectors. Regards....

While a correlation does not prove causation, it is often a good starting point.

Bev....most "productive" Congress under Obama in a half century?? LOL Obviously it was so productive that the Democrats also got the biggest shellacking in that time frame as well and lost 62 seats. It was productive to the 20 or 30% of people who identify as liberals in this country, but to the rest of us, it was overbloated government intrusion.

Corporations do pay taxes...they should. They are a beneficiary of public goods and services, and as such they should. They may try to pass some taxes off to consumers through increased prices, but they are limited by competitive pricing and the elasticity. Elasticity will determine who really bears the burden. Corporate taxes are borne by stockholders and the corporations, and to a lesser extent consumers. Sales/excise taxes are borne depending on the available substitutes...if the tax is on soda, people will drink something else and the tax is borne primarily by the soda maker because they have to shift down their prices. If it's alcohol, there is no substitute, and consumers bear a lot of the burden - unless grey market use is high, then there may be some offset.

Steven

Between 1978 to 2005 Federal Spending increased 9.9% with a Democratic President; increased 12.1% with a Republican President.

Same years the Federal Debt increased 4.2% with a Democratic President while increasing 36.4% under a Republican President.

At the same time the GDP increased 12.6% with a Democratic President and increased 10-7% with a Republican President.

Let me know who is in charge of Congress during those years. From 1954 to 1994, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress with a brief Republican Senate control under Reagan, but not both houses. From 1994-2000, the Republicans controlled Congress and we saw a surplus. Again the Democrats control EVERYTHING from 2006-2010 and the crap hits the fan. Democrats also controlled both houses and the presidency for all of FDR's 3 1/2 terms.

It is my conclusion that Democratic Congressional control = crap. Just look at the past 50 years. Tremendous inflationary issues during Carter and the CRA to boot. Clinton loses his supermajority in 1994 and the economy grows and the budgets are balanced. In 2006, Democrats take control again and by 2008, its deja vu all over again...more crap.

It doesnt matter who the president is. Always look at Congress and there you will see the pattern. Bush was an abberration. Voters took care of most of Bush's Republicans in this last election so you dont have to worry about RINOs anymore.

AZChzhd - you would have a good point if those numbers worked out, but what was the problem then for the 4 years 2003-2006 when congress was Republican controlled, and there was a Republican President? All deficits, right? About $1T in debt, right? I believe you'd call that "crap" correct?

AZChzhd - you would have a good point if those numbers worked out, but what was the problem then for the 4 years 2003-2006 when congress was Republican controlled, and there was a Republican President? All deficits, right? About $1T in debt, right? I believe you'd call that "crap" correct?

You bet its crap. As a conservative I was a big believer in Bush...until Iraq. From that point on, I was quite negative with his presidency. Then he even turned liberal with the Medicare expansion and his talk about amnesty for illegals. He betrayed his conservative base.

AZChzhd

What? A republican president does not know what a veto is? You run from the consequences of the real truth!

The republican regimes have put this country in peril all by themselves starting with Ronnie, the anointed one.

Do you think you should be taken seriously when you say that the troubles this country faces all result from republicans?

Mark I knew this one was coming. We have too many agents on the border with Mexico and too many patrolling the area north of the border.
Janet says everything is safe so we need to redeploy all those agents on our southern border.

The 911 high jackers came across the border from Canada.

Don't confuse them with facts. Some day soon a Mexican will cause as much damage as Bin Laden and they will say - I TOLD YOU WE SHOULD HAVE BUILT THAT FENCE!

(don't confuse them with cost/benefit analyses, either. That will only blow their minds.)

Ahhh Clara that is precious. How much economic damage do illegals cause here everyday? Do you happen to know the cost to California alone? And for fun let us know if you think it would be ok if we got to decide who could come in and who could not.

Please do enlighten us with your cost benfefit analysis regarding illegals. Do break it up in terms of the economic costs, the crime burdens, and compare each to any percieved benefit. also be sure to throw in there the cost of the ESL programs both in economics and social costs. You do understand the crushing burden, particularly in the LA Unified, of ESL. And guess what the drop out rate is?

Come on Clara -blow my mind with you numbers, I do look forward to that.

spanky, This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Gov't waste what a concept and they wonder why people are sick of high taxes

Problem is - people like Clara, Fiesty and Bev are simply too obtuse to put two and two together.

I'd feel sorry for them, but I hear ignorance is bliss, and well they are the poster children. Or maybe they are just soldiers in the army of MoveOn. Either way, their only answers are 1. raise taxes, 2.Koch brothers are EEVVILLL, and "tea-baggers suck!"

Why aren't you at work?

Of course I'm at work, and I know you are too. In fact I'm on the phone with counsel in Maryland. Looking good. Money coming in! How about you, earning your wage today? That's great, but damn, earning hourly and working for others is tough, right DBO?

How about all that waste there Drive By? Looks like we found $200 billion or so to get rid of. That leaves, what $1.2 Trillion more to solvency? Oh my!

Personally, the Department of Homeland Security, in my opinion, is one HUGE redundancy. They can get rid of the TSA as well, and let the airlines protect their own damn planes. I bet that if we did that, the security procedures would be a LOT different than what we see now.

With you 100% PERCENT Pietro. The redundancy in law enforcement is staggering.

We could fund the TSA with a surcharge added to each airline ticket. That way people who use the system would pay for the security. Would that be better than spreading the cost amongst all tax payers? If the airlines ran airport security and they failed would they be liable for any losses? How about people with kids pay for all of the school funding. What are the un-intended consequences? Have you thought beyond the last sound bite you heard?

So, who gets to provide clean air and water? Or food that is safe to eat, and medicine that is safe to take?

I would only disagree in one point, instead of law enforcement, I would say public safety. And by that, I mean direct public safety, not some misguided attempt to justify a program.

Read the Constitution. The two legitimate activities of the Federal Government are clearly identified therein: 1) provide for the national defense, and 2) regulate interstate commerce. The problem is primarily with #2 which has been perverted and over-extended to include picking your nose and flicking the booger across a state line.

Yes the Federal Government should only be involved in Defense and Foreign Policy. Sure the Constitution gave the Federal Government the power "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States." And the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" [i.e., Patents and Copyrights]. Or that part about ....

Hmmm, I guess you and I had different thoughts about what the role of the Federal Government should be.

Wow - I'm sorry to be provocative but what a narrow-minded view. Pretty much everything that the Government provides today - "we" the people want.

Want any education standards? Should a H.S. diploma in Washington state = a H.S. diploma from Texas?

Our problems are complex and there is no easy, "bumper sticker" answer like "take care of defense, law enforcement and foregn policy" If that were the naswer, understand that the roads you drive your car on would disappear in a matter of years.

The problem is that "we" the people want a lot but we don't want to pay a lot for it. The other problem is that our government leaders are in it for themselves and not for us.

Think it through: Why are we still in Afganistan? Sure..soliders are dying but the defense industry is doing GREAT!. You have any idea how much our military costs - how much oil it consumes?

You want the government to concentrate its efforts on "defense"?

Geez....

What we really need is people to put some time, effort and thoughtfulness into their votes.

Talking of jackasses -- JuvenBachan, you sound like one to me. Maybe we ought to shut down government for a week or two to make some of you people wake up and smell the coffee. Most of you have no idea what you are talking about. The more you open your mouths, the more insane you sound.

Try understanding something before parroting what you hear from the likes of Rush Limpdick and Glenn Beck. I hate to tell you but they are only interested in ratings for their shows and will do and say anything to promote themselves into the limelight. They do not care about the truth. They just love keeping their audiences living like mushrooms because then they become even more angrier. And angry people don't make good decisions.

Pablo, I have been saying that for years. Anyone who says there is an easy answer to our situation, is just plain wrong.

However, I take issue with one of your points. "We" the people do want most of what the government provides, obviously different people have different wants, but as a collective you are right. The question is, is there a better, more efficient, and cheaper way to provide these services? I think the answer is clearly yes. Similarly, just because we want certain things, is it the responsibility of the government to provide it? Take welfare for example... It is not meant to be a permanent subsidy to any individual, but millions stay on it for nearly their whole life. Where is the incentive to get off entitlement programs? There isn't.

So, while I may "want" a lot of things, I think we need to take a real close look at what the responsibility of the government really is. As for education, it is a state issue, IMHO.

Pablo, Not just their votes but their everyday lives. And think about what they hear. Many people listen to the talk radio of their choice and believe it comes directly from the holy mountain. They do not think for themselves. Our kids are not challenged to think in school. I fight with my daughter to think about her homework. It seems to me that most people today do not think for themselves. They allow others to do their thinking for them. It is seemingly party line or money line. No real thought or care about anyone else. McCain-Feingold had it right. Limit the contributions of everyone. Then maybe politicians will again listen to people.

This GAO report could save the Pres. and the administration lot's of time and research in his Campaign promise to go through the Federal Budget line-item by line-item looking for waste that can be eliminated.

Sarcasm aside this report isn't shocking to anyone except maybe politicians like Tom Coburn. Everyone knew they were "Jackasses" and didn't care about how they wasted huge sums of taxed and borrowed money to buy votes.

This will be on the News-Talk circuit for 48 hours and then die out, nothing will change!

We need a big government to manage the events going on here in our country while keeping our eyes on the events around the world that can affect us all. The problem we have is that we have to manage big government a heck of a lot better then we are currently doing so now.

Excellent point Pablo! This utopia that the "small government" people espouse was meant for the times of the frontier when services were not needed to be provided due to the citizens being relatively self-sufficient. The Industrial Revolution changed everything and it became OBVIOUS that government had a new role and that was to promote the GENERAL WELFARE as specifically written in the PREAMBLE to the Constitution.

"It is getting harder to run a Constitution than to frame one". --Woodrow Wilson

My argument if the Constitution was a perfect document and should be left pristine, then why are we allowed to ammend it? The lot of slave owners, intellectual elites, christians, agnostics and hypocrites that made up the founding fathers created a living document that could be adjusted as the times required.

If governments main role is for defense from our enemies abroad as touted again and again from the conservative Right, then the amount of waste in our military should be the first budget that is examined to eliminate the "waste, fraud and abuse" and create a more efficient military machine that is run, executed and managed by the Federal Government--NOT PRIVATE CONTRACTORS!

ChiCity

Take welfare for example... It is not meant to be a permanent subsidy to any individual, but millions stay on it for nearly their whole life. Where is the incentive to get off entitlement programs? There isn't.

Wrong,

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program became the TANF Bureau within the Office of Family Assistance in May 2006.

Through its divisions and program units, the Bureau provides assistance and work opportunities to needy families by granting states, territories and tribes the federal funds and wide flexibility to develop and implement their own welfare programs.

THE ASSISTANCE IS TIME-LIMITED AND PROMOTES WORK, RESPONSIBILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanf/about.html

As you can see it's not life long neither is UI; and the incentives for work are there.

Your government which so many hate does work for the people, by the people, and of the people.

You really need to shed those stereo types.

Hahaha - Miker, have YOU read the constitution? The Fed has more "legitimate" powers written in the constitution than those two. LOL - and you actually told someone else to "Read the constitution." LOLOLOL. I like you, you're silly.

Sadly, Juven, your post is devoid of a third vastly underrated item - and the irony is really more than a little funny.

Government should be concerned about Education; because we really ARE competing with India, China, Japan, etc. for our very ongoing existence. And lately, the other countries have been WINNING,...

by the way, 'defence' is spelled D-E-F-E-N-S-E. I know they use a D and a fence during sporting events; but that is really symbolism. Not the LITERAL spelling of the word.

@Tim: Name one. Yes, Article 1, Sect. 10 spells out a number of powers kept from the States, but if you care to read it those powers all fit pretty nicely into a not-too-liberally defined box called either "national defense" or "regulation of interstate commerce." I like you, too, Tim. You're "special."

Juven- you make a good point, but here's the problem. If it got down to just those two items, some nitwit teabaggers would say those two items gotta go, so their rich idols can make even MORE.

"rich idiots?"

So I suppose you are a super smart non rich guy DBO?

As usual, I find your perspective unusual and amusing.

Spank Monkey,

He actually wrote RICH IDOLS". You my friend are completely clueless. Please, despite the difficulty, read the post before commenting.

Please explain to me a good reason besides "patriotism" to maintain my business in the U.S. with all of the tax laws, unions, etc....

Name some of these cuts and giveaways the Liberals tout all of the time. Name the law that was voted on by Dems and Repubs. Name it.

Our corporate tax brackets may be higher than average among industrialized nations, but thanks to thousands of loopholes (many of which were crafted by the same companies that benefit from them), corporations pay only a small fraction of the taxes they would otherwise owe. The average small business person gets hammered every year, while the Fortune 500 reaps billions in profits from taxes they avoided.

And unions are only a fraction now of the workforce here. Move your business to many place in Canada or Europe, and you'll be swimming in union-inspired work/business rules. Funny how their workers are still as productive as us, yet have much happier lifestyles...

Oh, and for laws voted on by Dems and Repubs, heck the congressional record...you'll find that 99% of all laws passed had votes from both parties.

1) Do you run a business that is unionized? (if so please explain why its bad from your perspective NOT what Glenn Beck rants about). I know a lot of small businesses that are standing with labor in Wisconsin since they understand that good-paying jobs allow for income that supports their small business.

2) Do you live in the US? (If yes since you seem to be in Texas, then it's not patriotism, it is easier to run a business if you live near it). Patriotism is paying your employees that help build the company more than a "'living wage" with benefits, not cheating on your taxes and not hiring undocumented workers that contribute to an underground economy.

3) Taxes are lower than they have been in decades for business and upper incomes. Small business don't get the perks because they are given to large corporations that lobby for them or now that can buy off politicians with unlimited amounts of political donations. There are so many loopholes, credits, etc. So get a lobbiest and you'll do fine.

4) Here is why it goes beyond patriotism--your business depends on the infrastructure provided by taxes such as roads to deliver your goods and services, telecommunications such as the internet that was invented due to initiatives of the Feds, public education so that you can tap into an educated workforce, etc.. We help pay for these as a society--which you are a part of too.

5) Why moving abroad is even an option that you are allowed to consider is due to the dismantling of long-standing (200 year) tariff laws called the Tariff Act of 1789 which later morphed into Taft-Hartley which morphed into NAFTA and free trade laws. If we stuck to more US protectionism like other countries do then we would have jobs here and not an economic collapse. We would have a more even and fair playing field for American businesses to compete. Also the fact that oil and gas is subsidized allows us to transport cheaply. (Let's see how that plays when gas goes to $5 a gallon and up). Don't worry, you can bury your money in offshore accounts and hire a really good accountant--that is still allowed.

6) I can name at least one "giveaway" and that is oil and gas subsidies (mentioned above) to the tune of $36.5 billion a year. They are profitable as demonstrated by their Wall Street reports so I would assume that this corporate welfare is not needed. We give a lot of perverse subsidies to give us the illusion of cheap products as also mentioned above. Ag subsidies (under the myth that it is for the small farmer and not Monsanto or Cargill) are another.

7) Being in this country protects you from civil unrest abroad where there are less protections. But I hear you can get some cheap commercial real estate in Cairo or Beirut these days.

Why is it that all far left libs think that anyone who doesn't agree with them listen to either Limbaugh or Beck. The only time i have Rush is on CNN

There are key words and phrases that reveal someone as a Ditto Head.

Well you wondered.

So if I happen to read one that you post I will let you know. NO JO NO Blow and her Sister Jo Anna Smith are good examples.

But you should always keep you friends close and your enemies closer. I listed sometimes to the propaganda just to know what they doing. I can listen for a few minutes

It is arrogance. If you don't agree with me, you are wrong and are brainwashed by Rush and Beck. I too have never listened to/watched them. There are fringe elements on both sides that simply regurgitate the talking points of their respective parties. In reality, I believe that these people (again on both sides) actually do not make up a large part of either group, but certainly make the most noise.

I can see them doing that. Just Pray they cut some of the Duplication back before adding something else we have to pay for

Bob, you talk like the debt crisis is Obama's doing! It isnt! As of the end of bush's last budget, FY 2009, the last 3 GOP signed TWENTY deficit riddled budgets which culimnated in $11T in debt! If they had NOT done that, we wouldnt be having this coversation.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

BTW... it was all done deliberately! But that is a story for another day!!

If a dog had a square azz, he would shyt blocks.

All of these If's does not mean anything but that they are an opinion of someone.

Tom in NH-294381

Bob, you talk like the debt crisis is Obama's doing! It isnt! As of the end of bush's last budget, FY 2009, the last 3 GOP signed TWENTY deficit riddled budgets which culimnated in $11T in debt! If they had NOT done that, we wouldnt be having this coversation.

Tom, you act as if Obama has nothing to do with the debt crisis. Yes, the past three GOP Pres. created $11 Trillion in debt, but that was over 20 years of them being in office. Obama added $3 Trillion in 2 years and wants to add another $1.6 Trillion of FY2012. At this rate, he will add a total of $6 trillion in 4 years. That over 1/2 the amount it took the GOP to run up in 20 years of governing.

While Obama may not be solely at fault for the debt crisis, he is doing nothing to curb it. If he was serious, he would have taken the advice of his own debt comission in proposing this years budget.

Sam Brownback created a new one in Kansas -- "Office of the Repealer!"

Tom, I disliked W (an understatement), in large part because he was bankrupting us with his spending. But judging from his actions, Obama feels that W didn't spend nearly enough taxpayer money. Also Obama was a senator during some of W's worst years, so he must take some responsibility there too. W was the worst president in my lifetime, but the only reason that Obama does not have that title is that he's only had 2 years to destroy our country. He's making a valiant effort though, so watch out. Survive!

"but the only reason that Obama does not have that title is that he's only had 2 years to destroy our country."

What are you talking about? When President Obama took office we were teetering on the brink of a major collapse, and he took steps to pull us back. Every economist I have read says the federal government HAS to increase spending in that situation, to prevent a Depression. As the economy has slowly recovered, President Obama has proposed cuts to programs like NASA that have had Republicans screaming. Don't forget the engine for the F-35 fighter, which the Dept of Defense said was redundant, that Boehner and Cantor voted to keep funding - because it was built in their states. When it comes to spending cuts, Tea Party representatives come down with NIMBY - itis awfully quickly.

Sooo, other than the fact that you think Obama's doing a great job, you agree with me that we should cut, right? I'm less concerned with who gets the credit (credit? what credit?) or who gets blamed than I am that the government start living within its means. There is no cut that you can propose that will have me screaming "too much" or "no, not there". The gang in DC has driven us into the ditch and now we must cut everything. Regards....

Guy, you have to understand, once you have a large deficit, it cant be eliminated in one year! There are too many things built in. Just as it took Clinton 5 years to eliminate the $250B deficit he interited from Bush 41, it's going to take a LONG time to get rid of the $1.3T deficit Bush left for Obama!! One thing that IS true is that the deficit was been reduced from FY 2009 to FY 2010. And FY 2011 looks like it's going to come in lower than 2010!! So if anyone thinks you can eliminate the $1.3T deficit Obama inherited from bush, it just aint so. Adn just wait until someone has to tackle the $14T+ debt! THAT is the true damage done by the last 3 GOP presidents!! If we survive it, it is like to damage this country for decades to come. And to think they endagered this country's national security and financial future on purpose --- just so they could eventually eliminate/privatize SS/Medicare etc!!

Amy has finally come to her senses...if Obama wants us to win the future; let us be efficient!

Amy, let's start with the idiotic public employee unions, which coddle incompetent employees from being let go; literally thousands of incompetent public employees are left on the payroll because it is even more expensive to try to release them...lifetime employment with no results is government waste!

Also, basing salary and benefits purely on seniority, and not on productivity, is a huge drain on efficiency

Two incredibly inefficient and wasteful practices, which lose billions. To win the future, we need reform!

Bob, government is not meant to run like a business. The litany of stakeholders, complexity and providing for the general welfare is often ignored by this utopia that is a theory at best.

Idiotic public unions are fighting for their rights, which we also benefit from. Trust me, I have spent my life in corporatate America and their is so much waste, inefficiency and ass-kissing, nepotism and self-interest that is worse than tenure protections. Besides, I know a lot of people out of work right now that had outstanding reviews and "merit" by the company that laid them off. That is malarky that this hard work is a protection in and of itself.

A public servant that is in the job for 30 years is not getting "seniority pay" but cost of living increases--just like I used to do in the private sector. These add up over time. Some get a raise due to educational efforts such as a masters, which is a significant investment. (there are a lot of advanced degrees necessary for a career in public service such as engineers, lawyers, medical and education fields). This increase also adds up financially but the employer also benefits from this upgrade--so it's not a "perk". The "merit" built over years in the private sector becomes a target for layoffs since they are more expensive to employ. So, we should all work hard and dedicate our lives to our overlords hoping to not eat dogfood when we are older, only to be a casualty of corporate "efficiency" cuts???

Finally, a lot of government services are outsourced to private companies and many business rely on government procurement since government purchasing is the largest consumer in the nation. Privatizing services cost us more money in many cases since private industry has a profit motive.

Not saying there couldnt' be reform or seek out more coordinated efficiencies, but I get the sense that there is a "throw the baby out with the bath water" mentalitiy that is not productive.

Amy, let's start with the idiotic public employee unions, which coddle incompetent employees from being let go; literally thousands of incompetent public employees are left on the payroll because it is even more expensive to try to release them...lifetime employment with no results is government waste!

Well, then, Bob, it's a good thing that those incompetent public employees have competent unions, Bob, because in Dane County, the unions are 2-0 in court with regard to the protests -- first against the school districts with regard to whether the protests were an illegal strike, and now with regard to whether Scott Walker had a legal right to close the Capitol.

Be careful what you stand for Bob. By it, you may be known as a fool.

Scott Walker: Closed to people. Open for business. Paranoid. Unconstitutional. Loser in court.

Dang. My bumper sticker just keeps getting longer.

Bob - you were doing SO WELL with us all AGREEING that we need to eliminate/merge duplicate departments to make our Government leaner and then you go back into your 'mode' and start railing on Unions and how they are the scourge of the earth (and youare wrong, by the way).

What's wrong with you?

Can't you at LEAST agree that we should eliminate duplication in our Government?

Thank you,

envirogal, for being the voice of reason. It drives me crazy when politicians say "government should be run like a business." How many businesses have lasted 235 years, defeating tyrants, criminals and assisting talented youth in breaking barriers of poverty, race and gender? The government is not a business.It has a mission to provide for the defense, educate the youth, regulate industries, protect the environment and plan for the future. It's not just producing widgets or betting on the whims of consumers.

If government was ran like a business, then the republicans would call it communistic.

Czars

.... or tsars. Regards....

While I totally agree that our gov has much to much duplication, sometimes there are reasons for overlapping programs and/or responsibilities. Without getting too detailed, the nationwide system of river gauges are used for various reasons and not JUST for weather. Also, not all river gauges are the same nor do they offer the same types of data. Sure, the NWS is interested in river flow and height, but I can't see any purpose the NWS would have for river gauges that collect geochemical data, or turbidity, or any number of other types of river/stream data that the USGS uses. Also, with the collection of scientific data, there needs to be a little bit of redundancy for QAQC.

We don't have the money. Our politicians have dithered for decades and now we must cut, cut, cut,.... but, yeah, by all means, start with duplication.... and illegal wars, assorted corruption. But as vast as US govt corruption is, its elimination (yeah, right) will only slightly dent the deficit. We need to cut even legitimate, efficient, worthwhile, popular programs, not that there are many of those. I promise not to howl regardless of what you propose to cut. That's saying something since I'm among the avalanche of boomers just beginning to feed off the system. It may be too late for measured, thoughtful reform. With luck, our creditors will force us to do the right thing -- our politicians seem incapable of doing so voluntarily. Regards....

Tom, we don't have any money. We have to cut spending and, of course, that will eliminate jobs, ideally overpaid/duplicative/corrupt govt jobs, but people will lose jobs. If govt jobs are so great for the economy, why don't we just hire half the unemployed to write reports and the other half to shred them? We're past the point where we can recycle a few aluminum cans for the money to close the gap. Regards....

I NEVER wore my dress uniform. Except for a few staffers and people at the Pentagon, Class As and Bs are unnecessary and should be either discontinued or purchased individually using uniform allowances.

I was the other way around! Hardly EVER wore BDUs, but had 6 hanging in my closet. I went out and bought extra "A's and "B's" because that's what I wore every day (Cold War era). But I see your point! Uniforms should be issued for the JOB -- not just a "standard issue" for all.

So why does all branches of service have aircraft?

To keep Boeing in Business.

Actually, Salt Grass -- they have different missions AND not all aircraft are built by Boeing!

For example, except for a few fixed wings to fly around generals -- the Army has helicopters; not allowed others. They are built by Sikorsky, not Boeing.

The Air Force has fighters, transports, refuelers. Refuelers are built by Boeing. Fighters (some) are also built by Boeing. Others by General Dynamics. The big C-5 are built by Lockheed.

The Navy/Marine jets need the carrier capability -- not really up on who is building them. They also have helicopters.

Actually, I think that the aircraft thing is probably the MOST consolidated of all the service stuff with clearly defined missions -- although it certainly could be better (see my post about "purple troops" below).

Finally, however, I'd rather keep Boeing in business than Airbus -- but that's just me.

My point is that the Air Force should be doing all of the flying and flight training. They air drop troops and supplies, have fighter jets and all kinds of support equipment. In Florida you have an Air Naval station in Pensacola and Airforce fighter wing in Fort Walton. That is redundant.

your point is wrong. the navy doesn't think army the air force doesn't think marines . i am all for cutting ,redundancy . i am not for letting one of our troops die so you can "consolidate " aircraft .

Pick your poison Ed. Big government or big business. Guess which side of the aisle these two entities are on.

Because everyone has a back yard project.

I thought cooking was out sourced to private enterprise like KBR.

Honestly, some of it may be now. But a lot of it is still done by the military. In the Army it's now "food service specialist" MOS 92G.