Obama Names “Chief Performance Officer”
Obama is going to fight government spending by creating a new government position: “chief performance officer.”
Wow. Sounds like a big position. She’ll probably need a staff. Guess we’ll pay them, too.
According to the article, the “chief performance officer” will “kill off dubious government programs and ensure that taxpayer money was not wasted.”
I think we already have a person charged with those responsibilities.
He’s called the “President.”
Thanks to Scott B.
Ok… it’s not just me.
Anybody tracking the “new” positions, staff manning, etc.. so we can eventually find out how all the promised change and hope is costing us?
Scott B (a45cf8) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:28 pmBaracky figured out how to get around that line-item veto thingie, huh?
JD (457b76) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:37 pmObama’s line-item-veto pen, and the dust it collects over the next four years, will be a collectors item one day.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:43 pmThe Chief Performance Officer will kill off dubious government programs and ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted, except for that $775 billion that Obama wants to blow on his insane stimulus plan.
Official Internet Data Office (81a27f) — 1/7/2009 @ 10:57 pmFirst dubious government program to kill off?
The office of the Chief Performance Officer.
Icy Texan (b7d162) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:06 pm“Mr. President, I’ve gone over the numbers, and I’m afraid you just aren’t pulling your weight. We’re going to have to let you go.”
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:09 pmThe creation of this new bureaucracy is a direct response to Larry Flynt’s application for a federal bailout. Obama will bail out the porn industry, but this new female CPO will assess the performance of the staff, and recommend that they either be elevated to a top position or, placed under restriction and ordered to go down to the bottom floor and subordinate themselves to her undersecretary.
Apogee (f4320c) — 1/7/2009 @ 11:12 pmFirst dubious government program to kill off?
The office of the Chief Performance Officer.
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves, don’t they Icy Texan?
Here’s guessing that the Department of Peace becomes a cabinet-level position by June 2010, and the Department of Hope (with Jesse Jackson as the first Secretary!) will be launched by March 2011.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/8/2009 @ 12:00 amThis is going to be the most bureaucratic, paper-shuffling, finger-pointing, do-nothing administration in American history. Che’nge!
RickZ (472435) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:47 amAll state governments and their taxes need to be eliminated. They just create too many levels of bureaucracy and cost too much money. Besides which, there are too many conflicting laws state-to-state and the distribution of wealth is too inequitable using state governments. Of course, federal taxes will have to be increased to handle the additional responsibilities.
It’s only fair, right? It’s for the people, right? We only need a power central government, right? And don’t bother me with that 230-year-old piece of paper.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 2:18 amIf she is going to weed out the pork and waste it is worth it. For example, one earmark set up an avenue for several retired flag officers to create a company that produces a product of dubious value. Between their old boy network and congressional influence on active duty military leadership several million dollars of your money has gone down a money pit. This particular project resulted in a merger (approved by congress) that made each of the retired flag officers millionaires. The earmark itself is nothing compared to the contract costs to purchase this unnecessary product.
voiceofreason2 (8753e2) — 1/8/2009 @ 2:52 amThere are hundreds more of these examples I’m sure. This one I’ve seen first hand and can vouch for how it was handled.
If the CPO can begin to pin down this kind of waste the cost of the staff will be money well spent.
Voice, your example by non-example is underwhelming. However, your disdain for our men and women in uniform does shine through.
I have to wonder what this unelected bureaucracy would have done while Tip O’Neil was paving WV with all sorts of fed tax dollars in all sorts of non-interior bills (he’s done paving WV, isn’t he?). Or that CA congresswoman’s (Was that Barbara Boxer or another? I can’t remember.) funding huge dollars to provide temp jobs for CA teens in her district (to the tune of 1 mil per teen temporarily employed) in an emergency disaster relief bill resulting from a hurricane that never came close to bothering a western state.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 3:05 amLet me guess her analysis:
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 1/8/2009 @ 3:44 amUnder our glorious dear leader Barak Obama , the Federal government has reach record performance levels that have never been achieved in human history. All dear leader asks is another trillion dollars here and there for this and that – I assure you it won’t be wasted!
1. Unless you can match 26 years in uniform and a couple of years in federal civil service I have an insight into the acquisition process that you don’t have
voiceofreason2 (590c85) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:10 am2. Pointing out inefficiencies and back door deals to put garbage products in the hands of our service people is the point
3. Line item vetoes will never happen
4. Your examples only illustrate the curent abuse of pork spending — if a CPO is not the right approach what is your solution? You use Democrats as an example — let’s talk about Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich pushing the purchase of 100 C-130’s to be produced in Georgia and based in Mississippi. The AF told them they didn’t need them nor did they have the pilots to fly them. They purchased them anyway.
5. Reference your comment about my “disdain” for our military… screw you
Voice, your example by non-example is still in question. Your point number two remains an example by non-example. Allusion, innuendo, suggestion of a possible… without actual information cannot qualify as an example.
A bunch of people did a naughty thing and these people got help doing a naughty thing from the people you guys like so it is obvious the people you guys don’t like need to make more government to keep other people from doing naughty things.
Did I actually say anything there? Did I actually provide any example there? Did I actually make any real point there?
Actually, I think I did make a point. That point is example by non-example is of little to no use in a debate.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:18 amAnd, Voice, I’ll withdraw my original derisive commentary since you served our country in the military for 26 years. I have, and always will have, great respect for any who willingly serve, moreso for any who re-up. Those who serve 26 years have earned more than a simple salute from me.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:23 am“Mr. President, I’ve gone over the numbers, and I’m afraid you just aren’t pulling your weight. We’re going to have to let you go.”
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 1/7/2009 @ 11:09 pm
*applauds*
The only way that could get bettah IMO is if you changed it to “Mr. President-Elect…”
no one you know (65b7aa) — 1/8/2009 @ 5:49 amI’m reminded of the Clinton Administration’s efforts to cut waste…
The people in charge of finding stuff to shut down cost more than all the savings they found…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 6:16 amWe’re going to need a couple of Chief Performance Officers because it’s going to take one just to keep an eye on the 600,000 new government positions. Or perhaps that should be the other 599,999 people we’re going to put on the payroll.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 6:29 amSomeone needs to tell Obama that Congress is in charge of appropriations.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 1/8/2009 @ 6:40 amThis is going to be the most bureaucratic, paper-shuffling, finger-pointing, do-nothing administration in American history. Che’nge!
Comment by RickZ
That’s the best we can hope for. Especially the part about do-nothing. Actually, I think “dubious government programs” will be determined by whether Republicans had anything to do with them.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/8/2009 @ 6:41 amNot being a fortune teller (my acount with 1-800-MISTRESSCLEO was closed), there are times a President MUST act, MUST do something. 9/11 is a good example (so is 2/26/93 and Clinton’s do-nothing response). Were Chicago Jesus to have been President in 2001, a do-nothing approach would have been an unmitigated disaster (not that Obama’s term won’t be an unmitigated disaster no matter what he does or doesn’t do; Obama is a walking, teleprompter reading unmitigated disaster all by himself).
RickZ (472435) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:11 amYou know, Jesus hates liars…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:21 amWhat was it PM Chamberlain said?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:28 amIt did happen. Any historical revisionism game playing doesn’t count. Anyway, Clinton blew it, starting with 2/26/93 on.
RickZ (472435) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:36 amBecause it’s now Barry’s pay grade. Or is he going to be too permanently busy searching for a racist Black Liberation Theology church in D.C.? (Seeing’s how he was all religious and such during the campaign, but now, not so much.)
RickZ (472435) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:41 amAs usual, you are clueless. The point to the post is that the responsibility for eliminating wasteful programs rests with the President, and here we have Obama passing the buck. He’s spending money that doesn’t need to be spent in the hope of saving money elsewhere; that doesn’t sound too sensible to me.
Steverino (69d941) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:42 amHow is hiring a full staff of full-time government employees to eliminate pork-barrel-spending when extra-governmental organizations already alert the public regarding such pork-barrel-spending a problem with conservatives? Is that your question?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:43 am“How is hiring someone to target and eliminate government waste a problem with conservatives?”
It’s an oxymoron, like, I need to hire a staff of folks to find out why we have so many employees. doh!
Thomas (4d15b9) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:43 amAh yes, efficient government. Another bureaucraccy with another layer of drones and a big budget doing research and studies. Sort of like gadfly algore clones buzzing about the planet to exotic locales on private jets to discuss how the little people are wasting energy and polluting the air as they hasten AGW. America needs to wake up and stop comsuming the world’s wealth on the backs of the poor Africans, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Or the Chinese and Indians (with a dot).
aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:47 amAS IF a libtard Congress will really not find ways to fund pet projects, pay off special interest groups and steal plenty for themselves.
How did that bank bailout turn out? How much went for banks to buy up other banks? Who ended up with the moolah? I’ve heard this whole stimulus thing should actually run over $5 trillion. My credit union, which has actually been doing a great job and has oodles of reserves, was lamenting how they must cut rates on what they offer on accounts even as others have teaser rates or pay out more to garner more customers. People are not borrowing so mcuh from credit unions overall and instead are leery of not saving. Ok, so they tell me GMAC received like $6 billion or so which they will lend out as comsumer loans at 0% interest. Your tax dollars at work to help the poor GM people. Jajajajaja- suckers! Keep voting in those incumbents for that free lunch. The Chinese will just keep taking our treasury bills? Sure. Print more money endlessly. Give Larry Flynt and the porn industry that $5 billion in aid they seek. No one should have to tighten their belts or be acountable! Executives still need those big bonuses and stock options. The UAW needs those jobs that pay people NOT to work. Surely all those stimuli will drive up stock prices again, DOW over 11k maybe, etc. The thing is to bail before the collapse??
In any case I am sure there is and has been NO WASTED public funds in the “give aways”.
Line-item-veto, that thing the Republicans passed and liberals took to SCUS and defeated, you know, that thing, would eliminate barge-loads of pork.
I had a Republican come to my door maybe 15 years ago, looking for my vote for city council. He agreed pork-barrel-spending was wrong ten ways to Sunday, but he argued “since it is there, if we don’t grab some of it, some other town will.” I retorted that his principled stand against the pork was disregarded out of convenience. I voted for a different Republican in the primaries, one that didn’t even come to my door, because of this one’s waffling stance on pork.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:51 amSarlberid, can you retort with anything other than feigned surprise? Or is that all you have to offer?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:04 am[…] Hat Tip: Patterico […]
Cassy Fiano » Obama: I’m going to fight spending, by spending more money (39e5f9) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:04 amSure we have…
But then again, we weren’t the ones who chose to fly planes into buildings. Add into that the fact that INS were crap at finding and deporting people that had out-stayed their Visa, and you have the makings for a whole lot of “fun”.
But yes, 9-11 had to happen in order for Bush to consolidate his power… The swine…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:05 amMister Jacobs, it wasn’t the fault of INS. It was the fault of that group of people who made it illegal for the various federal intelligence branches to talk to each other. Question is, who made it illegal to do that?
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:08 amThe President already has a staff for budgets. This is creation of a new office to duplicate duties that are already being performed. But because it’s a Democrat doing it, you’re okay with it, right?
The salary issue aside, does it make sense to you to create a new bureaucracy in order to reduce bureaucracy?
Steverino (69d941) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:22 amJohn Hitchcock writes:
Mister Jacobs, it wasn’t the fault of INS. It was the fault of that group of people who made it illegal for the various federal intelligence branches to talk to each other. Question is, who made it illegal to do that?
Hint: a lot of these Clinton Justice Department and security officials who did make that illegal are coming back to town as part of the Obama administration. Meet the New Boss, same as the Old (Clinton) Boss.
They told me that if we elected McCain, we’d just get Bush III. They didn’t tell me that if we elected Obama we’d get Clinton III.
And as for the new Chief Performance Officer position; that’s just bureacratic padding and one more body to throw under the bus. When the Obama team fails to stop the pork, she’ll become, “That’s not the Chief Performance Officer I thought I knew.”
Hope and change?–my weary backside!
Mike Myers (31af82) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:25 amAlright, Sarlberid, I shall attempt not to attempt dialogue with you, since you are so desirous of fallacious epithets. You choose to debate by flinging mud instead of by honest debate. I apologize for assuming you would actually debate with logic and evidence. I should know better than to assume, after all, and for that I apologize.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:25 amGetting lectured by Republicans about spending is like being lectured by alcoholics about drinking.
Or maybe like being lectured by Democrats about ethics.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:28 amSarlberid,
Speaking of spending:
[object]
• “I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. We could lose a generation of potential and promise, as more young Americans are forced to forgo dreams of college or the chance to train for the jobs of the future. And our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.
“In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.”
• “There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy. It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy –- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.”
• “It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied. And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.”
—–
Like the socialist rat b*stard he is, Obama thinks only the gub’mint can save us, and save us by spending extraordinary amounts of money we don’t have, failing to understand that the Great Depression lasted far longer thanks to FDR’s government “intervention” than it normally would have lasted. (Obama’s failure to understand basic history is astounding, and not in a good way.) I’m gonna luuuv listening to Obamabots explain to me Obama’s fiscal responsibility (like this newly created pork position, “chief performance officer”). And these types think Bush was bad. We ain’t seen nuthin’ yet! Plugs is right: Gird your loins, folks! Gird your wallets and bank accounts, too!
RickZ (472435) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:33 amAnd before you start griping about the miniscule salaries that these people will earn. . .
Starlbeird must be one of those limousine liberals who thinks that a mere $191,300 is chicken feed. That is, of course, if they pay this position at the Cabinet Secretary level. If not, then she’ll have to settle for something in the neighborhood of $150,000. No doubt she will have a nice large staff too. And none of this counts pensions (or matching 401(k) contributions) or health care benefits, or travel, or any other add-ons.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:34 amSarlberid.
I’m not saying Clinton was responsible, but Clinton didn’t do d*ck about 2/26. He was just across the Hudson in the wilds of Joisey and couldn’t even be bothered to visit the WTC. It set the tone for his whole administration, which on the terror front was a dismal, to be kind, failure.
RickZ (472435) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:38 amBut I thought presidents “have to do more than one thing at a time”? At least according to O’s campaign promises. What’s wrong with all the other overseers? We know what the Dems think of OFHEO, but there’s still the GAO.
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:44 amAgain, this is not at issue. What is at issue, and you are scrupulously ignoring it, is that this is a duplication of existing effort. You continue to ignore this fact because you have no defense for it.
Apples and oranges, but the lack of similarity has never stopped you from making stupid comparisons before.
The Department of Homeland Security was created largely from agencies taken from other departments. For example, the Transportation Safety Administration was formed from part of the FAA.
What part of the DHS was created that duplicated already existing functions?
Steverino (69d941) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:47 amWhy I expect this is a joke:
Impoundment
Federal spending has been out of control since 1974.
LarryD (feb78b) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:48 amAll Presidents do this. I mean Jesus Christ, George Bush created an entire department and cabinet position during his term, and you’re really going to complain about this one guy being a new bureaucracy?
1) It’s a woman who has been named to this position.
2) I seriously doubt if it will be just the “one guy.” She will probably have sub-directors, assistants, consultants, legislative liasaions etc.
3) In an age of huge deficits, do you think the Obama Administration should have a larger or smaller staff than its immediate predecessor? Should belt-tightening begin at the White House? Especially since Obama is (allegedly) so much intellectually superior that he alone ought to be five times as productive as GWB.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:48 amYou’re right, if you don’t consider US embassies our soil (even ones in Africa). (Carter didn’t look at our embassy in Iran as being our soil, so maybe it’s a Dem thing.) Of course, a US ship (visiting Yemen) is not US soil, either, right?
RickZ (472435) — 1/8/2009 @ 8:59 amHow so? Where have there been attacks on US interests other than in war zones?
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:05 amSarlberid,
In case you missed it, religious war was declared on us on 9/11. Clinton ignored all the other previous attacks hoping they would resolve themselves. Guess what, they didn’t.
RickZ (472435) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:07 amNo one can delegate responsibility. You can only delegate authority — the responsibility is still yours.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:08 amMost of the 9/11 attackers were in the US under a Clinton-era program, “Visa Express”, that allowed Saudi travel agents to approve them. Most of them entered the US before Bush was inaugurated.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:10 amOtherwise we’d have to count Mogadishu, the Balkans, and Haiti against Clinton.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:14 amLet’s review the claim that you made to which I responded:
No, attacks in deliberately created war zones don’t count. You see, part of keeping us safe is to take the fight to those who would attack us so that they can’t bring it to us, which they haven’t. I know, it’s awfully complicated, but if you really focus, I’m sure you can figure it out.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:18 amSheesh, the trolls are getting more and more incompetent.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:20 amIncoherent, too.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:22 amSPQR, that’s the reason I have decided to try to remember not to comment back on anything that particular troll posts.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:24 amBush.
As much as I love and respect those who serve in our armed forces, they have volunteered to stand between us civilians and war’s desolation. I think they’d agree that it’s better for them to be attacked than for, say, another child on her first trip to Disneyland to be hijacked and flown into a sky scraper.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:26 amSarlberid, your #69 is a perfect example of utterly dishonest trolling.
SPQR (72771e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:33 amOne of those murdered on 9/11 was a girl on her first trip to Disneyland. Instead of getting to see Mickey and Tinkerbell, her last moments were the horror of that crash. I consider that the ultimate in innocence destroyed — a child expecting something light and fun and memorable being snuffed out by murderous thugs.
Yes, our servicemen are us — nothing in my previous comment could be taken as if I thought otherwise.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:41 amFinally some oversight.
If her “staff” costs us 25% or less of what it saves us, I’m a happy camper and you all should be too…….. I’m guessing you wont be though 🙁
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:46 amNo, dumbass. We’re “dangling” them in front of the terrorists so that they can kill the terrorists, which is what they signed up to do. Not to keep them busy but to make them dead. That way, we can go to Disneyland, or school, work, dinner, anti-war protests, church, etc.
It’s the best one there is.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:47 amGee, Oiram, if it costs us 99% of what it saves us, we’re in the black! Woo hoo!
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:48 amWe must obliterate fiscal responsibility in order to restore it.
Wesson (3ab0b8) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:51 amIf her “staff” costs us 25% or less of what it saves us, I’m a happy camper and you all should be too…….. I’m guessing you wont be though 🙁
Oriam, I don’t know about the rest of the business world, but in my company I would have to do a whole lot better than a 3:1 return on investment if I were starting up a new division.
How about a compromise: this new position should last exactly two years, at which time it (and it’s support staff) will be discontinued. If she hasn’t cut out all the fat by then, then she never will. Why do we suspect, however, that Dems are angling to make this part of the permanent Washington bureaucracy?
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:54 am#74 Hey Pablo, I was might have been exxagerating with 25% and you might have been exxagerating with 99%. What if we split the middle? 62% is high.
But at least it’s a start.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:56 am#76 Good points JVW, that’s why I said “25% or less”.
But not a bad idea on the two year plan.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 9:59 amBut at least it’s a start.
The point is, though, how will we define what actual savings take place? Will her office take credit for budget items that would have been cut anyway? Or will she actually have to demonstrate instances where her office streamlined operations, reduced duplication, trimmed fat, eliminated waste, and pinched pennies?
I still say that this office should be considered a contract hire, and should disappear after two years.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:03 amIf a cost-cutting endeavor doesn’t cut much more spending than it costs, it’s a waste of money, brains and time. Seriously — given considerations like opportunity costs and the cost of money, that 99% figure would be an abysmal failure.
Would you spend $4 on a coupon book containing coupons giving a total of $3.95 in savings?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:06 amMake it paid on commission (percentage of savings realized), and then we’re talking.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:10 amPeople seem to forget we’re talking about Dems here, many of whom were in congress when the Dem minority at the time were railing against GOP cutting funds to “entitlements” when the GOP was, in fact, increasing funds to each of the “entitlements,” just by a lower margin than the Dems wanted.
John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:14 amMake it paid on commission (percentage of savings realized), and then we’re talking.
Yeah, but then they would game the system and claim credit for items that were already slated to be cut. Keep it as a salaried position, make it a two-year contract, and give them specific metrics for performance. If they meet all the metrics, you can argue for keeping them around for a third year.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:16 amRight, like when blocking a massive expansion of SCHIP was trying to take health care away from kids.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:16 amEh. Don’t give it to them. The government can be quite ruthless in dealing with its contractors when it wants to be. And there’s still plenty of money to be made.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:18 am#80 Would you spend $4 on a coupon book containing coupons giving a total of $3.95 in savings?
No I would not.
But a “Chief Performance” officer and it’s staff costing 99% of what it saves would be more like asking.
Would you spend $3.95 on a coupon book containing coupons giving a total of $4 guaranteed in savings?
I’ll admit that wouldn’t be worth the time or risk, but what if it were 25%, I.E. buying a book of $4 guaranteed coupons for $1?
Or rather saving 1 billion dollars in government overspending for 250 million dollars?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:20 amNo President can stop the spending binge as long as Congress is allowed to use Baseline Budgeting.
If all of you fiscal conservatives are serious about reining in the Federal Spendasour, start by demanding that your CongressKritter support the repeal of BB, and to revert to zero-based budgeting. But, of course, that would require Congress to actually review the progress – or lack of same – of the programs they pass, and to eliminate those that are not performing. Under current proceedures, nothing is ever eliminated, and the costs to the taxpayers are increased every year to account for COL and increased staffing: The Baseline.
As long as Congress uses Baseline Budgeting, and forbids Impoundment to the Executive as a budgeting tool, the size of the Federal Budget will grow, and we will be the worse for it.
AD (80a16b) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:22 am#87 Of course AD you are including some aspects of our Defense budget right?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:24 am#87 Of course AD you are including some aspects of our Defense budget right?
Not to speak for AD, but sure, Defense should come under consideration. Keep in mind, however, that Defense has been a popular whipping-boy for budget scrutiny since at least the late 80s. Even Newt Gringrich liked to describe himself as “a hawk, but a cheap hawk.” Rumsfield, the bane of liberals everywhere, probably did more to try and streamline military operations than any of his predecessors at Defense.
But also keep in mind that Defense cuts aren’t as easy as liberals like to pretend. I lived in Massachusetts back when Teddy Kennedy was bemoaning the “bloated” military budget, but as soon as the Pentagon proposed to close the Charlestown Navy Yard, Kennedy suddenly felt that it was vital to America’s national security. This happens quite a bit when the budget cut happens to affect your own back yard.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:33 amIf the savings were real.
We’re talking government. The only way to really save money there is to stop spending it, and not spending it on “Special Adviser to the President on Not Spending Money” seems like a good place to start not spending money.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:38 am#89 Not to speak for AD, but sure, Defense should come under consideration.
Thanks, AD
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:39 amI don’t like to respond to trolls such as mariO, but yes, I do include DoD.
AD (80a16b) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:40 amAll aspects of the Federal Budget need to be reviewed on a zero-base basis, eliminating those programs that are failures. Abject or slight, they all need to be eliminated to return the Federal Government back to its’ core principles as outlined in that quaint document some Dead White Guys put together back in 1787.
#90 Agreed Rob. But what if politics being politics, the spending can not be stopped?
I know we’re talking government, but if a special adviser could save us billions of dollars otherwise thrown at bad spending, at a 25% cost (wishfully much less), wouldn’t it be worth it?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:42 amAD, I agree at times I’ve seemed like a troll, I apologize for that. Ever tried to relay your thoughts at liberal blogs?
Your going to have to accept the fact that some here are going to disagree with the majority.
I’m really trying to learn when I don’t know, and teach when I see something that I disagree with. I will be the first to admit that I have learned a lot here. I can’t speak for the other so called “Trolls”.
Sorry but It’s hard to look at the rest of your comment when I’m called a “troll” and not even addressed by my real name.
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:51 amI know we’re talking government, but if a special adviser could save us billions of dollars otherwise thrown at bad spending, at a 25% cost (wishfully much less), wouldn’t it be worth it?
Certainly not. You and I could go and find four billion dollars in savings in the federal budget. Does that mean we should be paid $1 billion to do it? They should be hired at a normal salary and benefits package and told that their continued employment depends upon their finding billions of dollars in savings.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:52 amIf Congress forbids impoundment to the Executive (The President), what his CPO says is irrelevant.
The President proposes, and Congress disposes.
If it is in the Budget, and the Appropriation Bills put on his desk, and he signs them,
he has to spend the damn money no matter what anyone in his Administration says –
this is the Law!
If you can’t get this simple fact straight, you have no business opining on politics.
AD (80a16b) — 1/8/2009 @ 10:53 amAre you supposing that this process would be apolitical? If, politics being politics, the spending cannot be stopped, what is another political appointee going to do about it? And how is it going to be done amidst a commitment to $1 trillion in new spending?
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:04 am#95 yes JVW absolutely you and I could find 4 billion dollars in savings. But who would listen to you and I?
You and I could also find O.J. guilty of murder, but again who would listen?
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:04 amNah. Your ongoing anal/cranial inversion is quite obvious and everthing else is irrelevant. Buh bye.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:05 amComment by Sarlberid IS ACTUALLY LEVI YOU DUMB MOTHER FUCKERS
Ho ho ho, good one. You sure got over on us that time, Chief. I’m glad that you missed us so much that your empty little life wasn’t the same until you donned another identity (new computer lab at the community college?) and rejoined. Stand by for your re-banning.
JVW (bff0a4) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:34 amSorry, Levi. Your dad is on his own.
Pablo (99243e) — 1/8/2009 @ 11:34 amSo, Levi, your being a dishonest jerk is somehow a poor reflection on us?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/8/2009 @ 12:40 pmDON’T CALL MY DAD PLEASE OMG
Spoken like the true Wussy Boy that he is – still afraid of Big Bad Patterico, and deathly afraid of his Daddy. Awwww.
But come back when you finally grow a pair and become a man (or something remotely approximating one).
Dmac (eb0dd0) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:12 pmYou know, I don’t know this Levi character from Adam, I guess he has a history here.
Say what you want about me (you all have), at least I don’t act like that moron.
Give me that one at least 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:42 pmTrust me, I don’t think you could act like him if you tried.
He’s a very special kind of complete and utter moron.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:52 pm#109, I gotta tell ya Scott, it’s nice to win one here.
Thanks Buddy
Oiram (983921) — 1/8/2009 @ 1:55 pmSounds like the Chief Performance Officer will be in charge of handing out VIAGRA. I wonder what the budget will be for that program.
Hangtown Bob (08c607) — 1/8/2009 @ 2:46 pmSarlberid,
Please don’t do that. WE don’t like that.
Scott B (a45cf8) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:16 pmJVW,
Yes, Bush did create more bureaucracy, and conservatives and libertarians and anyone who cares about fiscal discipline criticizes him for it.
My mother taught me two wrongs don’t make a right.
Patricia (89cb84) — 1/8/2009 @ 4:39 pm[…] – the only problem is that this is a job already done by the GAO, and he has been rightly criticized for it. Before even taking office, Obama has with these moves shown he has no problem creating more […]
Like FDR, Obama to foolishly spend his way out of recession « Wellsy’s World (725c82) — 1/8/2009 @ 7:05 pm