He Knows Better

[Guest]

Do I believe Mitt Romney's business experience would serve him well were he elected POTUS? Yes, he knows how to read an income statement and a balance sheet. And the financial statements of the country show a near bankrupt business model headed towards total insolvency. Maybe more important, both the Congress and increasingly the country, because of either their lack of knowledge, political morality or narrow ideology keep driving the country even further towards the financial cliff. All in their personal short-term interests or support of an incomplete ideology. They...we...are morally bankrupt. And Mitt Romney spends almost all his time telling the voters what Obama has done wrong, but almost no time on his plans for what will have to change--explaining and convincing us of the need for such changes.

I'm disappointed in Romney's unwillingness to campaign on what he knows is needed if this country is ever to achieve true fiscal reform. He knows how to do the arithmetic! He knows that fiscal responsibility can't be achieved with just tax decreases. He knows that some hurtful cuts to government spending, defense spending, entitlement benefits, and yes increased tax revenues will be needed. He only campaigns on half--or even a third--of what he knows is necessary. He campaigns on the ideas that attract the most voters, but doesn't tell the whole story on what really must be done. Like I said, he knows what steps the arithmetic of our government's taxing, spending and borrowing tells him is necessary. But he panders for votes with only part of the story. He and his handlers believe the people are too dumb to understand. I maintain we aren't, that the correct course of action can be explained, understood and embraced by the country. Romney needs to lead the country into a "twelve step program" leading to complete fiscal reform.

I don't expect any different from President Obama. But he's given no indication in four years that he knows or is willing to support the needed changes. And he's shown no capacity to lead the Congress or the country towards the needed changes. But Mitt Romney? I know that he knows better, and I'm disappointed at his reluctance to speak out. If he really is the leader I think he might be, he knows what he will have to say, explain and lead the country towards sometime. He knows better!

[Guest]

Do I believe Mitt Romney's business experience would serve him well were he elected POTUS? Yes, he knows how to read an income statement and a balance sheet. And the financial statements of the country show a near bankrupt business model headed towards total insolvency. Maybe more important, both the Congress and increasingly the country, because of either their lack of knowledge or political morality, or narrow ideology keep driving the country even further towards the financial cliff. All in their personal short-term interests or support of an incomplete ideology. They...we...are morally bankrupt. And Mitt Romney spends almost all his time telling the voters what Obama has done wrong, but almost no time on his plans for what will have to change--explaining and convincing us of the need for such changes.

I'm disappointed in Romney's unwillingness to campaign on what he knows is needed if this country is ever to achieve true fiscal reform. He knows how to do the arithmetic! He knows that fiscal responsibility can't be achieved with just tax decreases. He knows that some hurtful cuts to government spending, defense spending, entitlement benefits, and yes increased tax revenues will be needed. He only campaigns on half--or even a third--of what he knows is necessary. He campaigns on the ideas that attract the most voters, but doesn't tell the whole story on what really must be done. Like I said, he knows what steps the arithmetic of our government's taxing, spending and borrowing tells him is necessary. But he panders for votes with only part of the story. He and his handlers believe the people are too dumb to understand. I maintain we aren't, that the correct course of action can be explained, understood and embraced by the country. Romney needs to force the country into a "twelve step program" leading to complete fiscal reform.

I don't expect any different from President Obama. But he's given no indication in four years that he knows or is willing to support the needed changes. And he's shown no capacity to lead the Congress or the country towards the needed changes. But Mitt Romney? I know that he knows better, and I'm disappointed at his reluctance to speak out. If he really is the leader I think he might be, he knows what he will have to say, explain and lead the country towards sometime. He knows better!

You have put into words what I feel. Thank you.

[Guest]

Do I believe Mitt Romney's business experience would serve him well were he elected POTUS? Yes, he knows how to read an income statement and a balance sheet. And the financial statements of the country show a near bankrupt business model headed towards total insolvency. Maybe more important, both the Congress and increasingly the country, because of either their lack of knowledge, political morality or narrow ideology keep driving the country even further towards the financial cliff. All in their personal short-term interests or support of an incomplete ideology. They...we...are morally bankrupt. And Mitt Romney spends almost all his time telling the voters what Obama has done wrong, but almost no time on his plans for what will have to change--explaining and convincing us of the need for such changes.

I'm disappointed in Romney's unwillingness to campaign on what he knows is needed if this country is ever to achieve true fiscal reform. He knows how to do the arithmetic! He knows that fiscal responsibility can't be achieved with just tax decreases. He knows that some hurtful cuts to government spending, defense spending, entitlement benefits, and yes increased tax revenues will be needed. He only campaigns on half--or even a third--of what he knows is necessary. He campaigns on the ideas that attract the most voters, but doesn't tell the whole story on what really must be done. Like I said, he knows what steps the arithmetic of our government's taxing, spending and borrowing tells him is necessary. But he panders for votes with only part of the story. He and his handlers believe the people are too dumb to understand. I maintain we aren't, that the correct course of action can be explained, understood and embraced by the country. Romney needs to lead the country into a "twelve step program" leading to complete fiscal reform.

I don't expect any different from President Obama. But he's given no indication in four years that he knows or is willing to support the needed changes. And he's shown no capacity to lead the Congress or the country towards the needed changes. But Mitt Romney? I know that he knows better, and I'm disappointed at his reluctance to speak out. If he really is the leader I think he might be, he knows what he will have to say, explain and lead the country towards sometime. He knows better!

This is not meant to be an endorsing speech for Romney, but have any of you folks even read his plans on his website ?

Not endorsing but just a flavor...

Just curious...just an excerpt...

"Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. Optimistic projections cannot wish a problem away, they can only make it worse. As president, Mitt’s goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:

Reduced from 24.3 percent last year; in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent
Close to the tax revenue generated by the economy when healthy
Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts

Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels

Any turnaround must also stop the bleeding and reverse the most recent and dramatic damage:

Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels

Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government

Most importantly, any turnaround must have a thoughtful, structured approach to achieving its goals. Mitt will attack the bloated budget from three angles:

The Federal Government Should Stop Doing Things The American People Can’t Afford, For Instance:
Repeal Obamacare — Savings: $95 Billion. President Obama’s costly takeover of the health care system imposes an enormous and unaffordable obligation on the federal government while intervening in a matter that should be left to the states. Mitt will begin his efforts to repeal this legislation on Day One.
Privatize Amtrak — Savings: $1.6 Billion. Despite requirement that Amtrak operate on a for-profit basis, it continues to receive about $1.6 billion in taxpayer funds each year. Forty-one of Amtrak’s 44 routes lost money in 2008 with losses ranging from $5 to $462 per passenger.
Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.
Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
Reduce Foreign Aid — Savings: $100 Million. Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America’s interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid.

If pursued with focus and discipline, Mitt’s approach provides a roadmap to rescue the federal government from its present precipice. But that respite will be short-lived without a plan for the looming long-term threat posed by the unsustainable nature of existing entitlement obligations. Learn more about Mitt’s proposals for entitlement reform: [links to Medicare and Social Security]
Empower States To Innovate — Savings: >$100 billion
Block grants have huge potential to generate both superior results and cost savings by establishing local control and promoting innovation in areas such as Medicaid and Worker Retraining. Medicaid spending should be capped and increased each year by CPI + 1%. Department of Labor retraining spending should be capped and will increase in future years. These funds should then be given to the states to spend on their own residents. States will be free from Washington micromanagement, allowing them to develop innovative approaches that improve quality and reduce cost.
Improve Efficiency And Effectiveness. Where the federal government should act, it must do a better job. For instance:
Reduce Waste And Fraud — Savings: $60 Billion. The federal government made $125 billion in improper payments last year. Cutting that amount in half through stricter enforcement and harsher penalties yields returns many times over on the investment.
Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector — Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected.
Repeal The Davis-Bacon Act — Savings: $11 Billion. Davis-Bacon forces the government to pay above-market wages, insulating labor unions from competition and driving up project costs by approximately 10 percent.
Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition — Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a “1-for-2” system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service.
Consolidate agencies and streamline processes to cut costs and improve results in everything from energy permitting to worker retraining to trade negotiation."


Point is, we have not even gotten to the conventions yet....why do you consider the lack of specifics at this time in a race to be unusual !

[Guest]

I really wonder how the Republicans would expect the approximately 1.35 million Federal government employees to vote for Romney when there is a platform that states "Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition — Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a “1-for-2” system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service." and "Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector — Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent."

They are talking of losing 1.35 million votes based on the above planks in the platform. Then add in other groups who would not be in favor of " Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood." This would be losing groups that do not want legislating reproductive rights of women.

[Guest]

I really wonder how the Republicans would expect the approximately 1.35 million Federal government employees to vote for Romney when there is a platform that states "Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition — Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls. The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a “1-for-2” system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service." and "Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector — Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent."

They are talking of losing 1.35 million votes based on the above planks in the platform. Then add in other groups who would not be in favor of " Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood." This would be losing groups that do not want legislating reproductive rights of women.

Maybe the word ATTRITION ???

[Guest]

This is not meant to be an endorsing speech for Romney, but have any of you folks even read his plans on his website ?

Not endorsing but just a flavor...

Just curious...just an excerpt...

Good post, Bucco. I'll have admit, my criticism of Romney's campaign is based more on his stump speeches and TV interviews. I didn't go back to his website. This is an excellent outline of his top level plans. I know he knows how to do the arithmetic and this proves it. The examples he uses to demonstrate how he would cut spending is peanuts though. The total of all he lists amounts to less than 1% of spending, while hs top line plans are far, far more aggressive. And from what you've posted from his website, there's no mention of tax reform. I know he knows better than to think overall fscal reform can be accomplished without increasing tax revenues.

I wish he would begin to share some of this specificity with the public, although as noted here, it Woukd very likely cost him lots of votes. But sooner or later, he'll have to lead the public to the eventual pain tt we're all going to have to suffer to achieve fiscal reform.

[Guest]

Good post, Bucco. I'll have admit, my criticism of Romney's campaign is based more on his stump speeches and TV interviews. I didn't go back to his website. This is an excellent outline of his Top level plans. I know he knows how to do the arithmetic and this proves it. The exampes he uses to demons trate how he woukd cut spending is peanuts though. The total of all he lists amounts to less than 1% of spending, while hs top line plans are far, far more aggressive. And from what you've posted from his website, there's no mention of tax reform. I know he knows better than to think overall fscal reform can be accomplished without increasing tax revenues.

I wish he would begin to share some of this specificity with the public, although as noted here, it Woukd very likely cost him lots of votes. But sooner or later, he'll have to lead the public to the eventual pain tt we're all going to have to suffer to achieve fiscal reform.

I think people better wake up to the media and their shortcomings and bias. At this point, and it could change, you will only see Romney on tv IF he makes stupid remark or they will show him blasting Obama and then follow with a show to criticize that. You will see Obama glad handing and making speeches that sound as presidential as possible.

On here the posters go after Romney for specifics but never ask what Obama is going to do to improve his performance or are we to accept his program to be just give me more time.

It is much too early to get too specific. Let the convention go on...let that be the beginning of the real campaign and hopefull until then Romney can at least tread water, if the media allows that, then the debates hopefull will showcase the two men for what they truely are.

As long as Romney stays honest and shows Obama to be the twister and liar that he is, he will be just fine. He may not win...it will depend on what the networks decide and I wish I were just being funny, but I believe that to be true. Look at this board...you can almost tell what they watch or what tweeter feed is making up their post...that is a shame

I will than ask you what Obama's exact plans are for the economy ?

And on tax reform...to be honest I forgot...I did not go all over his website but if you do any reading......TAX reform is almost the total basis for the Ryan budget

[Guest]

I don't see anything in Bucco's post summarizing some of Romney's proposals that disturbs me, and a lot that encourages me that voting for Romney is the only possible solution for a less stressful future.

We've got to do this before we hit Barack Bottom.

[Guest]

I think people better wake up to the media and their shortcomings and bias. At this point, and it could change, you will only see Romney on tv IF he makes stupid remark or they will show him blasting Obama and then follow with a show to criticize that. You will see Obama glad handing and making speeches that sound as presidential as possible.

On here the posters go after Romney for specifics but never ask what Obama is going to do to improve his performance or are we to accept his program to be just give me more time.

It is much too early to get too specific. Let the convention go on...let that be the beginning of the real campaign and hopefull until then Romney can at least tread water, if the media allows that, then the debates hopefull will showcase the two men for what they truely are.

As long as Romney stays honest and shows Obama to be the twister and liar that he is, he will be just fine. He may not win...it will depend on what the networks decide and I wish I were just being funny, but I believe that to be true. Look at this board...you can almost tell what they watch or what tweeter feed is making up their post...that is a shame

I will than ask you what Obama's exact plans are for the economy ?

And on tax reform...to be honest I forgot...I did not go all over his website but if you do any reading......TAX reform is almost the total basis for the Ryan budgetOnce again Bucco, I'm not concentrating on what Obama does or doesn't say. At this point, I'd say he is being as unspecific as Romney, maybe even moreso. But I'm not voting for him, so I'm not going to spend any time contrasting what he says compared to Romney.

I will comment on what Romney says or doesn't say contrasted with what I think he should be saying. I know he knows the arithmetic on the fiscal problem facing the nation. I also am convinced that he will never be able to lead the country and influence the Congress until he starts to get a lot more specific and convinces people of the legitimacy and need for his proposals.

[Guest]

Maybe the word ATTRITION ???

I understand what you said. However, when someone leaves their employment for one reason or another, it is the usual practice to fill the vacant slot.

Let me explain how it ideally works in Federal government. Notice I said IDEALLY - knowing it does not always work this way but some managers want to hire at the highest grade possible to maintain their budgets. HR fights as well as they can but are sometimes overridden. This has been going on in EVERY administration.

A HR Specialist will review the vacant position to ensure it is needed. The HR Specialist will then review the position to make sure it is at the proper pay level or if it could be filled at a lower grade or as a trainee position. This is called position management.

What the Republicans are proposing is when a position becomes vacant, it will not be backfilled until another similar slot is vacated as well (2 leave, 1 hired). Employee morale suffers since they are doing twice the work as before with no higher pay.

I did not post this as an argument for anyone, so do not take it as one, I posted it as information. It is not posted to have anyone repond with negatives toward government employees, etc. Thanks.

[Guest]

Mr. Romney can't do anything unless Congress gets on the stick. I don't think he has leadership qualities either. Maybe in his Church. He only did one term in Mass. and left after Romneycare. Maybe the guy that was leader during the killing of Bin Laden is the lesser of the evils.

[Guest]

Mitt Romney won't say how he will pay for his proposed five trillion dollars in tax cuts over the next decade, while asserting he will balance the budget. He proposes closing tax loopholes, but won't go into any detail of which loopholes.


Where are Mitt Romney?s details? - Boston.com (http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-27/opinion/32427450_1_tax-cuts-roberton-williams-romney)

[Guest]

I understand what you said. However, when someone leaves their employment for one reason or another, it is the usual practice to fill the vacant slot.

Let me explain how it ideally works in Federal government. Notice I said IDEALLY - knowing it does not always work this way but some managers want to hire at the highest grade possible to maintain their budgets. HR fights as well as they can but are sometimes overridden. This has been going on in EVERY administration.

A HR Specialist will review the vacant position to ensure it is needed. The HR Specialist will then review the position to make sure it is at the proper pay level or if it could be filled at a lower grade or as a trainee position. This is called position management.

What the Republicans are proposing is when a position becomes vacant, it will not be backfilled until another similar slot is vacated as well (2 leave, 1 hired). Employee morale suffers since they are doing twice the work as before with no higher pay. My youngest son had essentially the same experience with a large food company.

I did not post this as an argument for anyone, so do not take it as one, I posted it as information. It is not posted to have anyone repond with negatives toward government employees, etc. Thanks.I know this will sound coarse and unfeeling. But if that's the way staffing in the federal government works, then they're going to have to join the real world as it exists in private industry today. If they wind up being required to do all the work that 10-20% more people did before their departments were downsized, then they'd better get used to it. And they'd better not get too down in the dumps over having to work longer, harder and smarter. They shouldn't forget that there are hundreds of thousands of highly qualified out-of-work people out there who would be overjoyed to take the jobs that makes their morale suffer so.

My son works for an auto company. Over 12-18 months, he had to downsize his department by 50%. The amount of work and responsibilities didn't change one iota. It was up to him and the people still employed to figure out a way to get the job done with the input of fewer people. "Work smarter" as they say. I'd also say that it means working longer hours and more days per week for the same pay.

Government employees better get used to the same environment. If we are to cut spending to the degree the arithmetic tells us it needs to be cut, some simplistic 2-for-1 attrition formula won't come close to providing the needed spending cuts.

[Guest]

I know this will sound coarse and unfeeling. But if that's the way staffing in the federal government works, then they're going to have to join the real world as it exists in private industry today. If they wind up being required to do all the work that 10-20% more people did before their departments were downsized, then they'd better get used to it. And they'd better not get too down in the dumps over having to work longer, harder and smarter. They shouldn't forget that there are hundreds of thousands of highly qualified out-of-work people out there who would be overjoyed to take the jobs that makes their morale suffer so.

My son works for an auto company. Over 12-18 months, he had to downsize his department by 50%. The amount of work and responsibilities didn't change one iota. It was up to him and the people still employed to figure out a way to get the job done with the input of fewer people. "Work smarter" as they say. I'd also say that it means working longer hours and more days per week for the same pay.

Government employees better get used to the same environment. If we are to cut spending to the degree the arithmetic tells us it needs to be cut, some simple 2-for-1 attrition formula won't come close to providing the needed spending cuts.

When did anyone think we should keep increasing the number of government jobs ?

I thought the idea was to decrease the size of government. If I am wrong and the entire idea is to simply grow government jobs, then heck...Obama is on track !

[Guest]

When did anyone think we should keep increasing the number of government jobs ?

I thought the idea was to decrease the size of government. If I am wrong and the entire idea is to simply grow government jobs, then heck...Obama is on track !

Here are some numbers to ponder.

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm)

[Guest]

Here are some numbers to ponder.

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm)

I am not sure of what point you make here ?????

Someone posted and alluded to or implied we should not think about reducing the government payroll. I simply responded that I thought we should, which is what Obama said among other things and has not done.

Not a big deal but people take things out of context. Are you guys telling me that wanting to reduce the size of government is not something we should go for ? It sounds like you don't care...just do not blame it on Obama and there were no accusations at all either direct or implied so what is the reason for your defense.

Do we or dont we want to reduce the size of government ?

My point was if making it bigger is the goal, our President is on track which you just validated and if you think it is over...well, talk to me !


PS...sorry I responded to you...will leave this note be, but just realized that you are part of the giddy crowd with the one liners that are just tweets...they are on ignore and thus...making fun of people is not something I feel is for adults

[Guest]

Here are some numbers to ponder.

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm)

A 6.2% increase in government employment in three and one-half years? That's outrageous in a country that's borrowing 42-cents of every dollar it spends. That's an indication that there is no management oversight of government spending...NONE!

I can tell you from personal experience that at different times, and for several years in total, I worked for companies where the CEO would send down the order...no new employee hiring under any circumstances! No replacements for resignations or retirements or even deaths of employees. None! And he meant it. If somehow someone hired a new employee, it wasn't unusual that the person that hired him was fired!

All this article tells me is that no one in the federal hierarchy has a clue about how to run a business which is unprofitable...spending more than its taking in. Until we get someone in the White House and in Congress who will get serious about ths stuff, we're all in deep doo-doo.

[Guest]

A 6.2% increase in government employment in three and one-half years? That's outrageous in a country that's borrowing 42-cents of every dollar it spends. That's an indication that there is no management oversight of governments spending...NONE!

I can tell you from personal experience that at different times, and for several years in total, I worked for companies where the CEO would send down the order...no new employee hiring under any circumstances! No replacements for resignations or retirements or even deaths of employees. None! And he meant it. If somehow someone hired a new employee, it wasn't unusual that the person that hired him was fired!

All this article tells me is that no one in the federal hierarchy has a clue about how to run a business which is unprofitable...spending more than its taking in. Until we get someone in the White House and in Congress who will get serious about ths stuff, we're all in deep doo-doo.\


Point well taken. Here is a political question and quandry I thought of.

Romney knows as we all do that we need to cut down on the federal employee count and budget (and I am being extremely general here to make the question have some sense). He knows that we need to dramatically need to cut spending, as we all do.

WHEN does he tell the voters the reality and HOW does he do it ?

We know that Obama will do as always and lie his way through and perhaps Romney telling the truth would cost him the election because as you can see on here, any sounbite that sounds uncomfortable will be used and voters will be impressed. That scares me...as I said Obama will say whatever it takes.....WHO WILL tell the truth that the only way forward is a step "back" ?

[Guest]

I am not sure of what point you make here ?????

Someone posted and alluded to or implied we should not think about reducing the government payroll. I simply responded that I thought we should, which is what Obama said among other things and has not done.

Not a big deal but people take things out of context. Are you guys telling me that wanting to reduce the size of government is not something we should go for ? It sounds like you don't care...just do not blame it on Obama and there were no accusations at all either direct or implied so what is the reason for your defense.

Do we or dont we want to reduce the size of government ?

My point was if making it bigger is the goal, our President is on track which you just validated and if you think it is over...well, talk to me !


PS...sorry I responded to you...will leave this note be, but just realized that you are part of the giddy crowd with the one liners that are just tweets...they are on ignore and thus...making fun of people is not something I feel is for adults

I posted it so some of the folks could get some numbers. So many people post with no numbers to back them up. No hidden agenda. I do note that this may be the time of the day that most posters fade away rather than mix it up with you. My skin is very thick.

[Guest]

The only logical move is a republican President and Congress for 4 years. We can take another look in 4 years and make any adjustment needed.

Just my opinion.

[Guest]

when there is no federal budget or any penalty for creating and continuing to run the organization at an increasing loss, what makes anybody think the employee roles in most likely too many areas have way more people than actually needed to do the work.

It is a guarantee with no criteria or measuring of accountability for the bottom line there are too many people!!!

Another fact is those doing the hiring and the co workers will never ever admit to having too many people.

If the government had a budget and were held accountable to not go into the red, you all know...the same way we have to run our house holds....the first thing the government would realize is there are too many people.

Of course it is a voting block issue and no body wants to lose the votes.

How about a basic example of when the railroads were modernized they still had a class or worker called fireman. The modern trains have no need for a fireman. However the union rules at the time (not picking on the union, just using the example) required every train to have a fireman, one rode in the caboose.....no job to perform.

The easy solution was to show the job eliminated through attrition. The railroads were able to forecast the future savings. Nobody had to double up and worker one lick harder.

There are many examples of this type of employee, co worker protectionism in ailing businesses and I guarantee it is prolific within the federal government.

Simple solution and keeping it as plain vanilla as possible....vote for the candidate who would be more likely to address running the government without a budget. The incumbent has proven he is not the one to get that job done.

Like it or not a "Bain" capital principal does in fact know what to do.....we have no more risk voting to see if he will do anything about fixing the financially broken company called the federal government, than when people voted for Obama because they simply liked what he promised.

I am sure Romney will find that unlike Bain having the support of those who hired his company to fix it allowing them to do what ever it took to fix the problem.....he will find out he has only we the people for support and his arch enemies will be all the other incumbents that will struggle to the end (like Rangle in NY) to keep BUSINESS AS USUAL.

Romney will make an attempt to do what is right for America.

btk

[Guest]

The only logical move is a republican President and Congress for 4 years. We can take another look in 4 years and make any adjustment needed.

Just my opinion.

I agree, but if this happens they'll only get 2 years. The mid-term elections come along to change the course always.

The people are getting really restless, and whoever wins the Presidency has to do great things in a short time or have the proverbial rug pulled out from under him in both houses.