(+2) We should Attack rampant fraud in government programs

Reasons to agree:

1. Another big category is overcharging state Medicaid programs. That accounts for the most settlements, 43 percent of all violations. Most of these violations took the form of companies publishing inflated benchmark prices that set the base for Medicaid drug payments. "In some cases, state Medicaid programs were paying providers as much as 12 times the actual cost of a drug," the new report says.


2. We are broke. 

Website that agree

1. http://www.taf.org/whyfca.htm


2. http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/the-government-fraud-racket/


3. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm


4. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/12/17/132134328/when-it-comes-to-government-fraud-health-care-now-tops-defense


5. http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2011/11/watchdog-agency-finds-fraud-mismanagement-few-shovel-ready-stimulus-jobs/1320694281.column

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 2

# 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: 2

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

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