U.S. National Debt (which always GREW under Clinton) reaches an ALL TIME high

U.S. Treasury Department's official site ^ | August 15th, 2002 | NOT Porky the Pig

[End The Hypocrisy]

The following article from Linda Chavez (which USED to be maintained at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20010830-99647884.htm ) suggests at least one thing that America needs to do, and soon: abolish the "life tenure" career perk that federal bureaucrats sneakily achieved for themselves a century ago. Inspirationally enough, President Bush's Department of Homeland Security seeks to absorb several agencies and NOT maintain precisely that lethargy and corruption encouraging civil service perk:

Perpetual pursuit of government reforms By: Linda Chavez

Al Gore tried it and failed. Ronald Reagan had some modest success when he attempted it. Even Jimmy Carter gave it a shot. Now President Bush is trying his hand at reforming the federal government. Let's hope he has more luck than his predecessors did. Mr. Gore tried to "reinvent government." Mr. Reagan's Grace Commission pledged to eliminate "waste, fraud and abuse." And Mr. Carter introduced "zero-based budgeting" for federal agencies to try to reduce the size of government. Despite their efforts, the size of the federal work force grew, but productivity didn't. Now Mr. Bush wants to cut the work force and improve productivity. Good luck.

The president's plan, announced during his weekly radio address, would create incentives for some current federal employees to take early retirement, out-source more jobs to contractors and base pay increases on performance rather than longevity, allowing managers to reward the best workers. If enacted -- and it will not be an easy task, especially with government employee unions fighting reform every step of the way -- the Bush plan could save a bundle.

The president complained that the federal government spends $45 billion a year on computers and technology, a huge sum, but "unlike private sector companies, this large investment has not cut the government's costs or improved people's lives in any way that we can measure." It's no wonder why. The problem isn't lack of equipment, it's the people who are expected to use it. I've worked in government and headed two federal agencies during my career and still have many friends in government. I've encountered bright, dedicated federal workers over the years -- but unfortunately, I've encountered almost as many incompetent and just plain lazy federal employees as well.

Back in the days before voice mail, I had a secretary who refused to answer the phone. She'd let it ring 10 or 12 times, lift the receiver off the cradle and drop it back down again, disconnecting the caller. And this was in the congressional liaison office of the then Department of Health, Education and Welfare. This same woman filed a grievance against me when I asked that all members of Congress receive a response to their letters within two weeks.

When I was head of the Civil Rights Commission, I had a secretary who could barely speak English, much less read or write it well. Her job was to type the annual report to Congress on the commission's activities. When I discovered that much of the typed report was gibberish -- she didn't know what she was typing, they were just sequences of letters -- I offered to send her to classes to improve her English. That offer prompted a visit from the agency's solicitor, warning me that I shouldn't even suggest such a thing and certainly could not force her to take lessons. Another woman in the agency -- a division manager -- would invite her assistant into her office every afternoon at 3 p.m. to play "Boggle," a board game involving dice the two would play noisily until quitting time. Now, federal employees can play computer games or surf the Internet to their heart's content all day long. I estimate that about a third of the federal employees I worked with were hard-working, another third were competent but lacked initiative, and fully one third were unable or unwilling to do their jobs. The problem is, there's almost no way under the current system to adequately reward the first group or get rid of the last. Mr. Bush's proposal attempts to deal with this problem, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. If we want accountability from federal employees, we've got to overhaul the entire system. It means getting rid of job protection for federal employees.

If an employee doesn't perform, there's no reason to keep him. If a program is reduced or eliminated, the staff should be cut accordingly, not just reshuffled within the agency.

If the government could hire and fire like much of the private sector does, agencies could do with fewer employees -- and afford to compensate the best ones commensurate with their talent. But don't count on it happening anytime soon.

-Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist

[xzins]

Well...duh.

If we never pay it down, how does it mathmatically NOT get larger. This guy could make this statement every minute and it'd be freshly new and correct each time he said it.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>This guy could make this statement every minute and it'd be freshly new and correct each time he said it.<<<


I invite you to check out the url, which shows that the debt's size actually fluctuates in BOTH directions. Regardless, I'm curious as to why you don't sound that concerned?

[WyldKard]

I could have sworn the Japanese had the largest amount of debt. Did we just lap them recently, or something?

[End The Hypocrisy]

Japan, which has the world's 2nd largest economy, now has a national debt of $5.3 trillion, or 130% of its gross domestic product.

[End The Hypocrisy]

Might I add that I recently read that Japan's credit rating is now lower than even that of the country of... Botswana?

[fnord]

our economy's not that much larger than that of other debtor nations such as Japan and Germany ... kinda lost me there, economically speaking

[End The Hypocrisy]

Here's an online database with the GDP (gross domestic product) sizes of all recognized nations:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook

In the view of a growing number of concerned analysts, just because our GDP's still the world's largest doesn't mean we should feel complacent regarding how our debt is too. Our economy's not even twice the size of that tiny string of islands known as Japan, although our population size surely is. Our population's aging rapidly too, as we'll painfully learn once baby boomers retire in droves by the end of this decade. If there's ever a statistic with which we can justify long overdue reforms, it's apparently the national debt problem.

[SEGUET]

Forget all fiscal and operational BS. We need to remember that G."W."ALL STREET is honest, has integrity, has an MBA and has brought civility back to the WH - that's all that's important for leader of the Party. After all he's got a 70+% approval rating - Why not? the Dems even approve of all these left leaning programs he's implemented.

[jackbill]

I estimate that about a third of the federal employees I worked with were hard-working, another third were competent but lacked initiative, and fully one third were unable or unwilling to do their jobs.

But the Congress just rewarded all of them with a 4.1% COLA, when the cost of living, as measured by the CPI, is virtually flat.

[Deuce]

The National debt is a TOTALLY UNNECESSARY massive transfer of wealth from ordinary taxpayer to the financial sector that creates the money out of thin air then lends it to us at interest. That is why, Alan Greenspan (The politically savvy Grand Poohbah of the financial elite masquerading as a public servant), on 1/25/01, lied through his teeth in testimony to Congress by saying that the entire public debt that could be paid WOULD be repaid in 5-7 years from all the surpluses we would be generating. He even had PHONY numbers to back him up that required deceitful misinterpretation of how the social security surplus is applied. When Fritz Hollings (without knowing it) got dangerously close to asking a question that blew the lid off the lying Maestro's testimony, the Grand Poohbah answered, "I can see why you are not completely clear, Senator. I could take the time to explain it here, but it's probably better if you call my office, and I can explain it all to you in full detail."

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Congress just gave the bureaucrats a lavish annual raise, well beyond cost of living increases<<<


Ain't that the truth!? Meanwhile, private sector folks are lucky to have their jobs... How much longer should we stand for this double standard?

[End The Hypocrisy]

If even Alan Greenspan (who does NOT have career tenure) behaves so opportunistically, think about all those life tenured bureaucrats who get to frolic around with all our tax dollars, with impunity. They feather their nests by doling out costly favors to private companies in exchange for political support of their questionable programs, if not private sector job offers with which they can subsequently try and negotiate better salary packages inside the "government".

Most bureaucrats claim to believe that they could make far more in the private sector, or at least they often exclaim that while behaving arrogantly towards the taxpayers who are still forced (at gunpoint) to subsidize them. Why not make them prove it then? Is our country better off because of them, or something? The national debt's record high levels suggest otherwise.

[Teacher317]

The National debt is a TOTALLY UNNECESSARY massive transfer of wealth from ordinary taxpayer to the financial sector that creates the money out of thin air then lends it to us at interest.

Well put. I just want to see some of our debt to these private bankers forgiven, just as we perpetually forgive those debts from other nations (at taxpayer expense, yet again). For every $3 we forgive others, we could/should forgive ourselves just $1. That would take care of multiple billions of dollars every year... enough to pay the interest on the debt, at least!

[OXENinFLA]

It's ok the Gov't can just EARN more money.

Excerpt from NEALZ NEWS.

http://boortz.com/nealznuz.htm

WONDER WHERE THESE TWO CHARACTERS WERE EDUCATED This book you see on the left here is “The New Big Book of U.S. Presidents.”  It was written by government school textbook authors Todd Davis and Marc Frey.  An alert listener gave me a heads up on an interesting line in the section on George Bush the First.  The sentence reads:  , "Because the government spent more money than it earned, the U.S. Economy began to slump in the early 1990s."  “Earned?” What’s this “earned” thing? Now we’re teaching our children in our illustrious government schools that the government “earns” the money it spends? News Flash.  Share this with those children you’ve sent off to the government to be educated.  Government doesn’t EARN money.  Government SEIZES money.  Government seizes money from the people who actually did earn it.  Government cannot spend one single dollar on any spending program, bet it legitimate or not, without first seizing that dollar from the person who earned it.  And … one final point.  That money is seized at the point of a gun.  You refuse to turn the money over – and the government resorts to force --- deadly, if need be. “Earned”  Just another part of the indoctrination process.

[andy_card]

even though our economy's not that much larger than that of other debtor nations

Sorry, our economy is much larger than Japan's or Germany's. It is slightly smaller, however, than the EU's.

[End The Hypocrisy]

>>>Sorry, our economy is much larger than Japan's or Germany's<<<


Well then by that token, so's our national debt (which is the world's largest). I drew a perhaps imperfect comparison (as comparisons often are) to try and buttress the point that we have a fiscal problem, and it's getting swept under the rug (peculiarly enough). But as Coach Lou Holtz has said, "in adversity there's opportunity". In other words, that national debt link which I included potentially empowers reformers nationwide. I often hear folks claim that "under Clinton, we didn't have that kind of problem" and then I have to educate them on the difference between a national deficit and a national debt, and then use that link to show that the debt only GREW during his corrupt 8 year administration. Hopefully President Bush will continue telling Congress to Just Say No to Pork.

[american spirit]

From time to time there's been numbers tossed around that indicate our national debt is far beyond 6T. Is there any reliable source that could give more insight into "off the books" expenditures as well as "unfunded liabilities" that may be hidden through the smoke and mirrors of gov't/speak?

[End The Hypocrisy]

I'm not presently aware of any, but I commend you for your insightful concern.

[It'salmosttolate]

I'd like to see breakdown based on who it owes it to.