Certainly there are some government programs I would consider shrinking. I question the need for all but a minimal education department at the Federal level, I object to the program of using our military to install Islamic governments in the middle east, I'm against subsidising highly profitable industries, I think the overall military spending should be cut drastically to about three times more than any other country, and I think some farm subsidies are questionable.

It's been a while since I was really into the nitty-gritty of government contracting, but at a glance, I don't think this says what the linked site says it does.

You're probably right - I'm developing a bad habit of immediately looking for the most paranoiac, worst-case reason behind any administration action. (Because then I'm only partially disappointed).

Ahem, Corwood.

Dana "Natter .38 Special" Sep 9, 2005 10:27:56 am PDT

Ahem, Corwood.

D'oh! That's what I get for being a skipper.

Here's where the confusion comes from, I think:

every contract in excess of $2,000, to which the Federal Government or the District of Columbia is a party, for construction, alteration, or repair...which requires or involves the employment of mechanics or laborers shall contain a provision stating the minimum wages to be paid various classes or laborers and mechanics."

But this isn't the same thing as the Federal minimum wage:

2. Section 3142(b) of title 40, United States Code, provides that such "minimum wages shall be based on the wages ...prevailing for the corresponding classes of laborers and mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to the contract work in the civil subdivision of the State in which the work is to be performed . . ."

Not saying it isn't still a harsh thing to do when people in the region are in such need. But actually —coughchokecoughchoke— ahem, it's not necessarily a bad idea. With so many people in need, there's a legit argument that it's better to employ 10,000 laborers at $7.50/hr than it is to employ 5,000 at $15.

That presumes a shortage of funds, which I would argue isn't, or doesn't need to be the case (estate tax repeal, anyone), but aside from that, ther's some merit to it.

I saw the Michael Brown faking the resume stuff. I keep hearing about FEMA and wondering how any one would think it was a good idea to head it up by people with no experience in anything.

Then I remember it's Bush.

And it makes me sick.

More sick than I am now. I finally decided to go to the doctor since the Con Plague doesn't seem to be getting better and I'm wheezing some at night. I have "one of the worst" sinus infections that the doctor has seen recently. So now I have script for a Z pack and warnings to monitor for trouble breathing.

My Dr's office is all wireless and kicks ass. They have small laptops (I'm nto sure exactly what they are) with touch screens and everyone can be looked up and they fax the prescription right then and there.

to head it up by people with no experience in anything.

Now that's a little harsh, don't you think? If the axe ever falls, it won't be the first time he's been through that.

Certainly there are some government programs I would consider shrinking.

Yeah, there are all sorts of places where federal government can and should be shrunk. And we seem to agree on many of them. But I find the mentality of "We should shrink all government in areas where it helps people who need help, but bloat it in all the ways that make all my rich buddies richer" to be particularly craven.

And yes, I'm aware this is not limited to Republicans, but they're in charge now, and they seem to be taking this mentality to whole new, sickening heights.

Well yeah, the current leadership is pretty bad.

H

OK. Probably shouldn't say what I was going to say anyway.