Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	A Change is gonna come.
Date:	2/21/2016 11:35:12 AM

I continue to believe that this election cycle is going to create a new GOP in the end, but not one that will be led by Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. It seems to me that years after many years of ginning up various fears (i.e., immigrants taking over the US, Islamic terrorists threatening the existence of the nation, minorities getting unfair advantage because of a Black President, a President who is secretly a Muslim intent on destroying the country, etc), the Right Wing of the GOP has created a monstrous paranoia in their voters. And it is a monster they can no longer control as it weaves religion and politics into some kind of crazy populism characterized by brash & shallow-minded solutions (build a wall across the Mexican border, prevent all Muslims from entering the US, more US military engagement in the Middle East). All of that thinking is sort of hysterical and unrealistic, but the GOP/Tea Party has de-emphasized caution and careful decision making in favor of following the catchy & glib outbursts from their leaders.

And Here Comes The Donald, stepping right into a scene made just for him: all catchy sound bites, no critical analysis. It’s a showman’s paradise when everyone is listening, but none of his followers are thinking critically about what he is saying. Of course, to his credit, if you listen carefully to him… he says so much that it is sometimes hard to pin down exactly what to hold him accountable for. Confronted with his own quotes, he is likely to reply that he would need to review the documents before he can confirm what he meant. For a non-politician, he has mastered the art of dodging responsibility for what he has said exceptionally well.

Ted Cruz is making much of his Christian credentials and bases his campaign on an apocalyptic world view. Those of us who don’t share his version of religion rightly fear a President who feels the end of the world is near, or who would codify his religious beliefs into a political movement to the exclusion of non-Christians. The only good thing about Donald Trump is that he is holding back a guy who is smarter and more sinister than he is.

I believe there is a moderate, even somewhat socially liberal, wing of the GOP that still exists. I also believe that the deep pockets of GOP financiers do not want a President who promises so much disruption of US domestic, economic and foreign policy that it would result in massive adverse changes to their business interests. For instance, they would not want to elect a fellow who shut down the US Government and cost us a billion dollars in lost productivity… and then taunted the entire country by reading Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor. Nor would they want a President who has already crippled his ability to perform foreign policy such that he is the first US Presidential candidate who actually triggered a vote in the British House of Commons regarding whether he should be banned from entering a nation that has been our biggest ally for over a 100 years. He has even alienated a gentle soul like the Pope, and makes no apologies for his offensive comments. Ever.

So, I think the GOP is now on a dead end road… or at least one that will require that they come to a fork and reconfigure themselves into 2 parties….. One, the Tea Party/Right wing… and the other something more akin to a centrist, moderately conservative GOP like it has traditionally been. My guess is that Trump will enter the Convention as the front-runner, but the core decision makers in the GOP will prevent him from getting the nomination. When that happens, I think he will split off to run as an independent and the GOP will have to reconfigure itself into a party that avoids the excesses of these candidates while still defending itself from its own right wing.

We should remember that after the last presidential election, the GOP did a review of their political agenda and published a position paper that called for candidates to be more inclusive, less divisive, appeal more to minority voters, and generally move more toward centrist positions. This election cycle’s top two candidates will prove that this would have been a better idea for the survival of the Party.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	A Change is gonna come.
Date:	2/21/2016 12:33:25 PM

shut down the US Government and cost us a billion dollars in lost productivity

I agree with most of whay you say.  I think we end up with Hillary as Pres.  I do not like that but the course we are on.  I do not agree with the above statement.  What productivity did we lose?   I have worked in government.  There is waste, waste, entitlement, laziness, waste, union, me me, etc.   Yes, there are GREAT govt workers but we have too much.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	A Change is gonna come....A-men
Date:	2/21/2016 12:37:27 PM (updated 2/21/2016 12:40:24 PM)

In 2009 the GOP set as their first priority the destruction of Barack Obama and his presidency.  To that end in 2010 the GOP decided to take political advantage of the nuts (T partiers and Palinistas and birthers and extremists of pretty much any stripe) lurking around and invited them to spend the weekend in the big house...they served their purpose in 2010 and 2014 and are still hanging around as the 2016 midnight hour approaches and the host cannot get them to leave or control what they do or say.  Rather than being a convenient temporary "guest" the nuts have confiscated of the "hosts" residence. The scariest part is what you say about the reasonable people still in the GOP may not be able to remake the party may not prove correct...the interloper guests just might be able to do the same thing to the entire nation as they have to the GOP!!

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Copper/Archie for POTUS/VPOTUS
Date:	2/21/2016 1:30:39 PM

Its seems you two and you two only have all the answers to worlds problems.  Trump, Cruz, and Palin are right wing zealots and Hillary and Obama are moderate democrats to them.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	A Change is gonna come.
Date:	2/21/2016 1:42:30 PM

I would agree with some of your statements about the government. But it has less to do with the people and more to do with the way government gets organized.  There is overlap in responsibilites and functions, too much management to the point it stifles creatvity and efficiency, and then you have the poitical appointees who come in and really have no idea what they are doing.  Most of the time, they are people that have political connections, people that have worked on the campaign, lawyers and think tank people who drift in to add the governmet to their resume.  For example, I knew of an office that was headed by a Senior Executive, had a staff of 4 and a budget of $1M.  Their sole responsibility was to manage a contract for a company to produce a report that no one used. It had been started during someone's rein for who knows what purpose. But over a period of time with computers and other sources, it no longer was useful.  Yet, no one would kill it either.  Then there are the special assistants - these are people who someone promoted and that person left, so these people now don't have job. 

People often talk say you can't fire a government employee.  Well, yes you can.  But it takes a year or more of almost full time counseling, work plans, 2nd chances, etc, and most managers think it is easier to just isolate them and wait for them to get another job, or make their lives so miserable, they quit or retire.  Change that though, and people - even good people - become subject to the whims of political appointees who may not like reality  and you find yourself without a job.  You think that is farfetched - not at all.

Donald Rumfeld spent millions in the Department of Defense on a new annual performance rating system. And when he went, it was repealed so quickly and probably at as much expense. 

Al Gore came up with reinventing government.  Do you know how tht came out?  They traded work done by govenrment workers for work done by contractors... In the end, it didn't save any money, it just changed the color of the money, because everyone still has to pay overhead and benefits, whether it is the government or it is a contractor.  The idea was that you could let a contractor go, when their expertise was no longer needed... good in theory, but it never happened. 

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	A Change is gonna come.
Date:	2/21/2016 4:11:24 PM

Having worked as a contractor for 26 plus years after 22years on active duty, I disagree with some of your statements.  Contractor benefits are lower than those for government workers.  With contractors there is a profit motive so cutting overhead expenses is high on the list.  Most contracts are one year, with four or five option years.  The government can simply choose to not exercise the option.  After those five years if the contracts are still needed they are recompeted, and in spite of government "best value" claims, the contract is usually based on price.  Any incumbent worker who jump to the new contract usually do so for less compensation and fewer benefits.  I sat on source selection boards when on active duty and my last job there was as a Program Director for five significant AF programs.  As a contractor I have endured the preparation of many proposals and it is not fun.  It is particularly frustrating that proposal rating is done ONLY against stated government requirements.  If you are offering a Ferrari for the price of a Fiat 500, and the RFP calls for a Fiat 500, you get no "attaboy" in your proposal score.  (I provide experience information not to blow my own horn but give a basis for my observations.)

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	A Change is gonna come.
Date:	2/21/2016 4:53:44 PM

Yes, i agree with your description of how these contracts are awarded and executed.  However, my experience has been that the price is adjusted over option years and by the 5th year, the overhead grew.  And yes, you could hire another contractor, but then you had the risk of losing the people who were already trained.  So in my experience, contractors didn't change too often, especially for professional service like you find in a program office.  But in another job, i had a clerical employee that had worked there so long that everyone thought she was a government employee. 

i think over a period of time, salaries of contract workers have become comparative with government workers. When the Army and the Navy and the marines decided not to put their military in government offices (because they were needed to fight) contractors took their places, to the extent that you couldn't tell a government person from a contractor.  And don't forget that government employees don't have all the benefits they used to get.  The retirement system took a revision in the late 80s, and it is no longer what it was, and is more on the employee to save.  Contractor still need training that the company pays for, and when TDY is required, the company still pays for that (well really the government pays since it is the government paying the conractor, but again, a different color of money)

And let's look at who the contractors mostly hire - retired military, like yourself, who already have a retirement and medical and don't need medical insurance because of Tricare and Medicare.  (Note i am not saying Tricare is good, but it is a health care benefit).  Or they hire the fresh out of college people, who need some kind of experience to put on their resume and mostly don't stay too long. 

i did see a study that was done about 10-12 years ago that proved that hiring contractors was not necessarily any cheaper than hiring new government employees when it was all said and done.  Some of the factors were stability, pay, and the period of time over which the benefits were paid. 

i'm not sure i understand your last point.  Yes, Proposals get evaluated against the RFP and the specifications of what is required.  is you point that if government wants a fiat, and you are able to offer a Honda for the same price, that you don't get credit for that?  it's been a long time for me since i worked on the nitty gritty contract side (sometime in the late 80s).  i am aware of the changes that have been made, but i haven't had to put them into action.  But i could write you a book about what is wrong with the acquisition process... wait, Norm Augustine did write one and nothing has changed all that much.   

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Copper/Archie for POTUS/VPOTUS
Date:	2/21/2016 4:56:03 PM

And all the darn people running right now on both sides are scary for different reasons.  The more reasonable candidates are leaving the race.  We have entered The Twilight Zone.  (used to watch it as a kid on TV; never dreamed I'd live long enough to see it in action)

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Copper/Archie for POTUS/VPOTUS
Date:	2/21/2016 5:11:24 PM (updated 2/21/2016 5:16:51 PM)

Lifer, I don't have all, probably not any, of the answers to the world's problems, but I'm not running  and it's for darn sure the Trupp / Cruz / Rubio troika are as completely unqualified as me.  There only 3 people in the race that have even a chance of being a decent president, one dropped out last night, the 2d has no chance of the GOP nod so that leaves Hillary! She's dishonest as is every other person in the race with the possible exception of Bernie who is unqualified because he has absolutely no grasp of economics, but she is in fact moderate inspite of what the nutcase right might say, and she is smart.  Too bad there is no chance of a Hillary vs Kasich campaign.

BTW:  Trump is a egotistical ass who is running for to satisfy his vainty, Palin is an idiot as well as a dim bulb, Cruz is however, a very scary extreme right wing zealot who has managed to get where Joe McCarthy wanted to be but, thankly never got! My God, he even looks a bit like McCarthy!

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Copper/Archie for POTUS/VPOTUS
Date:	2/21/2016 5:45:14 PM

well, it's only my opinion.   However...... if nominated, I will not run.    If elected, I will not serve.   If Impeached, I will wonder why I brought it up in the first place.    ;)

Name:	HARRY -	Reply
Subject:	Copper/Archie for POTUS/VPOTUS
Date:	2/21/2016 6:30:01 PM

Your opinion. Your vote. Everyone has one.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Copper/Archie for POTUS/VPOTUS
Date:	2/21/2016 7:31:17 PM

Even the dead dems and illegals have a vote on the dem side.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	A Change is gonna come.
Date:	2/22/2016 3:00:16 AM

Last point: there is little incentive to give the government more than they ask for, because the evaluators are restricted to scoring ONLY what the Govt asks for.  So if contractor b offers more than the RFP asks for while contractor a bids only what is asked for, contractor b gets no credit for the extra and thus ends up in a price sh.ootout with contractor a.  Unless b can match a's price, a wins and the government loses.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	A Change is gonna come.
Date:	2/22/2016 10:46:05 AM

Interesting point. Interesting perspective.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	A Change is gonna come.
Date:	2/23/2016 1:14:34 AM

Frustrated the he!! out of me because we had a better way to build the mousetrap but it fell on deaf ears and blind eyes.  Proposal Manager beat into us "write to the RFP, follow Section L and Section M explicitly...do not stray.....argh.

Won the Hilton Upgrade lottery here in Panama City (Panama).  In a suite that has to be a thousand square feet.  19th floor overlooking Panama Bay....one of the perks of spending a lot of time in Hilton Hotels I guess.  Getting here had some unplanned turns but with some prayer and good fortune we are here.  Do I have to come back?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	A Change is gonna come.
Date:	2/23/2016 5:25:33 PM

It really is beautiful there, but I couldn't deal with the humidity.  I felt like every time I walked outside, I needed to change my clothes. 

Considering we're expecting strong storms and possible tornados tonight, Panama, even with it's humidty, seems like a better bet.  And a lux lifestyle is affordable there.