Costner is also adept at living in the wild and talking to animals, so he is far better suited than Mel Gibson or Kurt Russell.

The USPS is the credited (and obvious) answer here, as I'm hard-pressed to see what they do that can't be replicated in the private sector. They've outgrown their usefulness.

What about the FCC? Wireless competition post-TCA '96 has rendered much of their rate regulation unnecessary. Telecom providers face competition in many technologies and are already state regulated.

fan_from_texas wrote: Would you keep the state analogues of these agencies? Or eliminate those as well? If the latter, how would you propose dealing with various envtl. externalities/tragedy of the commons situations?

Also, if you eliminate the DoE, what would you propose doing with wholesale power? What's your solution to preventing monopoly pricing in a natural monopoly field?

Yes, keep the state's equivalent, for now. Perhaps fema/homeland security could be the lead in the event of a multi-state disaster.

As for DoE, it was formed in 1977 after the oil crisis and was supposed bring about the end to our dependence on foreign oil. Obviously the mission is a failure (not unlike any other government agency), and (not unlike any other government agency) it has subsequently taken on a new life of its own. It is time to end that life, and the lives of multitudes of other government agencies and programs.

Cuts are not easy, but we need to do it, so do it quickly and very deeply.
If you have to eat a toad, eat it, because it doesn't get any prettier the longer you stare at it.

QuakerOats wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote: f you eliminate the DoE, what would you propose doing with wholesale power? What's your solution to preventing monopoly pricing in a natural monopoly field?

As for DoE, it was formed in 1977 after the oil crisis and was supposed bring about the end to our dependence on foreign oil. Obviously the mission is a failure (not unlike any other government agency), and (not unlike any other government agency) it has subsequently taken on a new life of its own. It is time to end that life, and the lives of multitudes of other government agencies and programs.

Cuts are not easy, but we need to do it, so do it quickly and very deeply. If you have to eat a toad, eat it, because it doesn't get any prettier the longer you stare at it.

Through FERC, the DoE has largely deregulated the wholesale power industry. If you eliminate the DoE, what do you propose in its place to continue that deregulation? You're dealing what is very obviously a natural monopoly with transmission bottlenecks, and yet you want to eliminate the pro-competitive market regulator that has been very effective at opening new markets, developing new transmission capacity, and deregulating the wholesale power industry. If you eliminate the DoE, what do you propose to do with the natural monopoly?

Do you actually have serious proposals for this, or are you just throwing out something inflammatory that you picked up somewhere? There are very basic problems with eliminating DoE/FERC (which I've noted above). Do you have any actual proposals for addressing the regulatory void? Simply noting that cuts are difficult--without actually addressing the economics of your proposals--seems short-sighted, at best.

fan_from_texas wrote: The USPS is the credited (and obvious) answer here, as I'm hard-pressed to see what they do that can't be replicated in the private sector. They've outgrown their usefulness.

What about the FCC? Wireless competition post-TCA '96 has rendered much of their rate regulation unnecessary. Telecom providers face competition in many technologies and are already state regulated.

I'd agree to those.
Although, there is the tricky problem of paying the pensions for Postal Workers.

I'd like to see some of the intelligence agencies merge. We have 16. The imaging ones are sort of redundant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community

I'd also say slowly decrease and eliminate the DEA and ATF.

One more thing, related to Congress, is I'd eliminate or restructure half of the committees. There is no reason why DHS should have to testify to 16 or so committees.

Special Interest groups are all but federal programs, as they don't have those titles but are surely just as much of the government process as anything else.
Put an absolute ban on them. Anybody who's caught having dealings with them automatically lose their positions and an immediate special election is held to vote in the new politician.

Yes, I know... fantasy world, but since we're at it...

CenterBHSFan wrote: Special Interest groups are all but federal programs, as they don't have those titles but are surely just as much of the government process as anything else.
Put an absolute ban on them. Anybody who's caught having dealings with them automatically lose their positions and an immediate special election is held to vote in the new politician.

Yes, I know... fantasy world, but since we're at it...

What do you consider special interest groups? What would fall under that umbrella? How would you reconcile this position with the 1st A.?

fan_from_texas wrote: The USPS is the credited (and obvious) answer here, as I'm hard-pressed to see what they do that can't be replicated in the private sector. They've outgrown their usefulness.

What about the FCC? Wireless competition post-TCA '96 has rendered much of their rate regulation unnecessary. Telecom providers face competition in many technologies and are already state regulated.

There was a time when the USPS was very profitable and the feds siphoned off this surplus for other needs. Now the USPS could use that money for such things as pension funding/continuation.

"Now the USPS could use that money for such things as pension funding/continuation. "

No personal offense meant Con_Alma, but why does anyone deserve a taxpayer funded pension funding/continuation? This is practically non-existent for younger workers. The word pension barely exists, to the extent it does exist it is with the public sector. I'm expected to provide for my own 'retirement', with retirement in quotes because it isn't going to happen. Our country is so much in debt I'm working to day that I die, and I'm actually fine with it. What I'm not fine with is the expectations of the generation that boned us. If there was indeed a time when the USPS was profitable and the feds fucked it up, why didn't you stop it? Why is it our burden?

Forget pensions and defined benefit programs - if you didn't fund it, why is it a burden of others?

-edit, sorry meant to include the taxpayer bit above.

fan_from_texas wrote: Through FERC, the DoE has largely deregulated the wholesale power industry. If you eliminate the DoE, what do you propose in its place to continue that deregulation? You're dealing what is very obviously a natural monopoly with transmission bottlenecks, and yet you want to eliminate the pro-competitive market regulator that has been very effective at opening new markets, developing new transmission capacity, and deregulating the wholesale power industry. If you eliminate the DoE, what do you propose to do with the natural monopoly?

Do you actually have serious proposals for this, or are you just throwing out something inflammatory that you picked up somewhere? There are very basic problems with eliminating DoE/FERC (which I've noted above). Do you have any actual proposals for addressing the regulatory void? Simply noting that cuts are difficult--without actually addressing the economics of your proposals--seems short-sighted, at best.

The anti-trust division of the DoJ is charged with essentially preventing monopolies. Perhaps they should be the 'regulator' in this instance. And yes, all major changes start with 'throwing out' ideas into the arena. Can I quantify in one hour everything that needs to be dealt with - certainly not. But to simply say ---- it can't be done, is certainly no answer at all, nor is it acceptable. With all of the incredible successes that the people of this country have achieved over the last century, we can surely eliminate substantial amounts of bureaucracy if we really want to, and be much better for it.

QuakerOats wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote: Through FERC, the DoE has largely deregulated the wholesale power industry. If you eliminate the DoE, what do you propose in its place to continue that deregulation? You're dealing what is very obviously a natural monopoly with transmission bottlenecks, and yet you want to eliminate the pro-competitive market regulator that has been very effective at opening new markets, developing new transmission capacity, and deregulating the wholesale power industry. If you eliminate the DoE, what do you propose to do with the natural monopoly?

Do you actually have serious proposals for this, or are you just throwing out something inflammatory that you picked up somewhere? There are very basic problems with eliminating DoE/FERC (which I've noted above). Do you have any actual proposals for addressing the regulatory void? Simply noting that cuts are difficult--without actually addressing the economics of your proposals--seems short-sighted, at best.

The anti-trust division of the DoJ is charged with essentially preventing monopolies. Perhaps they should be the 'regulator' in this instance. And yes, all major changes start with 'throwing out' ideas into the arena. Can I quantify in one hour everything that needs to be dealt with - certainly not. But to simply say ---- it can't be done, is certainly no answer at all, nor is it acceptable. With all of the incredible successes that the people of this country have achieved over the last century, we can surely eliminate substantial amounts of bureaucracy if we really want to, and be much better for it.

The DOJ deals with anti-competitive behavior. Natural monopolies don't result from anti-competitive behavior--they result from various technical bottlenecks, and they've been regulated by state public utility commissions and the FPC/FERC (under the DOE) for almost 100 years, as is necessary in any capitalist system where you have natural monopolies/market failure. What you're proposing is not to eliminate the regulation, but to move it from one agency (that has a century of experience doing it) to an agency that has never done it and isn't equipped to do it.

This would be an unmitigated disaster that would massively increase costs to consumers all across the country. FERC is perhaps the most free-market oriented agency around, and the idea of getting rid of them to dump their workload on the DOJ to address structural market problems isn't a good one.

I'm not familiar enough with the other agencies you mentioned to spot all the issues immediately, but taking a broad brush to agencies is something that may play well on the talk radio airwaves but be unworkable and impracticable in reality. Eliminating the DOE solely because we still use foreign oil--and ignoring all the good, market-based solutions that have come out of it--seems like pretty poor reasoning.

For a listing of government programs/offices

Tax money wasteland

It will take you an hour just to click through it alphabetically

fan_from_texas wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Special Interest groups are all but federal programs, as they don't have those titles but are surely just as much of the government process as anything else.
Put an absolute ban on them. Anybody who's caught having dealings with them automatically lose their positions and an immediate special election is held to vote in the new politician.

Yes, I know... fantasy world, but since we're at it...

What do you consider special interest groups? What would fall under that umbrella? How would you reconcile this position with the 1st A.?

Good question, let's start with the unions.

QuakerOats wrote: Let's start with the Four E's first --- Education, Energy, EPA, and Entitlements.

And next year, we can eliminate a few more.

Because that would help anything...

fan_from_texas wrote: The USPS is the credited (and obvious) answer here, as I'm hard-pressed to see what they do that can't be replicated in the private sector. They've outgrown their usefulness.

What about the fact that the USPS is still the only letter carrier service that will deliver to any mailing address....even if it's in the middle of Nevada Desert? Not exactly a profitable endeavor without costs for mail. Not saying the USPS is awesome, but perhaps suggesting it might have at least some usefulness in delivering mail to places private letter carriers don't want to deliver.

What effect do you think the USPS being essentially an enumerated power of Congress has on whether or not it should be sunsetted-out? (sp?)

BoatShoes wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote: The USPS is the credited (and obvious) answer here, as I'm hard-pressed to see what they do that can't be replicated in the private sector. They've outgrown their usefulness.

What about the fact that the USPS is still the only letter carrier service that will deliver to any mailing address....even if it's in the middle of Nevada Desert? Not exactly a profitable endeavor without costs for mail. Not saying the USPS is awesome, but perhaps suggesting it might have at least some usefulness in delivering mail to places private letter carriers don't want to deliver.

What effect do you think the USPS being essentially an enumerated power of Congress has on whether or not it should be sunsetted-out? (sp?)

Well the simple answer is the person living in the middle of the Nevada Desert should bear the costs, not the taxpayers.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote:

BoatShoes wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote: The USPS is the credited (and obvious) answer here, as I'm hard-pressed to see what they do that can't be replicated in the private sector. They've outgrown their usefulness.

What about the fact that the USPS is still the only letter carrier service that will deliver to any mailing address....even if it's in the middle of Nevada Desert? Not exactly a profitable endeavor without costs for mail. Not saying the USPS is awesome, but perhaps suggesting it might have at least some usefulness in delivering mail to places private letter carriers don't want to deliver.

What effect do you think the USPS being essentially an enumerated power of Congress has on whether or not it should be sunsetted-out? (sp?)

Well the simple answer is the person living in the middle of the Nevada Desert should bear the costs, not the taxpayers.

Exactly. If you live in the desert, why should everyone else bear the costs of your decision? If you live in the desert, either use e-mail or pay a bit extra for a stamp.

Well, in what regard should we hold the fact that a seemingly arcane program such as the USPS is an expressly enumerated power of the Congress whereas something like the Department of Energy, at best, is a means of implementing a liberal view on the Congress' Commerce Power; a view people like Robert Bork or Justice Thomas wouldn't agree with. (I imagine FFT you don't have such a constrained constitutional jurisprudence, so the question is posed more generally). The general idea I suppose is, sure it seems like the USPS has had its day in the sun, but it's nonetheless, of all the allegedly unconstitutional programs and departments created by Congress, one of the few that fits squarely within its enumerated powers. Something like the Department of Homeland Security, although thought to be a necessary program to help defend Americans from terrorism, is not as nice of a fit within congress' power under Article II, Sec. 8.

Hence, it seems like there's a tension between adhering strictly to the Constitution and keeping inefficient programs like the USPS and minimizing inefficiency spread to the taxpayer, at least in some cases.

Art.I S.8 gives Congress the power to create the USPS but does not require it to do so. There shouldn't be constitutional problems with Congress choosing not to utilize all the powers to which it has access.

No need for all these federal law enforcement agencies.

Federal Bureau of Investigations, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, Federal Marshalls, Drug Enforcement Agency.

These agencies could be streamlined. Law enforcement in some of these areas are easily handle by state and local government.

BoatShoes wrote: Hence, it seems like there's a tension between adhering strictly to the Constitution and keeping inefficient programs like the USPS and minimizing inefficiency spread to the taxpayer, at least in some cases.

If the federal government would have strictly adhered to the constitution as many of the founders intended, my guess that through the amendment process these new federal powers given to create new programs and departments would have yielded a more balanced and proper amount.

majorspark wrote: No need for all these federal law enforcement agencies.

Federal Bureau of Investigations, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, Federal Marshalls, Drug Enforcement Agency.

These agencies could be streamlined. Law enforcement in some of these areas are easily handle by state and local government.

I think we could do without a lot of the law enforcement and jails. We have at any given time way too many people in jail.



According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS): "In 2008, over 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year-end — 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults."

"I think we could do without a lot of the law enforcement and jails. We have at any given time way too many people in jail."

In a sense I agree, but do we want the unemployment rate to be higher? What do you expect all of these incarcerated folks to do?

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "I think we could do without a lot of the law enforcement and jails. We have at any given time way too many people in jail."

In a sense I agree, but do we want the unemployment rate to be higher? What do you expect all of these incarcerated folks to do?

I'll take it one step further.

WTF are we supposed to do with all the people who commit serious crimes?

Even if it is a "lesser" crime, are they to go unpunished?

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "I think we could do without a lot of the law enforcement and jails. We have at any given time way too many people in jail."

In a sense I agree, but do we want the unemployment rate to be higher? What do you expect all of these incarcerated folks to do?

I'll take it one step further.

WTF are we supposed to do with all the people who commit serious crimes?

Even if it is a "lesser" crime, are they to go unpunished?

Put them to work. Get them out of the prisons and have them do something productive that would save money for the state, etc.
The "War" on drugs has put millions of people in prison at huge costs to the taxpayers. We need less restrictive drug laws and then any criminal that didn't commit a violent crime should be put to work in some form for punishment, instead of just sitting in a cell for however many years.