I don't have an issue with an insurance policy that pays out when it's supposed to.

I suppose you could argue that all of these drops in the bucket add up, but frankly, I see you blogging about objections to relatively petty expenditures. I can't see any suggestions that would affect the budget in any meaningful way.

You wanted to do away with the office of the First Lady. Even though every First Lady has had their own office since Benjamin Harrison was in office, which means the office of the First Lady has endured two world wars and the Great Depression. You object to Congress having its own gym. And now a survivor's benefit?

Would eliminating all three of these items amount to a even one percent reduction in the Federal Budget?

I'd be amazed if it amounted to even .1%.

Sorry, Patrick; I find myself disagreeing with you on this.

Yes, it is true that some of these examples that Amy posts about don't amount to a hill of beans; but, they do point to a system or a sense of "entitlement." Which is the point that I get from her writing about them.

You call them "petty." Well, if they are so damn petty then why spend the money on them at all? When the economy is in such a shambles and the federal government is spending WAY beyond reasonable, then it is time to "cut the fat."

Many (if not all) of these blog posts are perks that your average American does NOT get. If I want such a payout for my family - I have to pay premiums.

I would be curious to know just how much from the individual politician's pocket he pays for that "life insurance policy". Quote marks because it doesn't really sound like a typical life insurance policy - it sounds more like the taxpayor just gives the family the money without the politician putting anything into it.

Oh, and just because Amy doesn't point out every wasting of our tax dollars doesn't mean she shouldn't point out any. Frankly, there aren't enough blogs in the world to document every wasting of our tax dollars. And reading such would be a huge bore and waste of my time. (see, I'm frugal, even with my time!)

Charles is right. They all add up.

Charles writes: Sorry, Patrick; I find myself disagreeing with you on this.

Oh, that's fine. I'm mature enough to realize that disagreeing with me doesn't make you a bad person. It only makes you wrong. /snark, snark

Charles writes: Yes, it is true that some of these examples that Amy posts about don't amount to a hill of beans; but, they do point to a system or a sense of "entitlement." Which is the point that I get from her writing about them.

While being a congressman has some nice perks, they're not the only ones to get them.

As a member of the military, I have Serviceman's Group Life Insurance. A quarter of a million dollars will be paid out when I die, regardless of whether I've had the policy for one month or twenty years. How much is the premium? 8 dollars a month.

And if they don't pay out when I drop dead, I will be pissed! And they'll definitely be hearing from me!

Am I entitled because I took something that was offered to me, the same as any other soldier?

Now for the hard part. The office of the First Lady.

Consider the points I made earlier. Every First Lady, since Caroline Harrison (wife of Benjamin Harrison), has had their own tax-payer supported office. And as I mentioned before, this would indicate the the office of the First Lady has endured two world wars and the Great Depression, without being axed. Not to mention this outrage at the office of the First Lady was over something as innocuous as reminding us to drink water. We've endured unbelievably stupid advice from First Ladies, like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No."

Now, we're not under any world war at this time, and there's no Depression operating. Michelle Obama is not offering any naive and dangerous advice as to how to deal with drug dealers. What would doing away with the office of the First Lady now communicate? Think carefully. What's different about Michelle Obama and every other First Lady?

It isn't hard to see what conclusion would be drawn if we did away with the office of the First Lady. And I'm not convinced that this conclusion would be meritless. I don't think that Michelle Obama could do a goddamned thing that the posters on this board would approve of. Except possibly die.

If she advised us to tell our children that we love them, we'd see outraged links to articles about parents who "love their children too much." Or how it leads to helicopter parenting. Emotional dependency! Smotherlove! The horror! The horror!

Well, Patrick, I see you've used the fallacy, "appeal to prior practice" again.

Expected.

By the way...Snopes has this to say about Congressional pensions.

Well, why can't she refuse it? Or just not cash the checks?

We've endured terrible advice like Nancy Reagan'"Just Say No"....

-----

So, we should continue to endure and pay for "advice" like "drink water" just because it's roughly equal to "Just Say No"? Both are good, but painfully obvious, suggestions that probably don't need expensive awareness programs. We can't turn back time and stop.paying in 1980, but we can stop paying now.

To paraphrase another piece of good, obvious advice: Even if all the First Ladies since Caroline Harrison jumped off of a bridge (with taxpayer money in their pockets), that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

KateC, and how do you propose she refuse it? Without seeming like a snob, that is.

And I don't know that the office of the First Lady is a paid position. But we do know that it requires a staff and upkeep, which is what people are objecting to.

I'm just not so certain that doing away with the office will save us much. If she doesn't have an office where she can maintain at least a pretense of doing something useful, she will probably be leaving White House property more frequently, which means a Secret Service detachment has to go with her.

So, what do you propose we do? Keep her a prisoner at the White House?

Jenny, I submit that you if you think "Just Say No" to a drug dealer is the most effective way of dealing with someone whose objective is to get you hooked, then you're horribly naive and you've lived a very sheltered life.

No, Just Say No is not on a par with reminding us to drink water. The former is stupid and dangerous, the latter is harmless to beneficial.

I love the comparison to "If all the First Ladies had jumped off a bridge..."

Do you see anyone proposing that we should start a tradition that all First Ladies should jump off a bridge?

As for these drops in a bucket adding up...to how much? What percentage of our budget is spent on the military? What percentage on Medicare? Social Security? Education? Federal Prisons? Highways?

And you're quibbling over petty nickel-and-dime stuff? Get real!

If you could do away with all the frivolous expenditures (and I don't agree that all of them are frivolous), how much would that save us, in light of all the major budget expenditures we have? Pouncing on the office of the First Lady, the Congressional gymnasium (which I actually think they SHOULD have, since it's more conveniently located to their workplace and I really can't see our Congressmen having to use a public gym where they can be approached by anyone who recognizes them), and a life insurance policy? Pah-leeeze!

"Do you see anyone proposing that we should start a tradition that all First Ladies should jump off a bridge?"

Okay, I'll suggest it - let's start with the current one. After, of course, she has the back-from-furlough National Park staff harvest her "Marie Antoinette Garden" she can take a flying leap off the Key bridge from Georgetown to Roslyn.

Hell, I'll help push!

P.S. Yes, I'm being very bitching. She and all the other politicians kept their perks while average out-of-work Americans had some of their unemployment benefits cut during the government shutdown. Wasn't that nice of them?

Charles, they also kept their perks during the Great Depression and two world wars. But you want to start with the current one?

Michelle Obama had a successful career that was derailed by her husband being elected. I don't see why she should have to give up a salary and benefits because her husband was elected. In other words, I don't have a problem with the office of the First Lady. Never did. Never will.

And the First Lady has no say over what was considered "essential" during the shutdown. The Congressmen did. Yet you single out the First Lady. Why?

"Charles, they also kept their perks during the Great Depression and two world wars. But you want to start with the current one?"

Appeal to prior practice, again.

"And the First Lady has no say over what was considered "essential" during the shutdown. The Congressmen did. Yet you single out the First Lady. Why?"

Straw man. It wasn't advanced that FLOTUS has a say. It was said that her office was not cut for the shutdown period.

Expected.

Remember this from about 2007? Ben Cohen, Co-Founder of Ben and Jerry's, explains the federal budget and how shifting 15% of the Pentagon budget could make all the difference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOIe5Ql0v8

Sigh.

Patrick, on the off chance you really don't understand metaphor, I'll explain. The fact that other people (in this case, other groups of people) made one choice doesn't make it a good choice, or one that should continue. It was dumb to pay for an Office of FLOTUS in Harrison's time, Ford's time, Clinton's time, and Bush's time. It's dumb in Obama's time. It will be dumb in the next administration, if it is allowed to continue, even if the economy is terrific. No, I don't think Michelle Obama is remarkably different or worse than other First Ladies. It just has to stop sometime and now is as good a time as any.

I'll try another way you might grok. Imagine you run a business. This is an old business, which has weathered some hard times and some great times. Through much, though not all, of your business's past, your predecessors have paid for a given service that is basically useless. It produces, at the very best, tiny results not worth the money your company spends, and at worst it has even been harmful (if you think Nancy Reagan actually killed anyone or made drug culture much worse, put her in this category). The current provider of this service is okay. Your company desperately needs to cut some expenses, and this service is on the chopping block. You just don't *need* this service and it puzzles the hell out of you that your predecessors have continued paying for it, even in worse times and through worse providers. Do you really think that if you proposed cutting this service, the argument that "Well...all your predecessors kept this service, and this provider doesn't muck things up as badly as that one provider we had in the 80s, so..." would hold water?

Or, imagine you get the newspaper delivered, but it isn't actually improving your quality of life in any way, or at least not enough to justify the cost. You are having a rough t ok me financially and want to stop your subscription. Would you really change your mind if the newspaper's representative says "But, Patrick! You kept us even when you were even poorer before! And remember, a few years back, our paper boy broke all your flowerpots and two of your windows and you still kept us then!". I hope you wouldn't.

Ack. In the newspaper analogy, it should say "You are having a rough time financially"

Okay, Jenny. I've read your analogy, now try mine.

Say you run a business. You pay exorbitant fees to run several services, all of which could undoubtedly be done cheaper, and because of the massive amounts of money you spend on these services, you are massively in debt. Among your smaller expenses, you pay a nickel a day for a service, which, as you say, produces negligible benefit.

And instead of investigating how you can whittle down expenses on these giant services that you have, some of questionable value, all of which could undoubtedly be done cheaper, you decide that your first step is to eliminate the trivial service, and pretty much ignore ways to cut costs on the massive services. Cutting the trivial service would produce (at best) a negligible effect on your budget problems.

You know what I'd say about your business sense?

Bingo!

"Charles, they also kept their perks during the Great Depression and two world wars. But you want to start with the current one?"

Yo got a time machine none of us know about that would enable us to go back in time and suggest on the internet that maybe Mrs Harris shouldnt have a paid staff?

And when the next first lady has a staff that we bitch about are you going to argue 'none of you complained about the last first lady so why are you complaining now'

KLC, finally! Someone who understands what it means to produce a suggestion to cut costs that would actually produce a noticeable difference in the budget. Thank you.

Still doesn't dispose of your using TWO fallacies in argument.

Bingo.

Is the USA still handing out foreign aid during the sequester/shutdown? Is foreign aid on the table with the rest of the cuts?
It should be. But I haven't heard it mentioned. It would be a major savings compared to the First Lady's office.

Nice strawman, Patrick. No one here suggested *only* cutting the small expenses like the FLOTUS staff. Cut the big wastes and the small wastes. Small, wasteful expenses add up.

Remember this from about 2007? Ben Cohen, Co-Founder of Ben and Jerry's, explains the federal budget and how shifting 15% of the Pentagon budget could make all the difference. -- KLC at October 18, 2013 12:55 PM

I can see cutting out the 15% from the DoD. But please tell me where in the U.S. Constitution that you can find the Department Of Education? How about the Department of Energy? How about the Social Security Administration? What about supporting other countries to feed their hungry people? FEMA?

The problem is that about 75% of the federal government is extra-constitutional already. So reprogramming the money as Cohen suggests would be nice, but it mostly isn't legal. The crap is occurring because of the Wickard decision on the commerce clause.

Now to get back to reality -- shutting down the SSA tomorrow won't happen. But changing it to a write-down is possible. Change the Dept of Energy and assign the NRC to the DoD. Make the Dept of Ed an office again if not outright disband it.

But even the nickel, dime and penny shit adds up. I once paid for gas with $20 worth of pennies.

Inspired by events above:

Say you run a business. You pay exorbitant fees to run several services, all of which could undoubtedly be done cheaper, and because of the massive amounts of money you spend on these services, you are massively in debt. Among your smaller expenses, you pay a nickel a day for a service, which, as you say, produces negligible benefit.

And instead of investigating how you can whittle down expenses on these giant services that you have, some of questionable value, all of which could undoubtedly be done cheaper, you decide that your first step is to preserve the services that your predecessors provided, large and small, because hey, if they did it it must be a good idea.

You know what I'd say about your business sense?

You don't have any, or you are constrained from showing it by some other influence!

Jenny: Nice strawman, Patrick. No one here suggested *only* cutting the small expenses like the FLOTUS staff. Cut the big wastes and the small wastes. Small, wasteful expenses add up.

Bullshit, Jenny. When was the last time you say anything on this blog about cutting defense spending in a meaningful way? Is that never?

Yeah, I know. But we're all over the office of the First Lady. And you still haven't shown me how much money doing away with that office would save...as opposed to letting her just go do her own thing outside the White House, Secret Service in tow.

Let's say Michelle Obama decided to resume her law practice while her husband was President. She'd need Secret Service protection while she was in office and heightened security around the office when she wasn't. Still think we'd be saving money?

I submit that those of you who imagine we'd be saving anything much less anything meaningful in doing away with the office of the First Lady are short-sighted idiots who just haven't thought things through.

But someone gets bent out of shape because she decided to stress the importance of drinking water, you're all "Baa-baa-baa...yes, let's do away with the office of the First Lady. We the sheeple demand it...baa-baa-baa. We only suggest it because we hate Obama, but we're going to pretend we'd be saving money. Baaaaaaa..."

"Change the Dept of Energy and assign the NRC to the DoD."

Jim, you really, really do not want the regulation and possession of nuclear material in military hands. As it is, the civilian sector releases specific devices to military custody.

Although the USN has a pretty good record with nuclear propulsion, there isn't any gain in extending them to monitor boiling water reactors of significant size. Whole different operating scenario - and USN reactors cost probably 10 times a commercial rig due to the environment it will be exposed to. That doesn't translate well.

SRS was once a bomb materials plant. The fissionable materials and reactor areas belonged to the DOE and its predecessor, the AEC, specifically to make secret proliferation of nuclear material harder. As it is, there are tales of inventory being fudged to back an Israeli program 50 years ago, and not just in a Clancy novel.

"When was the last time you say anything on this blog about cutting defense spending in a meaningful way?"

Gee. Another "straw man".

Jim, you really, really do not want the regulation and possession of nuclear material in military hands. As it is, the civilian sector releases specific devices to military custody. -- Radwaste at October 19, 2013 5:48 PM

I can see making the NRC a stand-alone agency that isn't a cabinet level. Either way the Department of Energy has produced 0KW of energy. If some private company comes up with a solar panel or windmill that works it will sell on it's own. The DoE is not needed and just interferes with the market.

The Department of Energy Budget request for 2014 is $28,415,657,000. Or 28.4 billion dollars. That includes the Race to the Top for Energy Efficiency and Grid Modernization program at the cost of $200,000,000. Trust me if my power is going out every single day, I'm going to be calling my local electric company and complaining. And if it keeps happening I'm going to call my local TV news company and letting them know as well.

But the DoE is not going to run a single wire on a pole. That is the function of a private company.

Jim, DOE also has custody of the radioactive waste process operations at Federal sites: Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, INEEL, Sandia and Fernald, just to name a few. I suggest an hour wih Google Earth to get a view of how big these liabilities are.

This isn't signing over a doublewide full of office workers.

@Rad:

I don't know if you're deliberately missing the point or pulling the same appeal to precedence.

Reading the Department of Energy Budget request for 2014 how much could be cut? Take out the DoE and make it Office of Nuclear Regulations. Or even the Department of Nuclear Regulations although it shouldn't a cabinet position.

The federal government shouldn't be doing a lot of things. The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program is $6M. If hybrids or electric vehicles worked their would be a demand for them and the free market would be selling without an incentive program. The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is $2.77B. Again renewable energy should be a free market research issue, not subsidized by the government. Where is it written in the constitution?

Many of these agencies need to be completely re-formed. As in take the over 70K pages of regulation in the federal register and put them in a shredder. Then one by one re-create only what is needed.

Jim, I'm not commenting on the budget for the DOE until now - I agree that it could be streamlined. The difficulty is, of course, Congressional interference with operations under their ken. Reorganizing isn't a cure-all, as the confusion can be used to hide further pork.

I would prefer clarification of its mission. Call it out as Federal custodian of intrastate energy distribution; forbid subsidy of private enterprise other than negotiation for patent rights and limitations, or some such.

You may have noticed that Congress decided in the recent shutdown that the monitoring and processing of nuclear waste was "non-essential" despite Federal laws requiring controls on same and the completely non-negotiable physics of decay. I agree things are hosed (I bet some in Congress think Pi can be legislated into something else), but until self-interest in Congress is replaced by that whole "civic duty" ethic, I see no solution happening.

"But the DoE is not going to run a single wire on a pole. That is the function of a private company."

Missed this / different topic...

Actually, not now. The Rural Electrification (Act? Initiative? Project?) subsidized power companies to run wires that otherwise would cost a homeowner a fortune.

Whether you think that was a good idea, that's in place. And I don't think it was the DOE.

Actually, not now. The Rural Electrification (Act? Initiative? Project?) subsidized power companies to run wires that otherwise would cost a homeowner a fortune. -- Radwaste at October 20, 2013 7:39 AM

I don't think it was a bad idea back then. Hell the Federal telephone excise tax was probably good when it was imposed in 1898. They finally repealed it in 2006.

The point being that the government needs some serious reformation -- not a perpetual existence.

Arguing that a department needs to continue because it already exists is bad.

"Arguing that a department needs to continue because it already exists is bad."

That's not what I'm arguing. What I say is the existing department needs to have its job redefined. That will be cheaper, because it is less prone to abuse in a reorganization scheme.

That's not what I'm arguing. What I say is the existing department needs to have its job redefined. That will be cheaper, because it is less prone to abuse in a reorganization scheme. -- Radwaste at October 23, 2013 12:49 PM

I'm also arguing for re-formation of the federal government. But all your arguments seem to lean toward keeping the Energy Department as it is.

No. That is not the answer. Cut them to the bone. They need to justify their department(s).

"But all your arguments seem to lean toward keeping the Energy Department as it is."

I sure wish you'd quote the passage that says that, because I didn't.

Consolidation schemes I'm aware of didn't save a penny. If you know of some, please share!