We should repeal the Davis-Bacon Act

Website that agree

1. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/repealing-the-davis-bacon-act-would-save-taxpayers-$10-9-billion

Reasons to agree:

1. We are broke.


2. Suspending the DBA means hiring five workers at market rates instead of hiring four workers at a 22 percent premium.


3. If we have a limited amount of money, it is better to employ more construction workers than to pay a lot to the few that kiss up to their union bosses. We do have a limited amount of money. We can no longer pretend that we have an unlimited amount of money. We may want to give really high wages to give to everyone, but we shouldn't make rules that require the federal government to overpay their workers. 


4. If Congress is not willing to reduce construction spending, suspending the DBA would make each public construction dollar go 9.9 percent further. This would create more bridges and buildings at the same cost to taxpayers. It would also employ 155,000 more construction workers. 


5. The Davis–Bacon Act (DBA) requires the government to pay construction wages that average 22 percent above market rates.


6. The Department of Labor (DOL) estimates DBA rates using a highly flawed methodology. Under the DBA, contractors on all federally funded construction projects must pay their workers at least prevailing market wages. However, the Department of Labor (DOL) estimates DBA rates using a highly flawed methodology. The Inspector General has criticized the DOL for:




1. Using a self-selected sample instead of a scientific random sample to estimate DBA rates;


2. Allowing 100 percent error rates in audited samples of returned DBA surveys; and


3. Permitting long delays in updating DBA surveys.[3]




7. We are broke.


8. The Davis-Bacon Act was a union giveaway.


9. The Davis Bacon Act artificially raises costs for government projects.


10. Removing the Davis-Bacon act would save taxpayers more than $10 billion a year in the process


11. The Davis-Bacon Act was a Jim Crow law.


12. The Davis-Bacon Act was passed to prevent African Americans from working on government projects.




1. Congressional representative John Cochran of Missouri said that he supported the Davis–Bacon Act because he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors' employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." (Williams, Walter Congress' insidious discrimination. Jewish World Review March 12, 2003 / 8 Adar II, 5763).


2. Congressional representative Clayton Allgood of Alabama said that he supported Davis-Bacon because "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." (Williams, Walter Congress' insidious discrimination. Jewish World Review March 12, 2003 / 8 Adar II, 5763).




13. The free market can not work, when the market is not free.


14. The Davis-Bacon Act was a big government solution that harms the tax payer, by forcing government projects to cost more. We could have never built the rail roads without cheap labor. If they could unions would run every productive activity out of the country, as long as they could be paid 6 figures to do nothing. If American citizens want to work for less on Government projects, then that is good for the tax payer. All jobs can't be high paying. Unfortunately low skilled jobs are going to have to be low skilled. When government steps in and tries to force low skilled jobs to pay well, then they remove the insensitive to gain skills. It is better to live under the strong arm of efficiency, than be stabbed in the back by professional do-gooders that turn the world upside down. 

Images That agree:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

The federal government should align compensation with the private sector

 Reasons to agree:

1. We are broke. 


2. Federal jobs have typically had better benefits, but they did not make as much as private sector jobs.


3. Even people who work for the government should acknowledge that our country is going to have a bad future, if our best and brightest work for the government.  


4. With projections of huge federal deficits for years to come, policymakers should scour the budget looking for places to cut spending


5. The OWS protest should look to government with anger at their compensation more so than looking at CEOs. 


6. During the last decade, compensation of federal employees rose much faster than compensation of private-sector employees.


7. The average federal civilian worker now earns twice as much in wages and benefits as the average worker in the U.S. private sector.


8. A recent job-to-job comparison found that federal workers earned higher wages than did private-sector workers in four-fifths of the occupations examined.


9. It is unfair to ask taxpayers to foot an ever-increasing bill for federal workers, especially when private-sector compensation has not kept pace. We pay for their jobs. They should not be making more money than us. They don't produce anything. Government should be small. It should protect us and that is about it. 

Reasons to disagree:

1.  

Interests

Probable interest of those who agree:

1. 
   

Probable interest of those who disagree:

1. 
   

Common Interest

1. 
   

Opposing Interest

1. 
   

Images That agree:

1. 


2.   

Images That disagree:

1. 
   

Videos That agree

1.  

Videos That disagree

1.  

Website that agree

1. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/overpaid-federal-workers

Websites that disagree

1.  

Related arguments:

1. 
   

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Images

A picture says a thousand words. Why would we keep them out of a debate? Why not have the top 10 pictures that support AND oppose the same issue.

Of course images are returned to Google based on an algorithm, images that have higher scores will contribute more power to the idea.

(+6) We should reduce the federal workforce through attrition

Reasons to agree:

1. The federal government is too big. 


2. Federal spending should not exceed 20% of GDP (+5).

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(10) The federal government should block grant Medicaid to the states

Reasons to agree:

1. (+6) We should return federal programs to the states.


2. Each state should be responsible for caring for their own uninsured.


3. The way medicaid is ran now, it is a right. It is an entitlement. People are gauronteed medicaid, no matter what. People get medicaid, even if the cost doubles every year. With block grants, medical inflation can be limited, but putting a limit that each state gets from the federal program. 


4. We can make it so each state that wants to increase the Medicaid benefit by $1, has to spend an extra dollar. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 3

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 6

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 10

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(+5) We should return federal programs to the states

Reasons to agree:

1. The states are better at innovation than the federal government.


2. The states are better at cost management than the federal government. When each state has their own program efficiency is improved because people don't see it as free money from other states that they compete with. Each dollar is valued more. 


3. The states are better at reduction of fraud than the federal government. When each state has their own program fraud is reduced because the people running the program don't see it as free money from other states that they compete with. Each dollar is valued more. 


4. The 10th amendment doesn't give the federal government the right to have social programs. The founding fathers did not like a very strong centralized power. They tried to prevent the type of government that we have become. 


5. When each state has their own program efficiency is improved because those giving out the benefits are closer to those who receive it. 


6. Sure, if the federal government had pure motivations, was innovative, efficient, rewarded good behavior, and punished bad behavior 


7. People in different parts of the country have different preferences about the generosity of entitlement programs

Reasons to disagree:

1. When each state has their own program efficiency is lost, because each state has to duplicate overhead. 


2. Some states have more oil, more coastal sea land, better environments, better temperatures... its not really fair to make the states compete with each other... we want each state to be strong, and so it is better to even them out by having centraly ran social programs. 


3. When using block grants, a state may decides to spend an extra dollar on Medicaid, it only costs state taxpayers about 43 cents at the margin, so there are incentives to overspend. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 7

# of reasons to disagree: -3

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 4

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Belief: We should end foreign aid to countries that oppose America's interests.

Reasons to agree:

1. Government spending should be limited to essential programs

   • The U.S. government should eliminate all non-essential spending.

   • Test for necessity: "Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?"

   • If a program is not essential to national security or economic prosperity, it should be cut.

2. The U.S. has valid national interests

   • America competes for resources, alliances, and global influence against regimes that oppose human rights and democracy.

   • Supporting adversarial nations undermines U.S. values and strategic interests.

   • Aid should align with American ideals, rewarding good behavior and discouraging bad behavior.

3. The U.S. cannot afford unnecessary foreign aid

   • The U.S. is trillions of dollars in debt, making it irresponsible to fund nations that do not support American goals.

   • Prioritizing domestic economic stability is more important than financing adversaries.

4. Aid to hostile nations strengthens opposition to the U.S.

   • North Korea, for example, sells nuclear technology to U.S. enemies.

   • Foreign aid to adversarial governments prevents reform, enriches corrupt elites, and enables regimes to continue their opposition.

5. Foreign aid often benefits the wrong people

   • Aid frequently transfers money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

   • Corrupt leaders misuse funds rather than addressing poverty and economic development.

---

Reasons to disagree:

1. Foreign aid is a tool for influence and leverage

   • Cutting aid could reduce U.S. diplomatic influence, leaving a vacuum for adversaries like China and Russia to fill.

   • Aid can be used strategically to encourage reforms and cooperation from adversarial governments.

2. Humanitarian aid should not be dictated by politics

   • Millions depend on U.S. foreign aid for disaster relief, medical care, and food assistance.

   • Cutting aid may harm innocent civilians rather than corrupt leaders.

3. Not all opposition is permanent

   • Countries that currently oppose U.S. interests may change through diplomatic engagement and strategic incentives.

   • Foreign aid can be an effective tool for encouraging democratic reforms and improving relations.

4. Economic aid can reduce long-term security threats

   • Poverty and instability fuel terrorism and conflict, which can ultimately threaten the U.S.

   • Supporting struggling nations can promote stability and prevent adversarial regimes from gaining further influence.

---

Interest/Motivation of those who agree:

✔️ Advocates for fiscal responsibility and reduced government spending.
✔️ National security experts who oppose financing adversarial regimes.
✔️ Conservative policy reformers advocating for America-first foreign policy.
✔️ Those who believe in prioritizing domestic needs over international spending.

Interest/Motivation of those who disagree:

✔️ Diplomats who see foreign aid as a key tool of international influence.
✔️ Humanitarian organizations focused on global poverty and crisis relief.
✔️ Advocates for international stability, arguing aid prevents larger security threats.
✔️ Economic strategists who believe foreign aid investments yield long-term benefits for U.S. interests.

---

Shared Interests Between Those Who Agree and Disagree:

✔️ Commitment to U.S. global leadership and influence.
✔️ Protection of national security and economic stability.
✔️ Interest in effective and strategic use of resources.
✔️ Desire to promote peace, stability, and American interests abroad.

---

Evidence Scores:

📌 Studies showing high levels of corruption in aid-receiving nations.
📌 Reports on foreign aid misuse by adversarial governments.
📌 Analyses showing that China and Russia increase influence when U.S. aid is withdrawn.

---

Most Likely Benefits:

✔️ More responsible government spending and reduced national debt.
✔️ Stronger diplomatic alignment, prioritizing aid to U.S. allies.
✔️ Less financial support for hostile regimes.
✔️ Better use of resources for domestic programs and military strength.

---

Books that agree:

📖 The Tragedy of American Foreign Aid – William Easterly (critiquing the inefficacy of foreign aid)
📖 The Case for America First – Douglas Macgregor (arguing for a more self-reliant foreign policy)
📖 Foreign Aid and the Curse of Dependency – Dambisa Moyo (exploring how aid harms developing nations)

Books that disagree:

📖 The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War – Benn Steil (showing the historical success of strategic aid)
📖 Give People Money – Annie Lowrey (advocating for foreign aid as a development tool)
📖 The End of Poverty – Jeffrey Sachs (arguing that targeted aid can eliminate global poverty)

---

Videos that agree:

🎥 Heritage Foundation on foreign aid inefficiency.
🎥 AEI panel on strategic aid reductions.

Videos that disagree:

🎥 Brookings Institution on why aid remains essential.
🎥 CFR discussion on balancing aid with security interests.

---

Conclusion:

✔️ U.S. foreign aid should prioritize national interests, cutting off support to regimes that actively oppose America.
✔️ However, some argue that aid is a strategic tool for long-term stability and global influence.
✔️ A balanced approach may involve redirecting aid to allies and humanitarian causes, ensuring taxpayer money aligns with national priorities.
✔️ As international competition increases, the U.S. must decide whether foreign aid is a liability or an asset in securing its global position.

Alternative Related Beliefs:

1. Foreign aid should be primarily humanitarian, not political. This view argues that the core purpose of aid should be to alleviate suffering and promote human well-being, regardless of a recipient government's political alignment with the U.S. Humanitarian crises and basic human needs should be the primary drivers of aid allocation.

2. Foreign aid should be strictly transactional, directly linked to U.S. benefits. This perspective advocates for a quid pro quo approach, where aid is only given in direct exchange for specific actions or concessions that demonstrably benefit U.S. interests, such as trade agreements, military cooperation, or political support.

3. Foreign aid should be channeled through multilateral organizations, not bilateral U.S. programs. Proponents of this belief argue that multilateral aid is more effective, less politically motivated, and avoids the perception of neocolonialism. International organizations like the UN or World Bank are seen as more neutral and efficient conduits for aid.

4. Foreign aid should focus on promoting democracy and human rights globally. This belief prioritizes aid to countries committed to democratic values and human rights, and may even advocate for withholding aid from autocratic regimes, regardless of whether they directly oppose U.S. interests. The goal is to advance a global order based on liberal democratic principles.

5. Foreign aid should be replaced by promoting private investment and free trade. This perspective argues that government-to-government aid is inherently inefficient and distorting. Instead, the U.S. should focus on fostering free markets, encouraging private investment, and promoting trade relationships as the most effective long-term drivers of development and poverty reduction.

6. Foreign aid allocation should be based on a weighted multi-factor analysis, prioritizing factors with the strongest supporting arguments. This approach would involve:

   • Identifying key factors relevant to U.S. interests and effective aid, such as:
     • Likelihood of strengthening American national security.
     • Potential to promote peace and regional stability.
     • Prospects for fostering free trade and mutually beneficial economic partnerships.
     • Opportunity to advance human rights and democratic values.
     • Urgency of humanitarian needs and potential for effective aid delivery.
   • Evaluating the strength of arguments for and against each factor, using criteria like:
     • Linkage to desired outcomes.
     • Factual accuracy and verification.
     • Logical validity and coherence.
     • Evidence from relevant studies and historical examples.
   • Weighting each factor based on the assessed strength of its supporting arguments.
   • Allocating aid based on a composite score derived from the weighted factors, ensuring resources are directed to where they can have the most positive and well-justified impact on U.S. interests and global well-being.

(+1) We should eliminate Title X family planning programs benefiting abortion groups like Planned Parenthood

Reasons to agree:

1. We should eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential. There are many things government does that we may like but that we do not need. The test should be this: "Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?" The federal government should stop doing things we don't need or can't afford. 


2. It is wrong to take money from someone and give it to a cause that they feel is murder.


3. We can't make arguments about how much some program may save us money in the future, we need to balance our budget now. Arguments about how such-and-such program might actually save the government money are always theoretical. Not spending the money in the 1st place will save 100% of the money that you don't spend.  

Reasons to disagree:

1. Mothers that don't really want their children, will raise children more likely to commit crime. 


2. In the long run government money spend on family planning will result in less government money spent on jails, schools, food stamps, etc. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 3

# of reasons to disagree: -2

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(+5) We should eliminate subsidies for the Amtrak

Reasons to agree:

1. It doesn't matter that more money is spent on roads, and air travel than amtrak, because more people travel these methods. The simple fact is that more is spent per mile traveled per person, with each dollar given to amtrak, vs. other methods of Government spending. 


2. According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized. ("Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation". Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Retrieved June 13, 2009.)


3. We shouldn't give money to amtrack just because we also give other forms of transportation. The question should be: can we live without funding Amtrak? If so, because we are so much in debt, we should get rid of it. The question of not spending any more money on the Federal Interstate Highway System, the Federal Aviation Administration, many airports, among many aspects of passenger aviation, is a separate question. 


4. We should reward success and punish failure. 


5. Amtrack is unprofitable


6. We spend 1.6 billion a year on Amtrack. 


7. Amtrak has proven incapable of operating as a business.


8. Amtrak does not provide valuable transportation services meriting public support.


9. Amtrak is a "mobile money-burning machine.


10. The federal government shouldn't spend money on planes, trains, and automobiles. We should pick one, if we want to fund infrastructural. 


11. Americans should support cars. They allow freedom. Giving money to train companies is sort of a socialist activity... We have to rely on someone else to get you there...

Reasons to disagree:

1. The U.S. Department of Energy considers Amtrak among the most energy-efficient forms of transportation.


2. If we are going to end subsidies to Amtrak we should also end subsidies to maintain roads, or support airline traffic. 


3. Drunk drivers are less likely to kill you on a train. 


4. As a matter of fairness Amtrak should only be expected to be as self-sufficient as the federal highway system. 


5. As of 2008:




1.  $10 billion per year was transferred from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund.


2. $2.7 billion is granted to the FAA


3. $8 billion goes to "security and life safety for cruise ships




6. Amtrak provides all of its own security, while airport security is a separate federal subsidy. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 11

# of reasons to disagree: -6

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 5

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change