BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option

Subject: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 11:55 AM

Now that my wife has submitted her idea to Obama I can tell you.
First of all she is a senior economist for the Federal Gov and was asked by the White House "how can we save money?".
She found a way... along with a hundred other things.

I don't speak federaleese so I will tell you as simply as I know how.

. You see what we have now at the end of every budget fiscal year is a SPEND IT OR LOSE IT policy for every single goverment agency and office. This means that if a small research facility as well as a large Pentagon purchasing office does not spend every last dime in their annual budget the left over money is lost. When the agency proposes a new buget and shows that they did not use all they had last year, they will likely be cut back.

That policy incentivises hair brained willy nilly spending in the last weeks of the year that sometimes is pure waste.

On the other hand if every agency could carry over funds in their department's budget there would not be a flurry of spending to only justify next years budget request.

How much does a small 8 person office save with a carry over? $33,000,000. Multiply this savings among the thousands of small and huge goverment agencies. You end up saving Billions of dollars.

Why did Congress make it the way it is today and why might they not want to change?   The old way makes it easy to rush a boondoggle into getting funded at the end of the fiscal year. The new proposal would make it hard or delay uneeded spending.



IF Congress agrees with my wife, VOILA, we can pay for a single payer health care insurance program immediatly. They would have to vote to discontiunue the current scheme and allow for a carryover.

Black budgets would remain black and all geoverment programs and agencies would not be penalized for not over spending at the end of every yearbut could be rewarded on the actual merits and accomplishments they produce.

For those who speak legalese and Federal speak, can claim fairly accuse me of over simplification but should clearly see the advantages of a budget carry over. They also know that they have been living with things like a continuing budget resolution for decades and a whole bunch of other bugaboos they could live without.

This is the time to send your ideas to the White House regarding saving Federal money and time, because they have finally asked!


This carry over proposal 'should' satisfy Republicans who always complain about ear marks and pork barrel spending, as long as they are not theirs.

If greed and hypocrisy can be set aside for this "budget carry over plan", we will have the money for American Health care coverage that would rival the world. This is why we should not hold our breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: Jeri
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 12:17 PM

It's not that the money is lost but is just re-allocated. The problem is that next year's budget (actually the year after's, I think) is based on what is spent the current year. If you don't spend it NOW, it doesn't 'roll over' and you don't get it approved in the future.

There IS no leftover money, there is just 'was ours, now somebody else's' money. Of course, the 'somebody elses' can scramble like hell to find something to spend it on.

Nice thought though.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 12:23 PM

Reallocate away. Add it up, focus it and you end up with billions.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 12:44 PM

Okay, I'll try again; I just submitted this example, and it vanished: I was an electronic technician on a submarine tender. The division officer walked in one day and ordered us to spend $2,000,000 immediately so that our allocation wouldn't be cut back for the following year. This was one division, on one Navy ship, 42 years ago .

Subject: RE: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 12:52 PM

If programs aren't using up the money they are allocated, do they really need the same amount they didn't use this year, in the following year? However, I don't see how the idea can work if the people who run the programs are determined to keep getting more money than they need, even if there is a rollover.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 01:15 PM

Budgets should change as needed, but what frogprince said about spending huge sums to justify "NEXT YEARS budget" is absolutely true.
Its true every year for every department.

Getting what we need should be paramount to the game of getting more for "more's sake".

Yes we/they can overcome the need for greed. While it is built into our system, we are the ones who put it there. We can take it out.
To remove it can cause surgical complications, but if the patient is America we owe it to her to restore the energy and financial means to do what needs to be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 01:19 PM

THe difference would be that the planned budget would not be reduced just because the previous years spending was less than that; the amount budgeted could be the same, it could be more. But the actual dough not spent would stay allocated to the same activitiy, reducing the actual cost of fulfilling the next yeart's budget by the unspent amount.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 01:23 PM

Those who want the public option should call their senators now and tell them to vote for a public option that would be effective immediately and not vote for a trigger. They're going to be voting on that one soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 01:27 PM

ditto

Subject: RE: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: gnu
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 01:52 PM

Same here in the Great White. Even worse. I won't get into it in detail, but, the "main estimates" get approval on April 1. Spending authority slowly goes through the maze and reaches some poor dumb animal, say, a gnu, in late May or even as late as July (sometimes later) for some of the money. The gnu is asked to analyze and cost a number of proposals for priority and planning, and that takes time and money, neither of which are afforded the gnus in the herd.

Okay... enough detail... an example.

August 15: gnu... how much $ will it take for you to build a new ferry terminal building in Goose Bay, Labrador? Need $ figure RFN. Same day, I said $500k and I'll give you change.

Sept 1: Do it.

Sept 4: Here is my layout.

Sept 30: Go.

One week tender prep. 3 week tender (company policy). One week to get approvals and signatures.

Oct 7: Let contract.

Oct 15: Company says shutting ferry service down early this year.

Nov 21: FLY prefab builing into Goose to avoid lawsuit. Get approval for overbudget expenditure due to weather delays.

Dec 1: Issue Progress Payment for 2/3 of tender price.

Dec 15: Issue PP for remainder and take home cheque from accounting dept for safe keeping.

Dec 28: Issue PP for holdback and take home.

Feb 1: Tell the miserable little prick from internal audit that is threatening to try to get me fired that I don't give a fuck about the pencil pushing accountants and government bureaucrats that can't understand that it gets cold in Goose Bay, Labrador in the winter. No, the cheques haven't been cashed. No, I don't know why... maybe they got lost in The Queen's Mail?

March 31: Building complete, cheques cashed.

April 1: Repeat.

Subject: RE: BS: Good News We can pay for Gov. option
From: kendall
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 05:02 PM

That's one thing I hated about working for the government. Wild spending at the end of the fiscal year.

Even at the state level it's the same. Just recently here in Maine, some conservative group uncovered a lot of waste. One item, $60,000 overtime for one person. Thousands for bottled water!

What we need is an office of waste control answerable to only the voters.