BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
Don't blame me.  I don't know WTF he's going on about.  What does Route 54 have to do with "Gov't Waste, Fraud & Abuse"?

 miamizsun wrote:
Dang!!!  It sure is easy to be a Montana rancher!  No land or livestock needed.  Just a pile of pennies and a pair of pinching fingers.   Yeah, right.

First the claim is that Montana was so clever that they're growing government and increasing necessary services.  But later on the claim changes to say they got all the money to do this by shutting down government and cutting out all services they deemed "unnecessary".

Sure it's easy to run a do-nothing state government.  At least until the citizens start missing those services, or the federal government starts billing at "emergency room" rates for the humanitarian services that they were forced to provide by default.

The most sobering part was this:

"I was recently at a military base where a private firm ran security. Why, with the toughest soldiers on earth, would the federal government spend extra cash to rent security guards rather than let troops take turns guarding the fort?"

I asked a similar question when I noticed the same security company that I had seen at other military bases, as we entered Ft. Campbell.  My Army-retired cousin whose active duty Army husband's unit was deployed in Afghanistan didn't even hesitate when she replied "there's nobody left here to do it."

It was true.  During the 5¢ tour of the base, not a soul was seen until we reached the BX (Ft. Campbell has the largest AAFES mega-mall in the world).  Even there it was retireds, spouses and kids.  The only uniforms were on hangers.

So we made the round at the memorials, including one for the KIA of my cousin's unit, and payed our respects to the fallen, including his roommate, who had been shot down less than a week before.  I barked "soldier, remove your cover" and explained to his 12-year-old son how it was a gesture of respect, feeling guilty that I was taking away yet another father-son moment.  And then we drove back through the ghost base and off to the next place.

No Mr. Schweitzer, you don't have to lecture us about waste.  We're acutely aware of the wasted lives, the wasted moments, and the other things that, in comparison, don't seem nearly as important.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Shocking. Utterly shocking. 

 miamizsun wrote:
What this fails to mention (and readers of the NYT can be forgiven for not following the politics of flyover country) is that all that expense-challenging happened over Gov. Schweitzer's strident objection. He wanted to spend much more of that surplus at the time, and now takes credit for fiscal restraint he opposed.

 Beaker wrote: 
Oh. Is that the same place I found you?

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
That train has left the station.

 Coaxial wrote: 
Credibility? Wasn't it around here somewhere?

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
Shocking.

 Coaxial wrote: 
wtf. You mean someone is wrong on the internet!?!?!?!? And it's servo?!?!?!?

 Servo wrote: 

New Mexico

US 54 enters New Mexico in Chaparral as part of the El Paso, Texas Metro area network. It also serves as a military highway to connect Fort Bliss in El Paso to Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, New Mexico. The speed limit is 70 mph on the divided highway section upon entering the state to approximately 10 miles (16 km) south of Alamogordo, with a 35 mph zone in Orogrande.

I am speechless.

a good story....

Op-Ed Contributor
Cutting Costs the Montana Way
By BRIAN SCHWEITZER
Published: August 18, 2011

Helena, Mont.

WITH the debt crisis and the weakening economy fresh on their minds, most Americans have probably concluded that government, as a rule, cannot manage money responsibly. But it can. Just look at Montana.

For six years it has been one of the only states in America with a budget surplus: this year it is a record $433 million, proportionally equivalent to a federal surplus of $858 billion. Thus we've been able to cut taxes, invest in education and infrastructure and keep essential services intact. We recently got our first bond rating upgrade in 26 years.

And we're not simply riding the Western energy boom. The recession has driven unemployment to 7.5 percent, and while we've had a great run with oil, coal and gas, royalties from these commodities account for only 9 percent of our budget surplus.

How do we accomplish what most states and the federal government cannot? I like to say we run government like a ranch. In ranching - my old job - you either pinch pennies or go belly-up. We do the same in government. Perhaps Washington can try it.

For one thing, we challenge every expense. If it isn't absolutely necessary, we eliminate it. When the recession came we found $80 million in savings, which helped us avert a budget crisis. Little things added up: we renegotiated state contracts, cut our energy consumption by 20 percent, auctioned off state vehicles and canceled building projects and computer upgrades.

We even saved by spending: we stepped up our efforts to collect unpaid tax bills from out-of-state and foreign corporations, an undertaking that more than paid for itself.

This type of penny-pinching rarely occurs in Washington. As a small example, I was recently at a military base where a private firm ran security. Why, with the toughest soldiers on earth, would the federal government spend extra cash to rent security guards rather than let troops take turns guarding the fort? Sure, there might be a convenience to contracting, but is it worth the billions spent? No doubt the lobbyists for the security firm sprinkled plenty of money around Capitol Hill to get the contract.

The federal budget contains thousands of similar line items. A government serious about tightening its belt would eliminate them all.

But we don't just cut costs. Like good ranchers, we also leave some grain in the bin in case of drought. When times were good, we stashed away cash in a special savings account. This was a political challenge, because almost every state legislator, from both parties, wanted to spend it instead. But the account proved to be a big help in getting us through the recession in solid financial shape.

I cannot recall the federal government's ever banking surplus funds in a protected account, even during the surplus-laden 1990s. If Washington ever digs out of the current hole and runs a cash balance, Congress should likewise put some grain in the bin.

And even as we've cut costs and socked away money, we've followed another ranching principle: treat your ranch hands with respect. Like other states, we've had to freeze employee pay and reduce the work force. But as in any good organization, many of the best solutions for cutting costs come from state employees. Some look at payroll as a burden; we look at it as human capital, and we work hard to keep up morale in tough times. So when we cut the state payroll, I cut my own salary.

Sadly, many politicians, especially in Washington, seem to relish the opportunity to trash government workers. This is just cheap and ugly scapegoating. More to the point, it does nothing to produce bottom-line results.

Finally, we don't spend money until we've found the lowest price. Around here, government contracts aren't a way to take care of friends. Quite the opposite: we use our purchasing power to get the lowest possible rate. When the real estate market softened, we told commercial landlords who rented space to the state that if we didn't see rent reductions, we'd move to cheaper premises when our leases were up. Most complied, saving the state almost $4 million.

How does the federal government negotiate? Consider Medicare drug purchases, one of the largest federal budget items. We are often told the cost of entitlements can be brought down only by cutting services. Nonsense. In 2003, in one of the greatest sweetheart giveaways ever dreamed up by the White House and Congress, they agreed to pay retail rates for Medicare drugs, even when everyone knew they could negotiate lower, bulk prices. The cost to taxpayers? An estimated $600 billion a decade.

There are savings to be found everywhere in government. Now that federal spending is the country's top issue, Washington should try doing what any rancher or family household does: save money, live by a budget, challenge expenses, find bargains and invest wisely. Montana has proved that it works.

Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, is the governor of Montana.

 

 Servo wrote:
 
Dang you and your pesky socialist leanings...

 cc_rider wrote: 
This particular equation shouldn't have been allowed to happen in the first place.  Remember that the Republicans chose those towns solely to harm Democratic lawmakers.  Nothing but Teabag terrorism.

What's next?  Cutting off entire rural areas that receive subsidized electricity and phone service?

Another $20 mil down the crapper
 

 cc_rider wrote:

We're talking about the many subsidizing the few. No matter which objective criteria we apply to thin the program it winds up with his district stays on the gravy train and mine gets off. Every Representative is going to fight for a cut of that money unless it drops to zero.

This is the Tragedy of the Commons. It's not a new story and this transparently ridiculous program is not unique. We will have to fight battles like this tooth and nail over and over. Supporters will trot out sobbing witnesses to convince everybody that they'll be RUINED by the evil budget cutters if they don't get their mohair subsidy/crop price support/tennis-courts-for-the-needy grant, and nobody will speak for those who will have to pay for it.

Compromise is how we got here. You get a mohair subsidy if I get $2k per ticket to fly my nephew home from college twice a year. The future isn't represented at that negotiating table.

 cc_rider wrote: 
I hear you. It's pretty awful.

 winter wrote:
 
Of course you're right. I'm just very frustrated with the joke our government has become.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
haHA! you remind me of a pear caught in the exhaust pipe of an old Chevy pickup full of sturgeon heads and Chinese paintings.

 winter wrote: 

Oh now that's just stupid.Sorry, I am in a playful mood today.

 cc_rider wrote: 
Not that I don't hold the electorate responsible, because I do, but calling them "too stupid to understand" is part of the problem I'm pointing out. I don't know about you, but I tend to avoid trying to convince stupid people to be less stupid. Also I don't fancy reaching an agreement with them that's going to be partly stupid. And they tend not to listen when they're called stupid - people are funny like that.