DOGE and the FAA

[172andyou]

Motorcycle safety is in part up to the rider - don't be stupid, ride like you're invisible and everyone's trying to kill you. But I wouldn't say "mostly" up to the rider. The fact remains that at any time, a careless driver can kill you in ways that you cannot predict or prevent. This is different from aviation, where your safety is indeed mostly in your own hands. Other people's mistakes (whether pilots or ATC) can kill you, but those situations are less common, your fate is more in your own hands.

And, yet, 75% are single rider or motorcycle at fault. Which is, at least, 'mostly'. I mean, that's the same percentage required to amend the constitution and people view that as being borderline impossible. It's more than is required to defeat a filibuster, which has basically prevented congress from getting anything done lately.

It's also nearly identical to pilot related accidents in GA according to AOPA.

 

[JOhnH]

Perhaps someone with a WSJ subs could review their commentary and post the highlights?
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-an...wer-grab-fa51c020?mod=commentary_article_pos1

This is just the final paragraph:

With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government. We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail. Now is the moment for decisive action. Our top goal for DOGE is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026—the expiration date we have set for our project. There is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.

 

[AvNavCom]

And, yet, 75% are single rider or motorcycle at fault.

Without wanting to derail too much, I'm curious whether these numbers are just accidents or fatalities. If it's accidents, then it's going to include people laying down their bikes, losing control after wheelies, and other such tomfoolery. I suspect (without evidence, I admit, but from some experience) that the serious injuries and especially fatalities are rather more likely to involve another vehicle being a primary causal or at least significantly contributory factor. I also wonder if there is some element of tending to assume fault of the motorcycle rider, similar to the way in which "pilot error" is a catch-all for accidents without an obvious mechanical mechanism.

 

[wanttaja]

"Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home."

Whelp, looks like I'm looking for a new job then. No way they're going to drag me back to the city five days a week. Logical fallacy in equating work from home with "not showing up". I can do my job perfectly fine from my own desk, thanks very much. If they were really after cost savings they'd get rid of a ton of the office building square footage instead and let us work from home.

But it's the rich people who are going to work for DOGE for free that *own* those office buildings. Of course they're not going to support remote work. They want those office towers filled.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[JOhnH]

Without wanting to derail too much, I'm curious whether these numbers are just accidents or fatalities. If it's accidents, then it's going to include people laying down their bikes, losing control after wheelies, and other such tomfoolery. I suspect (without evidence, I admit, but from some experience) that the serious injuries and especially fatalities are rather more likely to involve another vehicle being a primary causal or at least significantly contributory factor. I also wonder if there is some element of tending to assume fault of the motorcycle rider, similar to the way in which "pilot error" is a catch-all for accidents without an obvious mechanical mechanism.

I live in the Daytona Beach area. Some call it the motorcycle capital of the world. I have personally seen many accidents. All of the serious ones did indeed involve another vehicle. Cars often pull out in front of oncoming motorcycles and are technically at fault. But IMNSHO, most of those wrecks could be avoided if the motorcyclist had been paying attention and driving defensively. It doesn't matter at all to the coroner if you were in the right. When you are approaching an intersection and there is a car there that obviously wants to pull out, assume he doesn't see you and WILL pull out. Slow down, be ready with the brakes and be looking for an escape route. Assume you are the prey and drive that way.

 

[midwestpa24]

I think that's generally true, although the existence of BasicMed suggests that some level of risk tolerance exists at the higher levels of leadership. The carnage we're willing to accept on our roads as the price of the minimal training and relative freedoms of driving in the USA are another. The benefits to the individual, at least, would be tremendous if it changes a 1-2 year wait into walking out with a CACI issuance. I think that BasicMed has been a wonderful success, despite some reservations expressed a few years back by some aeromedical colleagues at the FAA.

BasicMed was forced down the FAA's throat by Congress after over a decade of resistance to demands from the GA community and its representatives. Had it not been for Congressional force, the FAA would never have budged.

"Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home."

Whelp, looks like I'm looking for a new job then. No way they're going to drag me back to the city five days a week. Logical fallacy in equating work from home with "not showing up". I can do my job perfectly fine from my own desk, thanks very much. If they were really after cost savings they'd get rid of a ton of the office building square footage instead and let us work from home.

I visited DC this year and went through several Fed buildings. It was crazy the amount of office space occupied by Federal agencies that were completely empty. Entire floors of cubicles just dead and shutdown. The DOT and FAA spaces were ghost towns, with only enough staff in person to conduct the scheduled meetings with constituent groups like us that were visiting. I think there is some logic to if we aren't going to require in-person work, then why continue to own, heat, and maintain all of the space. That's without even getting into the conversation about productivity of remote versus in person.

 

[AvNavCom]

BasicMed was forced down the FAA's throat by Congress after over a decade of resistance to demands from the GA community and its representatives. Had it not been for Congressional force, the FAA would never have budged.

Precisely, and I think that goes to the point made by StraightnLevel, which is that the FAA leadership (especially the medical department) has very little incentive to take risks, and some perverse incentives to avoid innovation. The FAA budged essentially because the responsibility for the risk of BasicMed was shifted from them to Congress. An action such as increasing the ability of AMEs to issue a broader range of issuances will require either another outside intervention or someone in FAA leadership who is willing to take that risk on behalf of the pilot community. To her credit, Dr. Northrup is probably the most likely candidate of any of the Federal Air Surgeons in recent memory to advocate for such a move, but she still answers to the Administrator.

My own senior leadership is very much interested in asking "why". To apply that to the FAA, we (or an auditor) should be asking for hard data. When are physicals submitted, and when are they processed? Are they getting stuck at certain steps? To what extent does the diagnosis change the processing time? Should certain medical conditions still require a waiver? Can more be CACI conditions?

It may turn out that there are inefficiencies which can be fixed via process change or via technology (i.e. improved electronic notifications and document submission). It may also turn out that the process is as efficient as it can reasonably be and that the FAA simply needs more people to process the workload. Recently the military has been in the bad habit of having one person do the job of two or three people based on "efficiency" (and recruiting shortfalls, truthfully), which instead destroys efficiency (and morale, retention, training time...).

I think there is some logic to if we aren't going to require in-person work, then why continue to own, heat, and maintain all of the space. That's without even getting into the conversation about productivity of remote versus in person.

Spot on. The 9-5, five-day, in-person work-week is suboptimal and we have the data to prove it. Wildly expensive facilities are a waste of time when much of the work can be done virtually, at no cost to the government in terms of facilities and virtually no cost (perhaps a laptop and VPN access) regarding equipment. Productivity (and necessity for that position) can be measured in meeting goals/metrics and who gives a damn if you're doing that work at 9am or 9pm as long as it gets done. Workers don't waste time or money on commuting. Sell the buildings or lease out the majority of the space. Smaller facilities are easier to secure, cost less to maintain, and in-person requirements can be met with group meeting/working spaces. There's an odd sense that if you're not driving in and grinding out work at a desk, you're somehow not working "properly". That view is style over substance, and I hope we can someday get away from that old-fashioned thinking for administrative positions which genuinely don't require in-person presence.

 

[Crashnburn]

Precisely, and I think that goes to the point made by StraightnLevel, which is that the FAA leadership (especially the medical department) has very little incentive to take risks, and some perverse incentives to avoid innovation. The FAA budged essentially because the responsibility for the risk of BasicMed was shifted from them to Congress. An action such as increasing the ability of AMEs to issue a broader range of issuances will require either another outside intervention or someone in FAA leadership who is willing to take that risk on behalf of the pilot community. To her credit, Dr. Northrup is probably the most likely candidate of any of the Federal Air Surgeons in recent memory to advocate for such a move, but she still answers to the Administrator.

My own senior leadership is very much interested in asking "why". To apply that to the FAA, we (or an auditor) should be asking for hard data. When are physicals submitted, and when are they processed? Are they getting stuck at certain steps? To what extent does the diagnosis change the processing time? Should certain medical conditions still require a waiver? Can more be CACI conditions?

It may turn out that there are inefficiencies which can be fixed via process change or via technology (i.e. improved electronic notifications and document submission). It may also turn out that the process is as efficient as it can reasonably be and that the FAA simply needs more people to process the workload. Recently the military has been in the bad habit of having one person do the job of two or three people based on "efficiency" (and recruiting shortfalls, truthfully), which instead destroys efficiency (and morale, retention, training time...).


Spot on. The 9-5, five-day, in-person work-week is suboptimal and we have the data to prove it. Wildly expensive facilities are a waste of time when much of the work can be done virtually, at no cost to the government in terms of facilities and virtually no cost (perhaps a laptop and VPN access) regarding equipment. Productivity (and necessity for that position) can be measured in meeting goals/metrics and who gives a damn if you're doing that work at 9am or 9pm as long as it gets done. Workers don't waste time or money on commuting. Sell the buildings or lease out the majority of the space. Smaller facilities are easier to secure, cost less to maintain, and in-person requirements can be met with group meeting/working spaces. There's an odd sense that if you're not driving in and grinding out work at a desk, you're somehow not working "properly". That view is style over substance, and I hope we can someday get away from that old-fashioned thinking for administrative positions which genuinely don't require in-person presence.

Fine, as long as you don't need to physical access to the equipment. You're probably OK if you are the end user, but for developers like me, it's a lot easier if you have the equipment close to hand.

 

[AvNavCom]

Fine, as long as you don't need to physical access to the equipment. You're probably OK if you are the end user, but for developers like me, it's a lot easier if you have the equipment close to hand.

Sure, horses for courses and all that. There's a large contingent of people who need to be in-person to do their work. I'm usually one of them. There's also a large (probably too large) contingent of people who genuinely don't need to be physically present and in fact may do better work for less cost to the employer. I'm temporarily one of them, and hate my hour-long commute in DC traffic. Haha!

 

[Baked Potato]

Fine, as long as you don't need to physical access to the equipment. You're probably OK if you are the end user, but for developers like me, it's a lot easier if you have the equipment close to hand.

I support IT systems for a division within my agency. I occasionally need physical access to specific resources and can go in to the office when needed, and absolutely do so when it helps any of my users. But I certainly don't need to be there five days per week.

In fact, when we were in emergency mode in the spring of 2020, the workflow changes that I developed and the additional tools that I acquired to facilitate work from home have helped to make the users that I support much more productive, at least in the little sphere over which I have influence. And I've got the metrics to prove it.

 

[Bob Noel]

I do love the concept of remote working... When I was supporting a USAF program office (a variety of them over time), those military types had a real hard time with people supporting them without being RIGHT THERE IN THE DANG CUBICLE WHERE I CAN REACH AND TOUCH THEM.

Maybe it's improved now.

But, with remote work, how do you mentor new hires? How do you facilitate cross-discipline informal informationi flow? to name a couple of things that happen with in-person work.

Now, about those TPS reports...

 

[Baked Potato]

But, with remote work, how do you mentor new hires?

Ensuring your procedures are all documented and up-to-date, lots of Teams meetings with screen sharing, and a lot of QC of the new hire's work

 

[Flatiowa]

Not to worry, any job that can be done remotely will be done by artificial intelligence in a few years, and when artificial intelligence really gets rolling it will go full sky net and look back at the lockdowns of 2020 to determine “essential” and “non essential” workers and cull the herd to save the world from environmental collapse caused by over population/consumption…. Being sarcastic obviously, but also in a way a little bit serious.

 

[ateamer]

I've never seen a number that large. Do you remember where you read it?


Motorcycle safety is mostly up the rider as well. Something like 75% of of motorcycle accidents are single vehicle or motorcycle at fault.

And when the rider hasn’t been drinking and doesn’t treat the road like a race track, the chances of a crash are way less. When they wear a full-face helmet the chances of a fatality drop sharply. Adding a jacket and gloves greatly increases quality of life after a crash.

 

[pfarber]

The Falcon 9 was a great success, but not quite that good. NASA provided 278M, which I suspect is where the 300M came from, but in total was 423M (550M in 2024 dollars). And it took more like ten years, because the Falcon 1 was an R&D stepping stone to the 9.

Further, since everyone is excited about the resusable stuff lately, the reusable Falcon 9 was closer to 2B.

If you're going to quote the wiki, please post all the relevant parts:

SpaceX developed Falcon 9 with private capital as well, but did have pre-arranged commitments by NASA to purchase several operational flights once specific capabilities were demonstrated. Milestone-specific payments were provided under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program in 2006.[29][30] The NASA contract was structured as a Space Act Agreement (SAA) "to develop and demonstrate commercial orbital transportation service",[30] including the purchase of three demonstration flights.[31] The overall contract award was US$278 million to provide three demonstration launches of Falcon 9 with the SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft. Additional milestones were added later, raising the total contract value to US$396 million.[32][33] (Emphasis mine)

NASA did EXACTLY what I proposed... you want money? Hit specific milestones. If SpaceX didn't perform, NASA owed them NOTHING.

Again from the wiki:
"In 2011, SpaceX estimated that Falcon 9 v1.0 development costs were approximately US$300 million.[36] NASA estimated development costs of US$3.6 billion had a traditional cost-plus contract approach been used.[37] A 2011 NASA report "estimated that it would have cost the agency about US$4 billion to develop a rocket like the Falcon 9 booster based upon NASA's traditional contracting processes" while "a more commercial development" approach might have allowed the agency to pay only US$1.7 billion".[38]"

That there is what we call a smoking gun. 100% proof that NASA is bloated agency that should not be in the business of building ANYTHING. At most NASA should be little more than a project manager and keep its museum pieces in order.

What NASA does for its funding is they throw money at a project that is little more than an idea. Then keep adding money (and keep bureaucrats/management employed). If there was a published RFP and commercial companies bid on it, and raised their own funds to deliver the project THEN they get reimbursed the contract amount we would already have a moon base and be on our way to mars.

Oh wait, SpaceX has already driven to Mars in 2020.

 

[trenton]

And just as point of fact, last quarter's interest on the debt was $1.1 billion.

I'm seeing our year to date 2024 interest reported at $1.16 *trillion*. Way beyond billions per quarter.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/18/us-deficit-tops-1point8-trillion-in-2024-as-interest-on-debt-surpasses-trillion-dollar-mark.html

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I'm seeing our year to date 2024 interest reported at $1.16 *trillion*. Way beyond billions per quarter.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/18/us-deficit-tops-1point8-trillion-in-2024-as-interest-on-debt-surpasses-trillion-dollar-mark.html

Whoops. Read that one wrong.

 

[172andyou]

If you're going to quote the wiki, please post all the relevant parts:

Rocket Development Costs by Vehicle: Payload Research

In 2008, Falcon 1 became the first privately funded, fully liquid-fueled launch vehicle to reach orbit. Its development cost? Just $90M ($131M inflation adj.).

payloadspace.com

 

[Randomskylane]

The USD is the world's reserve currency not by decree, but because we are the world's larges economy, by far. Even the BRIC total falls short. The only reason other countriesare trading in Yuan is that they are shut out of SWIFT for ( in my opinion) very valid reasons. The nearest to us is China, but even they are $10 trillion short and have very weak legal protections on property. Do you really see a mass movement away from the dollar any time soon?

I don't mean to suggest we should continue to spend at the rate we are, but spending and revenue changes should and can be made without, as Musk put it, "a great deal of short-term pain".

And just as point of fact, last quarter's interest on the debt was $1.1 billion. A $ trillion quarterly is a long way off.

Federal government current expenditures: Interest payments

Graph and download economic data for Federal government current expenditures: Interest payments (A091RC1Q027SBEA) from Q1 1947 to Q3 2024 about payments, expenditures, federal, government, interest, GDP, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Lists a much larger number. To be an only a billion the interest rate would be nearly zero. 1% of 36 trillion is 360 billion for the year. Hopefully the fed reserve site is accurate

Anyway, relying on remaining the world’s reserve currency seems shortsighted

I’m probably many posts behind so pardon me if this was covered.

 

[Randomskylane]

I do love the concept of remote working... When I was supporting a USAF program office (a variety of them over time), those military types had a real hard time with people supporting them without being RIGHT THERE IN THE DANG CUBICLE WHERE I CAN REACH AND TOUCH THEM.

Maybe it's improved now.

But, with remote work, how do you mentor new hires? How do you facilitate cross-discipline informal informationi flow? to name a couple of things that happen with in-person work.

Now, about those TPS reports...

New hires-have them drive in for a month or whatever while there is still available space.

During Covid we had a bunch of google meets which worked ok but not great. I’m sure it really depends on the type of work.

 

[172andyou]

Anyway, relying on remaining the world’s reserve currency seems shortsighted

Especially since the USD hasn't been "the" world's reserve currency for a long time. It's currently about 59%, which is a lot. But others, especially the euro, are traded in large enough amounts to have plenty of liquidity and demand.

That ship has already sailed. The only question is when the dollar will drop below 50% and which currencies will pick up the slack.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But, with remote work, how do you mentor new hires? How do you facilitate cross-discipline informal informationi flow? to name a couple of things that happen with in-person work.

Having worked at a company using a new-to-me technology where we started working remotely first and eventually got an office, I can say that my skills improved quicker when I was within earshot of the rock-star guy and could ask him for ideas on how to approach something that was giving me trouble. It was also nice to be able to help the newer guys out and to be around people.

However, there is plenty of technology today that is almost as good, and any amount of drawback to using said technology is probably more than made up for by having fewer interruptions.

Not to worry, any job that can be done remotely will be done by artificial intelligence in a few years, and when artificial intelligence really gets rolling it will go full sky net and look back at the lockdowns of 2020 to determine “essential” and “non essential” workers and cull the herd to save the world from environmental collapse caused by over population/consumption…. Being sarcastic obviously, but also in a way a little bit serious.

More realistically, companies will use AI to drastically reduce head count, which will lead to extreme levels of unemployment. Hopefully we can figure out how to fund UBI before that (and actually do it), or the resulting economic collapse is going to be catastrophic.

Again from the wiki:
"In 2011, SpaceX estimated that Falcon 9 v1.0 development costs were approximately US$300 million.[36] NASA estimated development costs of US$3.6 billion had a traditional cost-plus contract approach been used.[37] A 2011 NASA report "estimated that it would have cost the agency about US$4 billion to develop a rocket like the Falcon 9 booster based upon NASA's traditional contracting processes" while "a more commercial development" approach might have allowed the agency to pay only US$1.7 billion".[38]"

That there is what we call a smoking gun. 100% proof that NASA is bloated agency that should not be in the business of building ANYTHING. At most NASA should be little more than a project manager and keep its museum pieces in order.

Not necessarily. They need a different approach, maybe, but if you look at the $1.7B above and the $1.9B it cost SpaceX to really get to the finish line (below), it's not that far off.

FWIW, I have friends and relatives at NASA, and one of my former clients was Intuitive Machines, the company that was in the news several months ago for being the first commercial spacecraft to land on the moon. IM was made up almost exclusively of ex-NASA folks - Steve Altemus was NASA JSC's chief engineer, Tim Crain was a Guidance, Navigation & Control lead, and they brought dozens of others with them. IM was also maybe the coolest company I've ever seen the inside of - Ideas flowed freely and were taken seriously by management because management was made up of engineers, and the people there were incredibly smart. I saw things go from wild and crazy idea to completed project in unbelievably short timeframes, and I saw a work environment that facilitated all of the above more effectively than I've seen in any other organization. It's been a number of years since I did any work for them and the lunar stuff wasn't at the forefront of what they were doing at the time, but when I heard that they were the company that had put a lander on the moon I was not surprised whatsoever.

The way they explained their methods vs. their former employer's (NASA) was this: Everything at NASA has to be human spaceflight ready. You can't write a Hello World program without it being scrutinized to that level. Error checked, code reviewed, multiple departments' input, yadda yadda. IM is more of a "move fast and break stuff" company, and they know that they're going to screw up and they're going to learn from it, so screw up and learn as much and as fast as you can, then build the next thing... And don't make it human spaceflight ready until there's gonna be humans on it.

NASA doesn't really have the luxury of being able to screw up, though, the way IM and SpaceX do. SpaceX just dropped a Starship Super Heavy booster into the ocean a couple of days ago due to a communication issue. If NASA did things that way, can you imagine the outcry of how wasteful it is to drop a vehicle worth nearly $100 million into the ocean? NASA cannot fail and remain in existence, so they end up spending a lot of extra money to get everything right the first time (mostly).

In terms of bloat, it's not about private vs. government. The worst organizational inefficiencies I've seen were at large companies. Boeing has blown $6 Billion on Starliner, 50% worse than NASA's worst estimates for their own development, and it's still plagued by problems.

Rocket Development Costs by Vehicle: Payload Research

In 2008, Falcon 1 became the first privately funded, fully liquid-fueled launch vehicle to reach orbit. Its development cost? Just $90M ($131M inflation adj.).

payloadspace.com

View attachment 135446

 

[Daleandee]

And when the rider hasn’t been drinking and doesn’t treat the road like a race track, the chances of a crash are way less. When they wear a full-face helmet the chances of a fatality drop sharply. Adding a jacket and gloves greatly increases quality of life after a crash.

Yulp ... a lot of fatal motorcycle accidents involve alcohol, speeding, no license, and a lack of proper safety gear. For those interested in the alcohol numbers:

"A 28% of bikers died in crashes in 2018. Shockingly, many of them had a high blood alcohol content. Drinking significantly contributed to over 38% of all biker deaths that year.
Even with a BAC below the legal limit, between 0.05% and 0.079%, motorcyclists were four times more likely to die in a solo crash compared to sober riders. This shows that impairment starts before you’re legally drunk.
A startling 25% of motorbike riders that died in accidents in 2016 had a recent DUI offense – the highest among drivers."

Top Motorcycle Accident Statistics You Need to Know

Explore crucial motorcycle accident statistics to enhance awareness and safety. Essential insights for riders and motorists. Learn more now!

hlalawfirm.com

Sorry for the thread drift ...

 

[Bob Noel]

Sorry for the thread drift ...

Welcome to the interweb

 

[Barrett50]

I’m not sure if your story is about what DOGE could cut - or how DOGE itself will play out. I think there’s good odds for the latter, including people not wanting to put their time on DOGE on their resume. Kinda like some high-profile election stuff 8 years ago that suddenly went silent.

Perhaps this will clear up my POV on the subject:

Pack Up, Bureaucrats: Vivek Ramaswamy Reveals How Trump With Help from DOGE Will Abolish ENTIRE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES and Crush the Administrative State (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger

If the incoming Trump administration has its way, thousands of deep-state bureaucrats who have lived off the U.S.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Provided it doesn't get me perma-banned. The process is to go after exec controlled, and exec managed functions that the exec and now DOGE knows are wasteful. I won't bother with an example, but we all know the exec has been rubber-stamping wasteful spending for years because they can. Now, the cuts planned are those that the exec has unfettered control over.

 

[pfarber]

Rocket Development Costs by Vehicle: Payload Research

In 2008, Falcon 1 became the first privately funded, fully liquid-fueled launch vehicle to reach orbit. Its development cost? Just $90M ($131M inflation adj.).

payloadspace.com

View attachment 135446

so you agree that falcon 9 was only $300MM produce. Falcon 9 2.0 was more, but I guess by not stating which segment specifically there is some confusion.

NASA is a rotting bloated carcass that only survives due to free government money. NASA et al would fail completly if they tried to do anything commercial.

 

[wanttaja]

Provided it doesn't get me perma-banned. The process is to go after exec controlled, and exec managed functions that the exec and now DOGE knows are wasteful. I won't bother with an example, but we all know the exec has been rubber-stamping wasteful spending for years because they can. Now, the cuts planned are those that the exec has unfettered control over.

As long as long-term effects are understood. Cutting the budget by ~50% sounds good, but if it's only executing 33% of its needed function three months later, that's not really an improvement. Someone can get a lot of press by claiming the elimination of waste and large cost savings, but six months later the agency is down the tubes and they've long ago switched to another job. No hair off their behind.

There's a sad tendency in business to buy undervalued companies and make profit by breaking up and selling the individual components. Note that the kind of people who are being recruited to DOGE... "eighty hours a week and no pay"... are likely the kind of people who think that's a nifty way to make money.

Interesting point: If Musk calls for the cancellation of Boeing's Starliner, what's the Conflict of Interest implications? Sure, it may deserve it. But should the man who gains the most if it gets cancelled have the right to make the recommendation?

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Warmi]

As long as long-term effects are understood. Cutting the budget by ~50% sounds good, but if it's only executing 33% of its needed function three months later, that's not really an improvement. Someone can get a lot of press by claiming the elimination of waste and large cost savings, but six months later the agency is down the tubes and they've long ago switched to another job. No hair off their behind.

There's a sad tendency in business to buy undervalued companies and make profit by breaking up and selling the individual components. Note that the kind of people who are being recruited to DOGE... "eighty hours a week and no pay"... are likely the kind of people who think that's a nifty way to make money.

Interesting point: If Musk calls for the cancellation of Boeing's Starliner, what's the Conflict of Interest implications? Sure, it may deserve it. But should the man who gains the most if it gets cancelled have the right to make the recommendation?

Ron Wanttaja

By definition , if a company sells for X then it is not undervalued but it is worth exactly X- at least at the moment.
There is no intrinsic value to any goods or services , they are always only worth as much as somebody is willing to pay for it.

 

[JOhnH]

IMO the "use or lose" system sounds worse than it is. Everyone can come up with ridiculous examples, but most of the time I have seen it used to cover the myriad of legitimate unforseen needs that arise.

Yes, I can come up with many ridiculous examples.

When I worked for CSC under contract to the EPA research lab, the local EPA administrator came by near the end of each fiscal year and asked what we needed right now. The first time this happened to me, I said "nothing". That was the wrong answer. I was informed that "use it or lose it" was in effect and that I needed to find something to spend money on so we could get more next year. So I asked for a few million dollars worth of computer upgrades and replacements for equipment that was already doing the job it was designed for. Virtually every government scientist in the building asked for new PCs, coffee pots, personal printers, laptops; and anything else they could think of.

 

[Baked Potato]

If Musk calls for the cancellation of Boeing's Starliner, what's the Conflict of Interest implications?

Hah, if you think something so ethical as conflict of interest implications matters to any of these people, then I have some memecoins to sell you.

 

[Llewtrah381]

Perhaps this will clear up my POV on the subject:

Pack Up, Bureaucrats: Vivek Ramaswamy Reveals How Trump With Help from DOGE Will Abolish ENTIRE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES and Crush the Administrative State (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger

If the incoming Trump administration has its way, thousands of deep-state bureaucrats who have lived off the U.S.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Provided it doesn't get me perma-banned. The process is to go after exec controlled, and exec managed functions that the exec and now DOGE knows are wasteful. I won't bother with an example, but we all know the exec has been rubber-stamping wasteful spending for years because they can. Now, the cuts planned are those that the exec has unfettered control over.

If you think these guys and the people working 80 hours/ wk “for free” won’t be protecting THEIR sacred cows from being sacrificed, well, that’s cute.

 

[Half Fast]

But should the man who gains the most if it gets cancelled have the right to make the recommendation?

Anyone, including thee and me, has a right to make a recommendation.

 

[172andyou]

so you agree that falcon 9 was only $300MM produce.

No. Falcon 1 was part of the program, so you have to combine the two. IIRC you first claimed that the 9 was a clean sheet in 4.5 years for 300m. It wasn't. It was part of a larger program that took ten years and more money.

 

[Half Fast]

Hah, if you think something so ethical as conflict of interest implications matters to any of these people, then I have some memecoins to sell you.

Might be a good idea to get out in front of thIngs and make your own recommendations for cuts. Or would that be a conflict of interest?

 

[Baked Potato]

Might be a good idea to get out in front of thIngs and make your own recommendations for cuts. Or would that be a conflict of interest?

As part of my job duties all of my financial interests have to be disclosed yearly to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest with my job duties. And there are tons of rules by which I must abide to ensure that I'm not either a) trading on insider info, or b) acting in my own self-interest in my sphere of influence at my job.

It's funny how this is of utmost importance to us pencil-pushers, but it's not even a veneer for the mega-billionairres at the top. I can only imagine the Ethics Committee phone call I'd receive if I created a so-called efficiency recommendation group and had the hubris to name it after one of the very items with which I have financial interest.

 

[Half Fast]

As part of my job duties all of my financial interests have to be disclosed yearly to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest with my job duties. And there are tons of rules by which I must abide to ensure that I'm not either a) trading on insider info, or b) acting in my own self-interest in my sphere of influence at my job.

It's funny how this is of utmost importance to us pencil-pushers, but it's not even a veneer for the mega-billionairres at the top. I can only imagine the Ethics Committee phone call I'd receive if I created a so-called efficiency recommendation group and had the hubris to name it after one of the very items with which I have financial interest.

Well, you can’t omit step 1.

1. Become a billionaire.

 

[StraightnLevel]

As long as long-term effects are understood. Cutting the budget by ~50% sounds good, but if it's only executing 33% of its needed function three months later, that's not really an improvement.

The question that needs to be asked is which of these functions are actually necessary.

I would bet the cost of an annual that you could cut 30% of the federal government's functions and less than 1% of the population would notice. (To be clear - I'm not saying 30% of the overall budget.)

The rub, of course, is figuring out which 30%. Making a broad, sweeping cut and waiting for the complaints is one approach to figuring it out. If enough people complain about the effects of a particular cut, go back and fix it. If not, we're better off without it.

Is this the BEST approach? I would like to think that it is not. Trouble is, nothing else has worked because the system works very diligently to protect itself. Can anyone name a single federal program that has ever been removed after its usefulness has waned? One?

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Just to keep a little focus on the scope of the problem, this is the trend of non- military, non-postal employees of the federal government. The blips are census years where temporary employment drove up numbers. Again, I fail to see the burgeoning crisis that requires drastic action. Of course, many Federal functions have been farmed out under contract to private enterprise.

Anybody else remember trying to get an answer out of the IRS during Covid?

 

[172andyou]

The question that needs to be asked is which of these function are actually necessary.

I feel like we should all be able to participate in some sort of a system where we can hire some people to figure that out while representing our interests and holding them accountable every few years if they aren't doing their jobs properly...

I would bet the cost of an annual that you could cut 30% of the federal government's functions and less than 1% of the population would notice.

The rub, of course, is figuring out which 30%. Making a broad, sweeping cut and waiting for the complaints is one approach to figuring it out. If enough people complain about the effects of a particular cut, go back and fix it. If not, we're better off without it.

And which 1% also. If the 1% notice because they are made homeless, or starve, or get blown up in because our military doesn't have the right gear, or die due to lack of access to health care, or die because of pollution being pumped into their water, or a bunch of other things that exist because we, as a nation, decided we didn't want people starving/dying/etc...

One thing I feel confident about though, is that the 1% who notice won't be the billionaires. So, I propose we start by making them notice (return their tax burden to the level of the 40's - 70's) and that will give us a lot of breathing room to figure out the rest. And, it's only 1%, right?

 

[MauleSkinner]

When your engine goes out and you need to put it down, knowing how to manage your glide and land it at the slowest possible speed without a stall is the main benefit of being proficient at a slow flight.

If you do that correctly, by the time you get to the “slowest possible speed,” stalling won’t change the outcome much.