Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktAs a joking observation about the ‘Oops’ Heard Around The World, I suggested that Rick Perry’s incoherent fumbling was the result of there just being too many agencies that he wanted to ax.
In an odd piece of trying to make lemonade out of lemons, the Perry campaign is confirming my suspicion with a straw poll of what other agencies Perry should also pledge to ax. It includes the usual suspects, the Department of Labor, the IRS, the NEA, and so forth. A very odd inclusion at the very bottom is the Marine Mammal Commission.
Compared to the other big massive targets in his crosshairs, this seems like pretty small beer. Is Rick Perry really courting the Club The Seals crowd?
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Of all those things, the Marine Mamma, Commission, and the NEA, are the two departments where I wouldn't worry about the entire department disappearing. Or, where the question: "What could they possibly be doing that's in the national interest of the tax payer?" makes complete and total sense. Department of Energy? Um, I kinda see why we might want one of those, the performance of said department not withstanding. Department of Education? Same thing. Department of Commerce. Seriously? Internal Revenue Service. Who collects the money to buy the bombs for the military in that circumstance? Etc.OT: I love Jon Stewart. Oh, I've had an issue with him now and again, but I was just listening to last night's episode and he delivers this golden nugget:"The Democrat Machine. It costs billions of dollars, runs on solar energy, and it turns hope into disappointment."
LikeLike
In the worlds of Nelson Muntz "Meh. You gotta nuke something." http://www.bustedtees.com/nukethewhalesKW — are you saying "seriously, who would get rid of Commerce and Dept. of Education?"
LikeLike
Including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is pretty indicative of a mindset as well. Particularly in light of early warnings that commodities trading is subject to the same bubbling that destroyed the housing market.
LikeLike
I can see the theory behind getting rid of the Department of Education, but I can also see what the value is, and how people might not pick that as the first place to start cleaning house. But the Department of Commerce? I mean, I guess I get the argument, but that's where you go first when trying to find things to slash? I can see the argument for government involvement in interstate commerce, and it's not a novel idea.Wanna start cutting bureaucracy, lets get rid of the Department of Homeland Security. What we needed: a better information sharing infrastructure. What we got? A giant new bloated bureaucracy! Of course, there's probably room to trim in every government agency. But I can see where there is a national interest in the conduct of commerce, but not the welfare of marine mammals (or the fine arts, no matter how much I like such things).
LikeLike
In case anyone is interested, WaPo has created a new position called Chief Experience Officer, or CXO.She's doing a live q & a at noon eastern time today.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ask-the-post/post/ask-our-chief-experience-officer/2011/11/09/gIQAkbin8M_blog.html
LikeLike
I was just poking around on the commerce dept. site. sure, there's a lot that i would say "get rid of it." But, Obama's FY 2012 budget request for the dept. was $8.8 billion. budget dust.
LikeLike
Continuing to watch Jon Stewart. Nancy Pelosi: "Bless their hearts, the Republicans do what they believe. And they don't believe in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Clean Air, Clean Water, Food Safety, Public Safety [emphasis mine], Public Education . . ."Making a note of that, for when people suggest to me that Democrats don't ever doing anything equivalent of calling Obama a socialist or claiming that Obama wants to destroy the country, etc. Or they give themselves the constant out: "Well, yes, a few crazy so-called Democrats or liberals might say such things on the Daily Kos, but it's your elected representatives trafficking in such nonsense. Our politicians would never say anything like that."Not any of the Democrats or left-leaning independents here, of course. But, you know, those other kinds. :)"If you vote for me, I pledge to do all that I can to reduce public safety. I think the public should be at much risk of death or dismemberment, at all times, as possible!"
LikeLike
Jon Stewart's audience cheered Nancy Pelosi on that. Humanity is very, very tribal.
LikeLike
"Public safety" is code for salaries for police and firefighters. I think we just saw a case play out where Republicans were trying to erode the pay of public safety workers and got called out on it.
LikeLike
be great if someone would take her laundry list and systematically how those programs are systematically flawed. and I include public safety in that. we've dumped surplus military equipment into the law enforcement world, fostered an "us against them" mentality in the ranks, and stuff like this is the result: http://gawker.com/5825010/police-beat-gentle-homeless-mentally-ill-man-to-death and http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=24549
LikeLike
yellojkt: Opposition to public sector unions, and opposition to public safety, are very different things. If that's the sort of loose standard that we should use to make our case, then Democrats hate entrepreneurs, are out to punish success, Obama is a socialist, and Dems support the terrorists and want to weaken and destroy America. "Public safety" does not disappear because someone wants to discuss different budgeting models or limit the right to strike (arguably, having police and firefighters on strike and refusing to respond is much more dangerous, as regards public safety, than underpaying those people). If you want to demagogue, the phrase would be "and the Republicans don't believe in paying our First Responders a decent wage for protecting our families and our homes". It's a little longer, and it's certainly not how Republicans look at their position, but at least it bears some resemblance to the Republican position. Nobody wants dirty air and dirty water. Talking as if that's their actual goal (code word or not) I think is generally unproductive, but also I believe it undercuts their case (and vice-versa: I don't think "Obama is a socialist" and "liberals hate America" really make a solid conservative argument for less regulation and more individual liberty). As I think I illustrated, there is a way to demagog the issue, if that's their goal, that doesn't involve making the absurd accusation that your opposition is "for evil"."My opponent wants bad things to happen to you . . . because your tears fuel his evil power!"
LikeLike
NoVA: we've dumped surplus military equipment into the law enforcement world, fostered an "us against them" mentality in the ranks, and stuff like this is the result: That's a fair question. Does public safety in the modern age require that we militarize the police, and turn them from peace officers to combat troops? Because this is clearly the way we are going.
LikeLike
Nobody wants dirty air or water or unsafe food but relaxing regulations and loosening supervision of industries tends to result in that. We have had several food safety crises in the past few years that would seem to merit more oversight.
LikeLike
There's a good case to be made to consolidate a lot of the agencies into something similar to the British Home Office and allow issues between say EPA and Commerce to be worked out at the sub-cabinet level. For example, here's the Department of the Interior's mission statement:"The U.S. Department of the Interior uses sound science to manage and sustain America’s lands, water, wildlife, and energy resources, honors our nation’s responsibilities to tribal nations, and advocates for America’s island communities."U.S. Department of the InteriorAny reason the EPA can't be combined with this department? I'd roll Agriculture in there for good measure as well.
LikeLike
"NoVA: we've dumped surplus military equipment into the law enforcement world, fostered an "us against them" mentality in the ranks, and stuff like this is the result:That's a fair question. Does public safety in the modern age require that we militarize the police, and turn them from peace officers to combat troops? Because this is clearly the way we are going. "No, the War on Drugs requires this.
LikeLike
what jnc4p said. any discussion regarding police equipment, tactics and mentality is incomplete without acknowledging the root cause, the War on Drugs.
LikeLike
yellojkt: Nobody wants dirty air or water or unsafe food but relaxing regulations and loosening supervision of industries tends to result in that.But that's a very different argument from saying Republicans don't believe (period) in public safety, clean water, clean air, food safety, SS, etc. Pelosi did not say Republicans support budget cutting that will have a negative impact in these areas, she said they do not believe in clean water, clean air, or (!) public safety.
LikeLike
War on Drugs: now, there's somewhere we could save the money. Because is it really worth the cost in blood and treasure to keep losers from getting stoned? Because at the end of the day, that would be the tragic end consequence to decriminalizing drug possession and even legalizing the sale (ala "medical" marijuana boutiques). Losers would find it easier to get stoned, and spend more time in their parent's basement and less time in jail, on the tax payers dime.
LikeLike
To nitpick, the oops was in what went unheard…
LikeLike
Or evenly more accurately, what went unsaid.
LikeLike
I would dump the CFTC and put their responsibilities with the SEC. Ex-SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt is a frequent contributor to Bloomberg and it is his belief that the CFTC / SEC rivalry is counterproductive and that derivatives regulation should be under the SEC.I don't know why we have so many different banking regulators. Is regulating a S&L or credit union really that different than regulating a bank?
LikeLike
A lot of the agencies we have now made sense at some point in our political/economic evolution, but not necessarily now. Inertia and the will to survive being what they are, it'a hard to evolve these outfits into something more aligned with the 21st century.FYI, the Q & A with WaPo's new talking head wasn't heartening. Other people answered some of the questions, for one thing. For another, "email us at ideas@washpost.com" was used a bit to often to dodge issues. In one case, a person who wants to get off the WaPo email list was told to send an email requesting same, but not told where to direct the email. Pretty typical (useless) responses.Kevin, I'd say your ignore button ain't gonna happen. In fact, I'd say any upgrades to the comments function are wwwwaaaaaaayyyyyyy down their priority list.
LikeLike
Politicians of both sides put words in the mouths of their opponents."Our Democratic friends think that when a corporation is profitable, that’s a bad thing."-Mitt Romney 11/9/11Do they really?
LikeLike
MsJS: Kevin, I'd say your ignore button ain't gonna happen.I'm shocked and appalled! I skimmed the conversation, after the fact. Did not look hopeful. Actually, it reminds me of the Disney Parks blog. They just recently did a livechat (which I again skimmed after the fact), and people would ask specific questions about new attractions and were answered with some variation on: "We always like to pay attention to those kind of details at Walt Disney World, that's what makes the Walt Disney experience so special." Specific questions were answered with "we like to keep some things secret" to random clippings of boilerplate romance copy from Disney World brochures. 😉 YelloJkt: Politicians of both sides put words in the mouths of their opponents.Just to be clear, I never, ever suggested any different. Perhaps Mitt's statement was a little more gentle than saying Republicans don't believe in public safety, but still incorrect.
LikeLike
Frankly, I would consolidate a lot of the Cabinet.Commerce, Ag, and Labor should be consolidated.DOEd should become the Office of Ed in HHS.HUD should be an office in HHS.Homeland Security should be dismantled and its parts sent from whence they came.The DVetAffairs should be the bureau of vet affairs in the DOD or in HHS.I am making choices, btw, based on the overlapping and contradictory regulations that some of my clients must face. Labor and Commerce are notorious for this as are Labor and Ag. Where should our migrant worker program, such as it is, be? DOL or Ag? Not Homeland, I hope.I do not oppose the functions, but I hate the overlap in regs.HUD should be diminished simply b/c it is always a hotbed of corruption in every Admin.I suppose Interior, Energy, and Environment could be one D also. Guessing there are overlapping regs there, too.Smaller Cab = fewer fiefdoms.
LikeLike
While we're at it, I'd like to reduce the House of Representatives down to about 250 members.
LikeLike
"While we're at it, I'd like to reduce the House of Representatives down to about 250 members."I love that one MsJs. I pretty much agree with Mark, a lot of this overlaps, so consolidate. And Homeland Security was definitely over kill imo. I'd prefer to see teachers keep their jobs over some of this other waste.
LikeLike
Heh. I remember an old Doonesbury cartoon about Gov. Brown's presidential campaign. The crowd is shouting encouraging slogans, but he's terribly late and they're shouting Nuke the Whales by the end of it.I think the Perry campaign is handling it as well as possible and with humor. That much having been said, he's toast. I had my doubts about his ability to move from Texas politics to national, but no idea about a debacle of this magnitude. Then again, I have a hard time seeing Romney getting the nomination without a serious challenge from someone.Funny thing is, I read the beginning of what he was saying and knew he meant to add DOE. Never mind that they're in charge of nuclear weapons research. If you visit DOE, you're told not to display a visitor's badge on the street. I wondered briefly and then realized why. Given that energy is our chief strategic concern, it's idiotic to not have national strategies regarding it. BB
LikeLike