Add back the disagree button!
Add back the disagree button!
170 votes
24 votes
29 votes
Currently a 20 year military vet that joined at 18 and retires at 38 gets a retirement immediately. I am military so I understand this isn't popular but that means if they live the life expectancy they get this for 40+ years!
This is not true for the reserves so the system needs to be more balanced.
10 votes
We need to have the President set an ambitious export goal. Like increase so much by this date.
This should be the goal of all executives - even states. They should want the US to lead the world in goods and services.
17 votes
The U.S. needs to do more to get China to stop manipulating its currency or threaten to do the same to ours.
14 votes
America can use the lower dollar to her advantage and with the right incentives for business become a manufacturing giant again.
54 votes
Keep this website open and collect ideas routinely.
13 votes
Help U.S. companies expand into international markets with products slated to be exported by giving them tax breaks. Even it is a new break even the jobs alone help the United States and establish better reputation for "Made in America" products.
20 votes
The dollar is low and now is the best time to lure Europeans, Middle easterners, and Asians to America for their vacations.
I have not seen much of this but it would help the U.S. Economy.
18 votes
It is about time the U.S. invest in all power sources. Wind, solar, AND nuclear power are a must. By increasing supply the cost will go down allowing more dollars into the economy and more jobs. With huge increases in energy and health care costs how is the nation ever going to recover!
68 votes
Create bonus structures tied to agency goals.
Example: Share budget saving with employees. If agency ABC comes in under budget, share 5% of that amount with employees in the form of a bonus.
There are disconnects between agency initiatives, and the reality of how they are achieved. Rewards should be tied to the bottom line, not the short sighted initiative.
18 votes
Allow/encourage agencies to buy back government debt. If an agency can manage to come in under budget for a given fiscal year, they should spend the surplus buying back treasuries (Federal Debt). This would allow an agency to "look" like they are spending their whole budget (which they apparently already do), without having to actually waste the money. The treasuries could than be spent by said agency in a future "bad" ...more »
Allow/encourage agencies to buy back government debt.
If an agency can manage to come in under budget for a given fiscal year, they should spend the surplus buying back treasuries (Federal Debt). This would allow an agency to "look" like they are spending their whole budget (which they apparently already do), without having to actually waste the money. The treasuries could than be spent by said agency in a future "bad" year without having to request extra funding.
Doing so would drive down borrowing rates for federal debt, and reduce the net national debt.
« less full details »
9 votes
Restructure the Earned Income Credit laws so it is only available to parents and legal guardians. It should not be treated as an income source for extended family members or friends that don’t even know the child’s birthday but claim they support the child. Also the Earned Income Credit should not be retroactive for three years to anyone who did not have a valid Social Security Number, especially if the taxpayer has not ...more »
Restructure the Earned Income Credit laws so it is only available to parents and legal guardians. It should not be treated as an income source for extended family members or friends that don’t even know the child’s birthday but claim they support the child. Also the Earned Income Credit should not be retroactive for three years to anyone who did not have a valid Social Security Number, especially if the taxpayer has not previously filed taxes. The credit should be restricted to the year the Social Security Number is received.
« less full details »
31 votes
Start imposing a fine on overstays and out of status F1 students. Once they marry a US citizen or a family member becomes a US citizen and petitions for them, they are eligible for permanent residency (a green card). If any other person enters the U.S. illegally they cannot adjust status unless there is an amnesty or special rule, but; they do get fined. Should they enter the U.S. on a B2 visitor visa and then file ...more »
Start imposing a fine on overstays and out of status F1 students. Once they marry a US citizen or a family member becomes a US citizen and petitions for them, they are eligible for permanent residency (a green card). If any other person enters the U.S. illegally they cannot adjust status unless there is an amnesty or special rule, but; they do get fined. Should they enter the U.S. on a B2 visitor visa and then file for permanent residency they should also fall into this category as obviously the intent was not to travel but, stay. We do have a few loop holes in the laws that do need to be tightened up in order to ensure that all get treated equally. If you are out of status or an overstay you are here in an illegal capacity. If you work without proper authorization you are a violator of U.S. laws. Most applicants have been working for years illegally as well, but; the I-601 (Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility) doesn’t get implemented by policy guidelines unless you can assure you will deny their immigration benefit. The applicant walks away scot free having committed several offenses with no repercussions. The United States needs to start implementing some kind of a penalty for this repeated offense! This practice is widespread and unacceptable as it makes a mockery of our laws and regulations. Why not list them along with the list of applicants eligible for Supplement A on the I-485 at least that might curb some of the infractions. If nothing else, justice gets spread a little more evenly amongst the immigrant population.
« less full details »
48 votes
Intro: Every federal employee loves when the IT guys says " you are getting a new computer" - which in many agencies means a laptop. This happens every three years and it is time. Three years of use at 40 hours a week and newer programs on dated technology are a problem - but why the new monitor? I have seen the property book and what they cost and been involved in "excessing" the old ones that all work fine. Do ...more »
Intro: Every federal employee loves when the IT guys says " you are getting a new computer" - which in many agencies means a laptop. This happens every three years and it is time. Three years of use at 40 hours a week and newer programs on dated technology are a problem - but why the new monitor? I have seen the property book and what they cost and been involved in "excessing" the old ones that all work fine. Do you replace yours at home every three years?
My Suggestion: Change the lifecycle from 3 to five years for flat screen monitors. From years 0 to 3 they can be supported under the help desk agreements or warranties and from 3 to 5 years if they have a problem they are replaced.
2.15 million Federal works x $175 per monitor (I am low balling here) = $376,250,000 every three years or $125,416,667 per year. If it was 5 years it would be $75,250,000 per year and a savings of $50,166,667 per year! Over 20 years the savings is $1,003,333,340 - that is over a BILLION dollars for such a simple change.
Impact: None. All federal employees still have a monitor. No loss in services!
« less full details »
9 votes
The current EEO methodology has no checks or balances in place to prohibit or prevent abuse of the system. The "habitual filer" simply cost the government money as they abuse the system and they are free to continue doing so with no penalty or repercussion.
19 votes
Stop relying solely on years and/or age for retirement. I cannot determine how many hours that I have to work each week. My job requires me to work between 60 and 84 hours per week, every week depending on need. I cannot elect to work fewer hours. How many hours should a person have to work in order to reach retirement? Others work 40 hours or less per week. Why should the number of years of service be the factor to determine ...more »
Stop relying solely on years and/or age for retirement. I cannot determine how many hours that I have to work each week. My job requires me to work between 60 and 84 hours per week, every week depending on need. I cannot elect to work fewer hours. How many hours should a person have to work in order to reach retirement? Others work 40 hours or less per week. Why should the number of years of service be the factor to determine when a person reaches retirement rather than the actual amount of real time spent working? Allow a person to reach retirement earlier than is presently the norm based on required hours of service. Efficiencies and effectiveness of the workforce, including health, would improve and costs diminish.
« less full details »
19 votes
Why kill trees? Paper eliminates forests and costs alot of money to produce. Social Security Administration is wasting millions of dollars sending annual statements to everyone. Although the earnings records and future projections of Retirement Benefits, Disability Benefits, and Survivors Benefits are informative, it is wasteful to prepare, print and mail individual statements every year. In addition to the retirement ...more »
Why kill trees? Paper eliminates forests and costs alot of money to produce.
Social Security Administration is wasting millions of dollars sending annual statements to everyone. Although the earnings records and future projections of Retirement Benefits, Disability Benefits, and Survivors Benefits are informative, it is wasteful to prepare, print and mail individual statements every year.
In addition to the retirement projections, another objective for SSA was to be "customer friendly" and allow participants to review their earnings data to determine its accuracy.
The earliest retirement benefit commences at age 62. Disability or survivors benefits are available in certain circumstances, but annually the projections do not materially change.
Therefore, I recommend that SSA prepare and mail these Statements less frequently, such as: for individuals less than 35 years old, every 5 years; for individuals between 35 and 55 years old, every 3 years; and then annually after age 55. Retirement planning is most relevant as one gets closer to this event. Also consider making this information available to beneficiaries electronically, in a secure way, similar to internet banking.
Recordkeeping may be important, but someone 25 years of age, who has a retirement horizon so far in the future, should be able to verify their earnings data once in 5 years.
This would benefit to the government greatly, in the form of savings for computer processing, paper, printing and mailing costs, in addition to the manpower costs.
Just imagine the millions of dollars that could be saved. The government will be more efficient, with no negative consequences to individuals, and at the same time we are saving trees.
« less full details »
9 votes
Social Security should have changed with the times. It hasn't. It could be the retirement answer for all, if done correctly. What if we made Social Security NOTHING more than a portable retirement system? What if we (a) fully funded it, (b) made it so it couldn't be borrowed from by the government without a guaranteed plan for repayment with interest in a responsible and timely fashion, (c) made it so you pay into it ...more »
Social Security should have changed with the times. It hasn't. It could be the retirement answer for all, if done correctly. What if we made Social Security NOTHING more than a portable retirement system? What if we (a) fully funded it, (b) made it so it couldn't be borrowed from by the government without a guaranteed plan for repayment with interest in a responsible and timely fashion, (c) made it so you pay into it for yourself, not for someone who never paid into it or someone who is drawing from it now (individual accounts), (d) had rate of return guaranteed by the government, and based on rates comparable to banking instruments, (e) could contribute more than the minimum mandated if we choose, and (f) could take payments from it far earlier than currently, and without penalty, but based on your account's value at the time? Maybe at 50 if we want?
Currently employers already match it at 100%. If it were a true retirement option and we weren't trying to pay for folks other than ourselves, we would be better off. There are other mandates to provide charity and wealth redistribution; social security should be portable retirement ONLY. Everyone would have the same mandated matching at their businesses. Employers could choose to offer additional options, but if we could all count on social security for portable retirement, how much better off would we all be at retirement?
Individuals would only have to be employed in order to (a) contribute and (b) be matched at 100%. We would all know that no matter where in the US we are applying for a job, they offer portable retirement matched at 100% to 6%+ and we are required to contribute a minimum of 6%+. With a mandate to participate and a guaranteed rate of return, individuals would not need to worry that suddenly their pension would go away, that they wouldn't be able to afford to contribute (we already do), or that they wouldn't have a plan at all.
Spousal social security should go away. If you don't pay into it, you don't get it. A spouse who doesn't work should instead be entitled, regardless of state law, to a portion of their spouse's social security rather than additional funds earned by neither party. In fact, it could even be averaged and split for couples with 2 earner (in case of later separation). Couples who have only one earner could choose to have additional retirement accounts outside of social security.
It would be portable retirement for all. You reap what you put into it, and your own interest on it. This would make the government more efficient and save money because it could be a truly dependable part of retirement for all and could eventually replace part or all of the FERS pension plan (if we actually got what we put in at a reasonable age, and if the aforementioned rules were followed). How much would that save?
We would all have contributions of a minimum of 12%+ from the time we start working until we retire with a guaranteed rate of return.
« less full details »
12 votes
What is and what has become "government business"? Trim that which is outside of the parameters of the intended design and purpose of the US government and restore the rights of the people to pursue happiness, live, and have liberty. Many have come to realize the multiple burdensome costs of slipping from constitutionality. Funding cowboy poetry or abortions does not form a more perfect Union or promote the general Welfare ...more »
What is and what has become "government business"? Trim that which is outside of the parameters of the intended design and purpose of the US government and restore the rights of the people to pursue happiness, live, and have liberty. Many have come to realize the multiple burdensome costs of slipping from constitutionality. Funding cowboy poetry or abortions does not form a more perfect Union or promote the general Welfare or secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity in an indebted nation.
« less full details »
6 votes
Since 1995, US State Department records indicate that international adoptions by Americans had increased more than 140 percent. Couples often cited the lack of American babies as the reason for adopting from abroad. The above is from the article Born in America, adopted abroad; found at http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html We are violating our US Constitution by killing humans in the womb. The infringement ...more »
Since 1995, US State Department records indicate that international adoptions by Americans had increased more than 140 percent. Couples often cited the lack of American babies as the reason for adopting from abroad. The above is from the article Born in America, adopted abroad; found at http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html
We are violating our US Constitution by killing humans in the womb. The infringement on life has led to manifold deficits in USA including unrealized human capital. The dead cannot compete. I suggest we restore protection of the right to life for all in society which includes the unborn.
« less full details »
20 votes
Develop a system that promotes synergetic thought process and reduces CYA (Cover You’re a**) mind set. CYA is one of the most counterproductive mind sets I can imagine, but I constantly find myself falling back into. Peer review is a slippery slope, but it seems as though a process in which we are judged by all those we come into contact with every day is essential. The key is never to handle these reviews in a negative ...more »
Develop a system that promotes synergetic thought process and reduces CYA (Cover You’re a**) mind set. CYA is one of the most counterproductive mind sets I can imagine, but I constantly find myself falling back into. Peer review is a slippery slope, but it seems as though a process in which we are judged by all those we come into contact with every day is essential. The key is never to handle these reviews in a negative way. If someone gets a poor peer review, then there is some sort of training issue, authority issue, responsibility issue, etc. that needs to be addressed. Other times it may be the reaffirming by upper management why things are done a certain way.
« less full details »
28 votes
Revisit and adopt more of the 18,000 plus ideas submitted in the 2010 SAVE Award campaign. Multiple blogs and idea submitting plans under different titles such as Cultural Transformation, Cost Savings, SAVE Award, etc. are good ideas for gathering good ideas, but create additional areas of overlap and duplication within our government.
162 votes
Create and enforce a policy that all federal buildings use solar panels. The Federal Detention Center in Honolulu has the highest electricity bill on the island of Oahu and doesn't use any solar power!
26 votes
Its a bad solution to a bad problem. Find a better way to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the work place. It costs the taxpayers money every time some one says something ignorant to a fellow employee.