Greg Norman on Fox Business talking about America's failure to Lead, High Taxes, Over-Regulation

[turtleback]

Special interest plays a huge part of it, but also there's no motivation on the part of elected officials to manage money properly.

The entire government budget process is broken.  In my business when we spent less money than we budgeted in a specific department, we didn't penalize that department, we rewarded them for being responsible.

In the government, departments are encouraged to max out their budgets out of fear of having their budget cut the next year.  People in government are rated in terms of importance by the size of the budget they oversee, not how profitably or fiscally responsible they are in managing their budget.

I worked at both the Pentagon and NCSC, the waste of money at the Federal level is disgusting.

I remember the point in March when we got the word from the administrators that we had $x in the budget that we had to spend by a certain date in April or we would lose it and our budget for the next year reduced.  As you can imagine, those spending decisions were not the most thought out decisions.

Came back to this thread with 20 new comments hoping to see some good Shark-bashing...but just more pointless tax policy debate.

Hey I tried with my jumping the shark message.

[phan52]

Greg Norman? Douchebag asshat.

[jgreen85]

I remember the point in March when we got the word from the administrators that we had $x in the budget that we had to spend by a certain date in April or we would lose it and our budget for the next year reduced.  As you can imagine, those spending decisions were not the most thought out decisions.

Happens every quarter in the private sector too.

[mcanadiens]

Happens every quarter in the private sector too.

Not much feeling like talking politics, but my bruv complains about this all the time at the company he works at.

[No Mulligans]

Happens every quarter in the private sector too.

Not in the private sector I've worked in for the last 34 years.

Employees get awarded on performance, such as keeping their expenses under budget, hitting revenue targets, hitting sales goals, meeting efficiency goals.

Never have I seen anyone awarded for spending their budget.  During the budgeting process, using a bottom up approach is what is generally done.  Last years budget is not the primary input.

The private sector is driven by profits not spending.

[newtogolf]

Happens every quarter in the private sector too.

Not in the private sector I've worked in for the last 34 years.

Employees get awarded on performance, such as keeping their expenses under budget, hitting revenue targets, hitting sales goals, meeting efficiency goals.

Never have I seen anyone awarded for spending their budget.  During the budgeting process, using a bottom up approach is what is generally done.  Last years budget is not the primary input.

The private sector is driven by profits not spending.

Exactly, I've never worked for a company in the private sector where the department spent every dollar in their budget.  In fact as a manager my bonus was based on profitability which encouraged you to minimize expenses.

[flopster]

Norman is so full of himself , "Mr. living brand" he's turning into the Australian "Donald".

[dfreuter415]

So how do you feel about federal spending on a $384,989 grant for Yale University to study the duck penis? Or, how about $150,000 to support the "Puppets Take Long Island Festival" in Sag Harbor?

http://nypost.com/2013/12/17/duck-penis-studies-lifecoaches-for-senate-staff-30b-in-government-spending-questioned/

[MSchott]

So how do you feel about federal spending on a $384,989 grant for Yale University to study the duck penis? Or, how about $150,000 to support the "Puppets Take Long Island Festival" in Sag Harbor?

http://nypost.com/2013/12/17/duck-penis-studies-lifecoaches-for-senate-staff-30b-in-government-spending-questioned/

Here's the story on the duck penis study http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/22/tweets/federal-government-funding-study-duck-penises/.

If there is no funding for science, how would we know how nature works? I'm sure there there are far more heinous uses for our tax money. But if we decided to eliminate funding for science and the arts, what kind of country are we going to be? We would never go to the moon in this sort of scenario.

[jgreen85]

Exactly, I've never worked for a company in the private sector where the department spent every dollar in their budget.  In fact as a manager my bonus was based on profitability which encouraged you to minimize expenses.

really? in other words, you were allocated company resources, resources which could have gone elsewhere to fund worthwhile projects, and were rewarded for requesting more money than your group needed?

Being "under budget" is not necessarily a good thing, and being consistently under budget is a bad thing. Consistently beating your numbers isn't a good thing either; in fact, it just means you're a sandbagger (see golf ).

I know it feels fun to think running large organizations is easy and straightforward, but yall's comments show that you've not run a large organization. It's hard and more art than science, and to expect government bureaucrats, who are usually you're C and D students (no offense govt workers), to be best of class is just silly.

[mdl]

The fraud, waste, misuse and abuse I've personally witnessed is blatant.  It would be like someone on welfare going to the most expensive boutique store to buy something for $100 more than they could at Walmart.  Only we're talking about billions and trillions of dollars at the federal government level not $100.

Fair enough on the existence of ridiculous waste and fraud.  I totally agree.  I just disagree on the total numbers.  What percentage of the federal budget is spent in ways subject to this kind of abuse?  What percent of that percent is wasted?  Even if you give an unrealistically high number for that second percent, just because of what the federal budget is actually spent on, the product of those two just can't actually be a high enough number that you could make a huge dent in things by cleaning up "fraud and abuse".  Sort of like tax cutters who claim a big part of the offset is going to be stopping wasting money of foreign aid.  Never mind that foreign aid is a rounding error little different from 0 in comparison to the size of the federal budget.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen85

Happens every quarter in the private sector too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Mulligans

Not in the private sector I've worked in for the last 34 years.

Employees get awarded on performance, such as keeping their expenses under budget, hitting revenue targets, hitting sales goals, meeting efficiency goals.

Never have I seen anyone awarded for spending their budget.  During the budgeting process, using a bottom up approach is what is generally done.  Last years budget is not the primary input.

The private sector is driven by profits not spending.

Exactly, I've never worked for a company in the private sector where the department spent every dollar in their budget.  In fact as a manager my bonus was based on profitability which encouraged you to minimize expenses.

I have.  Two Fortune 500 companies.

[iacas]

I have.  Two Fortune 500 companies.

Yup.

Because if you request $4.5M and spend only $3.9M, you will get $4.2 the next time when you ask for $4.9M or something.

[MS256]

I have.  Two Fortune 500 companies.

I haven't ever been high enough on the ladder in a company to be either on the requisitioning end or the distributing end but I've certainly benefitted from "money that needed to be spent".

Company rounds of golf, trips, dinners, parties and such.

[mmoan2]

Not in the private sector I've worked in for the last 34 years.

Employees get awarded on performance, such as keeping their expenses under budget, hitting revenue targets, hitting sales goals, meeting efficiency goals.

Never have I seen anyone awarded for spending their budget.  During the budgeting process, using a bottom up approach is what is generally done.  Last years budget is not the primary input.

The private sector is driven by profits not spending.

really? in other words, you were allocated company resources, resources which could have gone elsewhere to fund worthwhile projects, and were rewarded for requesting more money than your group needed?

Being "under budget" is not necessarily a good thing, and being consistently under budget is a bad thing. Consistently beating your numbers isn't a good thing either; in fact, it just means you're a sandbagger (see golf  ).

I know it feels fun to think running large organizations is easy and straightforward, but yall's comments show that you've not run a large organization. It's hard and more art than science, and to expect government bureaucrats, who are usually you're C and D students (no offense govt workers), to be best of class is just silly.

None taken from this career government worker who works in finance and procurement and was an A and B honor student. ... Just thought it was funny that YOUR spelling must show that you were a C or D student in English class, BTW.

Anyway, government bureaucrats, especially at the Federal level, who make meaningful decisions about budgeting and procurement are usually very intelligent, college-educated people with advanced degrees in management and finance from top-tier universities. This kind of opinion of government breeds contempt for it without understanding how to change it or what is really going on. But like someone said, this is a golf forum, so let's not get too crazy. As for the Shark's business - I kinda like his cheap golf shorts and shirts I find at Costco sometimes. They're very affordable on my government salary

[jgreen85]

None taken from this career government worker who works in finance and procurement and was an A and B honor student. ... Just thought it was funny that YOUR spelling must show that you were a C or D student in English class, BTW.

Anyway, government bureaucrats, especially at the Federal level, who make meaningful decisions about budgeting and procurement are usually very intelligent, college-educated people with advanced degrees in management and finance from top-tier universities. This kind of opinion of government breeds contempt for it without understanding how to change it or what is really going on. But like someone said, this is a golf forum, so let's not get too crazy. As for the Shark's business - I kinda like his cheap golf shorts and shirts I find at Costco sometimes. They're very affordable on my government salary

Lol, the typo police are always fun.

I do apologize for that comment though. I was trying to make a point about people's expectations of "government" as if it's some 3rd party entity and not just a bunch of people doing their best. Many in this country mythologize the private sector as some bastion of efficiency and best practices, when it really isn't. For every private company that "succeeds" there are 10x that fail, and those that "succeed" often fail down the line. Difference is the failures are quickly forgotten and the successful remain in our consciousness (since they still exist).

The government on the other-hand can't fail and the failures are all the media chooses to keep in our consciousness through their reporting. I remember a Daily Show segment where they compared the media's coverage of the ACA website's difficulties and WalMart's website during Black Friday. Both sites crashed, yet one site was bashed as a tragedy on scale with Hurricane Katrina and the other heralded as a triumph of the private sector to generate demand.

Point being you've pretty much the same types of people working in both sectors being equally successful, but one is held in contempt, as you say, and the other placed on a pedestal.

[mmoan2]

Lol, the typo police are always fun.

I do apologize for that comment though. I was trying to make a point about people's expectations of "government" as if it's some 3rd party entity and not just a bunch of people doing their best. Many in this country mythologize the private sector as some bastion of efficiency and best practices, when it really isn't. For every private company that "succeeds" there are 10x that fail, and those that "succeed" often fail down the line. Difference is the failures are quickly forgotten and the successful remain in our consciousness (since they still exist).

The government on the other-hand can't fail and the failures are all the media chooses to keep in our consciousness through their reporting. I remember a Daily Show segment where they compared the media's coverage of the ACA website's difficulties and WalMart's website during Black Friday. Both sites crashed, yet one site was bashed as a tragedy on scale with Hurricane Katrina and the other heralded as a triumph of the private sector to generate demand.

Point being you've pretty much the same types of people working in both sectors being equally successful, but one is held in contempt, as you say, and the other placed on a pedestal.

Well, I was also an English teacher for 4 years, so I can't help myself...

I'm glad to see you appreciate government work, though there's no doubt there are myriad problems with it. Ironically, I think big government bureaucracy, even at the state and local levels, is a tremendous problem that I may actually do a PhD thesis on some day because I care greatly about it. Working for most of my life in the private sector and now for about 5 in the public (with two in grad school), I undoubtedly see greater accountability and results in the private sector, but I think it doesn't need to be that way. I'll get off my soapbox now before you fall asleep...

I'd also probably pay to see a Daily Show episode that attacks an Obama failure while praising Wal Mart. Do you have a link to it on Youtube? I swear, I might actually mail you a gift certificate if you can dig that up.

[dfreuter415]

There is funding for science, and then there is funding to study duck penises. I never said to eliminate funding for science and the arts. Personally, I feel that a lot of the funding is pork from both the Republicans and Democrats. I just think we need a saner approach to our government spending.

Oh, and by the way, you said "never go to the moon in this sort of scenario." Really? Haven't you been following our administration's funding cuts for NASA? Russia currently provides the only means of getting people to and from the space station, and its ticket prices are between $65 and $70 million per seat. Great use of our tax dollars.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/70-million-per-seat-nasa-russia_n_3187481.html