Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[skydragonknight]

I actually care less about government size and more about government efficiency, which is pretty horrible at the moment. I don't mind contributing to society as a whole like that, as long as the money isn't so easily wasted or mishandled.  And an efficient government would by definition contribute more to the economy (or at least take less from it), potentially generating more tax revenue to ease the gap somewhat.

I honestly don't want random cuts to programs based upon political objectives. I was having a conversation with my dad the other day (he's a right-leaning moderate and I'm a left-leaning moderate - makes for good, honest discussions) and we struck an idea that there ought to be a full audit of government spending (perhaps excepting military secrets) done by three different reputable companies - one chosen by Dems, one chosen by Repubs and one mutually agreeable. Whatever cuts/restructuring the three of them agree on would go into effect automatically while anything agreed upon by two of the three would go onto the floor for a vote.

[bhu]

Wouldn't work.  You'd never get them to find one company mutually agreeable, and if they did they'd actively compete to corrupt it by adding their own people to it.  There's little if anything all three would agree on, and you'd be hard pressed to get two of them to agree on any problem.  Then you'd have the three companies extorting the parties for money to 'see things their way'.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Sky - assuming it's just a theoretical (and too bad) ...

There are only 4 big audit / accounting firms at this point.
Trust Bust 3 of them in mostly similar ways.  Totals 7 now.
Give the 3 smallest portions the contracts to audit the Gov.
At least 2 for everything the gov does.  All 3 get to work
on what Congress does.  I'd love to see it happen.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Holy crap bhu. And I thought I was politically tainted! Can't we just find some (mildly smart) uncompromisingly honest people? Even if they aren't accountants, they could be taught. I think its doable.

But of course I don't trust at least one party to agree to this. Maybe both would poo-poo it. Who knows.

[veekie]

both would poo-poo it

Seems like the likely outcome.

Or rather, both would just let the idea starve to death. It'd only happen if one party is at a significant disadvantage, and wants to kick the other in the nuts so it can recover.

[RobbyPants]

I actually care less about government size and more about government efficiency

I agree with this.

Can't we just find some (mildly smart) uncompromisingly honest people?

How do you know who those people are, and how do you know they won't change? It's easy to fake honestly. I don't know how you verify that other than scrutiny, sadly, after they're in office (unless you get evidence of something before the election).

[bhu]

Holy crap bhu. And I thought I was politically tainted! Can't we just find some (mildly smart) uncompromisingly honest people? Even if they aren't accountants, they could be taught. I think its doable.

But of course I don't trust at least one party to agree to this. Maybe both would poo-poo it. Who knows.

Part of people applying for these positions would involve them doing the same thing the government does to us: bullshitting to get their foot in the door before doing what they really want to do.  Since those people will be more practiced at bullshitting and being 'team players', they'd seem more reasonable to politicians and be more likely to get the post over scrupulously honest people.  No one likes honest people in business or politics.  No one.  You're viewed as untrustworthy because the minute anyone fudges the rules to get things done you'll rat them out.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

No one likes honest people in business or politics.  No one.  You're viewed as untrustworthy because the minute anyone fudges the rules to get things done you'll rat them out.

Cold, man.

[altpersona]

its the truth.

[bhu]

No one likes honest people in business or politics.  No one.  You're viewed as untrustworthy because the minute anyone fudges the rules to get things done you'll rat them out.

Cold, man.

Yes but in my experience it's also true.  Anytime someone has done something seriously illegal at a workplace I've been in and I told the manager you know who got in trouble?  Me.  Not the guy who committed theft, or had sex with an underage girl, or violated state and federal law.  Me.  Because I said something, meaning the manager now had to do something about it.  If I hadn't he'd have felt free to pretend it didn't exist and hoped it would go away, or the people involved would be immature enough to leave within the next couple of years.  The usual response I got was "Why teh fuck couldn't you just let this disappear, why did you have to say something?  Now I have to file paperwork and it looks like I can't do my job because it went down on my shift." 


When I worked phones for a political campaign I noticed they didnt record the calls unlike any other call center and when I asked why was told "because they could be used against us."  Turns out what we were doing was highly illegal.  Ended up losing the job because the building got so many threats "we are no longer capable of guaranteeing your safety".  Rough translation: we got caught and need to shut down now before investigations begin.

When I worked in a beer and wine distributor drugs were sold on the premises during work hours and i was told to shut my mouth about it or die.  When I found out we were using a charity to commit fraud I was again told to shut my mouth if i knew what was good for me.  This isn't even including the 1.86 million dollar 'inventory discrepancy' that happened when they possibly tried to lie to both IRS and state liquor board, or repackaging booze for resale, or all the other crap that went on.

If I've learned anything it's that corruption, graft, lies, and threats are not only endemic to both politics and business (even on the small scale), they're expected of you to the point you're seen as dangerous and somehow alien if you don't play ball. 

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

cell phone + annonymous tip*

*warning assumes a media that isn't one-sided

[skydragonknight]

"Please, don't take me for a kid. But what you're doing adds risk beyond the initial agreement. (Insert new pay rate here) or I'm out."

[bhu]

cell phone + annonymous tip*

*warning assumes a media that isn't one-sided

I did quite often.  Got asked if I had physical proof.  When I said not at the moment I usually heard a click or laughter.

The local cops apparently just don't give a fuck.

<disillusioned kitteh

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

I meant using the phone for audio/video...

[bhu]

I meant using the phone for audio/video...

Aaaah..

I has not a cell phone, never been able to afford one.  Probably wont until the bill is cheaper than owning a land line.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Pennsylvania voted Santorum 2nd place,
even though he said he was done.

Gingrich finally took the hint, and says he's done (just not quite right away).


The real Circus is almost here ... 

[Hallack]

No, it is already in progress in conventions across the land

[RobbyPants]

Is Newt officially out yet, or not? I haven't seen anything definitive, but I've seen things implying that.

[bhu]

He'll officially announce it next week he says , but yeah he's out

[Hallack]

He has announced that he is suspending but will do it officially next week.  So, about $40k more a day in taxpayer money for protection of a candidate that isn't even really still a candidate.  *sigh*