"Now some of this stuff is already culturally relevant, because in prior, Democrat-run administrations, people have been encouraged to turn in their relatives for political indoctrination."
I wasn't asking whether the gov't identified, tracked, and targeted what it viewed as extremist groups (a valid job for the gov't) - I was more asking about the cases where the gov't appealed to family members to turn them in.
I vaguely recall a lot of mugshots being released in conjunction with the January 6th insurrection and relatives identifying offenders (this happens with train crime in Chicago as well), but I don't recall the gov't going out of its way targeting families to turn in related extremists, as opposed to the more general "See something? Say something." campaigns that have been going on since the beginning of the War on Terror.
Government is hardly just a "service," and it cannot be simply unaccountable for its actions and expenditures, as it has been for so long. Nothing that now employs at least a quarter of the nation's work force with money extracted by threat of force from the people it purports to serve can be anything other than suspect, regardless of individual employees' intentions.
It’s more to whom the government employees are accountable. Not to Musk. Let Congress do its job. If it doesn’t we cannot bring in a tyrant or a Rasputin to do it.
This is where expanding the House to more closely oversee the bureaucracy would be useful, besides limiting the number of constituents represented by one person.
The GAO and IGs have provided audits and recommendations for improving efficiency/eliminating waste. Those recommendations are provided to Congress to act upon.
If Congress did in fact implement those changes via law, it'd save ~$200B dollars.
If you want, just click on the Priority Recommendations Only box and click Search, then click the header for each. You'll get to something like this: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105833, and you can click the link for the number of recommendations to jump down to specifics too.
There's a lot in there, you'll have to click in and start reading. Keep in mind: there's over 5000 recommendations in general, and 468 are priority ones.
Thanks again. I was particularly interested in recommendations regarding the states managing payments in a manner that reduced federal costs. It made sense but there were further recommendations that "The Administrator of CMS should require states to consider health equity priorities in designing evaluations of state directed payments. (Recommendation 3."
All the recommendations I read seemed to require increasing the number of bureaucrats. I do not believe that will necessarily result in a net decrease in Federal spending when the bureaucrats are so resistant to accountability.
No sir. Pretty cushy "service" detail, if you ask me. If "service" exempts a worker from accountability, who would want anything but a government job? Demand for them rises to make more and more. Costs rise, production softens. Ineptitude and indifference ensues. Government may not be business in the sense of creating profit, but it still has to operate by business principles: work for what you earn; be accountable to supervision; be willing to adapt to changing circumstances. "Service" employees do not own their jobs.
Accountability exists in the IGs and the GAO, and of course the usual supervisor/employee relationship within the particular offices/organizations themselves. The departments evaluate performance, while the IGs/GAO perform audits and provide recommendations for reducing costs/improving performance. The GAO specifically provides recommendations to Congress - so it's better to ask why Congress hasn't acted upon them (the answer is likely politics).
So firstly: prove that individuals are not working for what they earn or are not being held accountable by supervision. Adaptation to changing circumstances needs to be defined - how do you mean this, and is it something that a department can do without Congress approving or appropriating funds to enable? That's the issue with DOGE: there is no actual audit occurring, it's just random actions that are being done to be seen as doing something.
The fun part is that there's a good blueprint out there for either reducing headcount or otherwise making cuts in areas that can handle them - and that's Bill Clinton's administration. They did 6 months of evaluations and planning to identify who/what could be cut without having negative effects on performance.
The chainsaw approach is insane and I take heart at the number of citizens rejecting the campaign donors approach. Federal judges also received the email. Really? Pork and waste have existed forever. Congress mumbles about stopping it and immediately grants it to win over votes needed to pass a bill. Do we really need to know why birds mate? IMHO there are many ways to cut waste. Starving people, cutting benefits here and globally? I can’t get behind that. The sooner Musk packs up his boy toys and heads home the better!
"Now some of this stuff is already culturally relevant, because in prior, Democrat-run administrations, people have been encouraged to turn in their relatives for political indoctrination."
Citation?
And there's the IRS: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups
Social pressure - here's another: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/the-capitol-rioters-arent-like-other-extremists/617895/
Here's one: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/27/military-extremism-target-list-478200
I wasn't asking whether the gov't identified, tracked, and targeted what it viewed as extremist groups (a valid job for the gov't) - I was more asking about the cases where the gov't appealed to family members to turn them in.
I vaguely recall a lot of mugshots being released in conjunction with the January 6th insurrection and relatives identifying offenders (this happens with train crime in Chicago as well), but I don't recall the gov't going out of its way targeting families to turn in related extremists, as opposed to the more general "See something? Say something." campaigns that have been going on since the beginning of the War on Terror.
Government is hardly just a "service," and it cannot be simply unaccountable for its actions and expenditures, as it has been for so long. Nothing that now employs at least a quarter of the nation's work force with money extracted by threat of force from the people it purports to serve can be anything other than suspect, regardless of individual employees' intentions.
It’s more to whom the government employees are accountable. Not to Musk. Let Congress do its job. If it doesn’t we cannot bring in a tyrant or a Rasputin to do it.
This is where expanding the House to more closely oversee the bureaucracy would be useful, besides limiting the number of constituents represented by one person.
The GAO and IGs have provided audits and recommendations for improving efficiency/eliminating waste. Those recommendations are provided to Congress to act upon.
If Congress did in fact implement those changes via law, it'd save ~$200B dollars.
Any link to the details of the recommendations?
https://www.gao.gov/reports-testimonies/recommendations-database
Thanks, but it does not give any details - certainly not enough to form opinions.
If you want, just click on the Priority Recommendations Only box and click Search, then click the header for each. You'll get to something like this: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105833, and you can click the link for the number of recommendations to jump down to specifics too.
Here's one re IT software licenses: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105717
Here's one re Medicaid Managed Care: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106202
There's a lot in there, you'll have to click in and start reading. Keep in mind: there's over 5000 recommendations in general, and 468 are priority ones.
Thanks again. I was particularly interested in recommendations regarding the states managing payments in a manner that reduced federal costs. It made sense but there were further recommendations that "The Administrator of CMS should require states to consider health equity priorities in designing evaluations of state directed payments. (Recommendation 3."
All the recommendations I read seemed to require increasing the number of bureaucrats. I do not believe that will necessarily result in a net decrease in Federal spending when the bureaucrats are so resistant to accountability.
No sir. Pretty cushy "service" detail, if you ask me. If "service" exempts a worker from accountability, who would want anything but a government job? Demand for them rises to make more and more. Costs rise, production softens. Ineptitude and indifference ensues. Government may not be business in the sense of creating profit, but it still has to operate by business principles: work for what you earn; be accountable to supervision; be willing to adapt to changing circumstances. "Service" employees do not own their jobs.
Accountability exists in the IGs and the GAO, and of course the usual supervisor/employee relationship within the particular offices/organizations themselves. The departments evaluate performance, while the IGs/GAO perform audits and provide recommendations for reducing costs/improving performance. The GAO specifically provides recommendations to Congress - so it's better to ask why Congress hasn't acted upon them (the answer is likely politics).
So firstly: prove that individuals are not working for what they earn or are not being held accountable by supervision. Adaptation to changing circumstances needs to be defined - how do you mean this, and is it something that a department can do without Congress approving or appropriating funds to enable? That's the issue with DOGE: there is no actual audit occurring, it's just random actions that are being done to be seen as doing something.
The fun part is that there's a good blueprint out there for either reducing headcount or otherwise making cuts in areas that can handle them - and that's Bill Clinton's administration. They did 6 months of evaluations and planning to identify who/what could be cut without having negative effects on performance.
What an empty attempt at being bipartisan
Bring it on
Unrelated: did you see Pam Bondi and Trump talking about taking guns away without due process? https://x.com/USACowboy3/status/1894070409017847958
The chainsaw approach is insane and I take heart at the number of citizens rejecting the campaign donors approach. Federal judges also received the email. Really? Pork and waste have existed forever. Congress mumbles about stopping it and immediately grants it to win over votes needed to pass a bill. Do we really need to know why birds mate? IMHO there are many ways to cut waste. Starving people, cutting benefits here and globally? I can’t get behind that. The sooner Musk packs up his boy toys and heads home the better!
You are certainly correct about Congress buying votes, but do you really believe that the USA is responsible for the entire globe?