Civil Aviation question

[NoMasWetbacks]

You are the President. You can make one major decision that
will improve civil aviation in America.

What would you do?

[Steve Rubin]

In article >,
NoMasWetbacks > wrote:
>You are the President. You can make one major decision that
>will improve civil aviation in America.
>
>What would you do?

Resign.

--
Steve Rubin / AE6CH / http://www.altdb.net/
Email: / N6441C / http://www.tch.org/~ser/
"Why don't you mind your own business?" -- John Navas 01/04/05
"If you don't like it, keep it to yourself" -- John Navas 01/04/05

[Jay Beckman]

"Steve Rubin" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> NoMasWetbacks > wrote:
>>You are the President. You can make one major decision that
>>will improve civil aviation in America.
>>
>>What would you do?
>
> Resign.
>
> --
> Steve Rubin / AE6CH / http://www.altdb.net/

He didn't say WHICH President...

Jay B

[kontiki]

NoMasWetbacks wrote:

> You are the President. You can make one major decision that
> will improve civil aviation in America.
>
> What would you do?

I would take immediate action and do the following:

1) seal the borders... whatever it takes, its a national security matter.
As president I have taken an oath to protect and defend this country
from such a potentioal threats. 911 happened because the government
failed in its obligations to know who was here, if they were here legally
and what they were doing. The result affected aviation greatly and
the economy in general. Until we get this situation under control the
border must be protected. A country with no borders is not a country.

2) Provide clear leardership in the quest to be more energy independent.
This means doing a number of things in concert and immediately not
giving lip service. We need to explore and develop our own oil reserves
which will make us less dependent upon middle east oil, thus stabilizing
and putting downward pressure on world oil markets and putting Americans
to work. In tandem we need to build additional nuclear power plants
and a new refinery or two to reduce the bottlenecks in distribution.
Reduce the mirad of laws requiring so many dofferent blends of gasoline
to increase efficiencies and reduce costs. The cost of fuel has a
major and direct impact on aviation, and our depences on foreign oil
and propensity to do NOTHING empowers foreign roque governments with
the net result that we end up being held hostage to our owm ineptitude.

3) Reduce the size of government immediately. Every dollar that the US
government sucks out of the economy is less people have to spend at
their own discression and thus hurts the economy, aviation business
included.

[Bob Noel]

In article <ARW7g.1153$KB.31@fed1read08>, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

- not specifically directed at jay -

please don't feed the trolls.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jay Honeck]

> What would you do?

Address the soaring fuel costs that are crippling GA by declaring an
"Energy Emergency" in America.

1. Single Grade Auto Gasoline. Acknowledge the fact that our own
government has contributed greatly to the energy problem. Mandate
that, henceforth, there shall be but one grade of gasoline (as opposed
to the dozens mandated by State and Federal -- and sometimes local --
law) produced in America.

This would mean no more subsidized corn-based ethanol. No more
"reformulated anti-pollution grades" of gas that are only sold in
counties near big cities. Just good old unleaded regular.

2. New Oil Refineries. As part of this emergency, waive all Federal
and State laws that are effectively prohibiting the construction of new
oil refineries. Get the Army Corps of Engineers to work with the top
three oil companies, and immediately begin construction of four new
refineries, with the goal of bringing them on-line as quickly as
possible.

3. Domestic Oil Reserves. Waive all Federal and State laws prohibiting
the development of our own vast oil reserves. The needs of "We the
People" need to be placed ahead of "They the Tree Huggers" --
preferably BEFORE none of us can afford to fly. (Or drive, for that
matter.)

4. Nuclear Power. Waive all Federal and State laws that have
effectively prohibited the construction of new-technology nuclear power
plants in America for over 30 years. Mandate that fossil fuels may no
longer be used to produce electricity in America by the year 2010.

5. Open Yucca Mountain. Cut through all the frivolous litigation that
has purposefully stalled the safe storage of our nuclear waste for over
a decade. Order the immediate transport of all nuclear waste into safe
storage, preferably BEFORE one of those barrels of nasty stuff (that is
currently being stored in your neighborhood, instead of where it
belongs) rusts apart completely.

In my opinion, these five steps would help to address the soaring costs
of energy by streamlining production and reducing demand. To his
credit, Mr. Bush has been working along some of these lines...but too
timidly, I fear, to be effective.

There is a thread over on "Cherokee Chat" entitled "Where is everyone?"
It was started by some of the lucky few pilots who were still able to
partake in their weekend hamburger runs, despite avgas topping $4.00
(and $5, in some places) per gallon. They were asking why, on such a
beautiful VFR weekend, they were the only ones flying?

That is our future, my friends, if something doesn't change.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Beckman]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <ARW7g.1153$KB.31@fed1read08>, "Jay Beckman"
> >
> wrote:
>
> - not specifically directed at jay -
>
> please don't feed the trolls.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate

Hi Bob,

Actually, I thought it's an interesting question...

Jay B

[ktbr]

Well stated Jay. Unfortunately your ideas ar far too
logical and based on concrete laws of economics and
free market principles. Taking immediate action on
those things would in fact work, hence they will not
be supported by democrats (and maybe most of the republicans
in the senate) because they don't want to any problems
actually solved because it would make their jobs appear
unecessary (at least to the uneducated who listen to them).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"NoMasWetbacks" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are the President. You can make one major decision that
> will improve civil aviation in America.
>
> What would you do?
>

Eliminate flow control.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
NoMasWetbacks > wrote:

> You are the President. You can make one major decision that
> will improve civil aviation in America.
>
> What would you do?

1. Tie all transportation funds to "equal treatment" of GA at public
airports. IOW, if they discriminate against one segment of aviation,
they lose all Federal funding for airports, roads, mass transit, etc.

2. Require a certain allocation of GA facilities by population, say, one
hangar space per 1000 population.

3. Punish local governments, not the users, for violation of ADAP grant
agreements. IOW, if a city destroys a public airport or diverts
funds/resources, they lose ALL transportation funding until the damage
is repaired.

4. Federalise the public airport system, and have a separate division of
FAA to manage public airports. FAA should have first priority on
military surplus airfields -- especially in urban areas.

[Montblack]

> You are the President. You can make one major decision that will improve
> civil aviation in America.
>
> What would you do?


Assign all small airports protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Hire someone to head the FAA to do the following:
(This is akin to wishing for more wishes - "Poof!")

1. No Class III medicals needed for private pilot certificates.

2. No 138 mph speed limit for Sport Pilot.

3. LSA Gross Weight = 1700 lbs. (That would cover Cessna 152's, IIRC)

4. Part 103 Empty Weight of 400 lbs (up from 254 lbs).

5. No 63 mph speed limits for Part 103.

6. Up the Part 103 stall speed from 27 mph to 37 mph.

7. Lower the current 17 year manufacturer's (liability?) down to 8 years.
(That's fair)

8. GA planes older than 40 years old become 51% aircraft - and can be sold
as 51% aircraft to the next person.

9. Diesel Priority Program: Streamline the certification AND approval
process for diesel projects.

10. Lower (#7's) liability period to 5 years for diesel projects (Similar to
an Economic Development Tax Free Zone or a Duty Free shop)

AND FINALLY... "These go to 11."

11. OK for GA pilots to get paid - in a (L)imited role. (L-GA$)

A) No 100 hr inspections. Annual is still needed. [No medical. See #1.]
B) Ok to hold out for hire, etc.
C) No commercial license needed. However, you must sign up for L-GA$
D) One [paying] passenger per flight is Ok. Limit would be: Plane must only
have either 2 seats, or two people in the plane. This way you can't fly me
in your C-182 for $750, while my family rides free as your guests - in the
other two seats ...wink, wink.
E) Package courier service ok up to a certain MTOW (2,500 lbs? 3,000 lbs?)
F) Pilot must have 100 hrs.
G) Pass twice a year drug tests - one scheduled, one random.
H) Why not VFR? Sure. Maybe. IFR only? Don't know? Both is fine for now.
(It's your little business - if you're stuck on the ground all the time, or
constantly diverting, you'll lose customers)

IMHO, #11 would kick-start GA as much as (almost) anything else. $$$$$$$$$

[Big Brother? Or a bone thrown to the flying public?]

I'm thinking, if I'm the customer, I want a simple, accessible, on-line
log/record of:
1. Your past L-GA$ flights - similar to http://flightaware.com/ and some
others.
2. Plus, the plane when used in other L-GA$ flights.
3. Plus, the company's history of L-GA$ flights.
4. Plus some "basics" on your flying record.

As long as the Government doesn't set up the site, it should be quick and
easy to interface with.

IRS would be happy, too - "x number of flights claimed, huh? Let's take a
look-see." <g>


Montblack

[pittss1c]

NoMasWetbacks wrote:
> You are the President. You can make one major decision that
> will improve civil aviation in America.
>
> What would you do?

Legal reform to ease the cost of liability insurance.
Consider something in parallel to the Illinois Equine Activity Liability
Act.
As I understand it, it has a big impact on the small businesses... the
effect is that the activity is defined as having risks even if all
reasonable precautions have been taken, and the liability does not
legally lie with the business or owner.

The problem is that the aviation community has great fear of the
negative connotation of defining aviation as an inherently "dangerous"
activity. I say BS...

The warning signs look like this:

WARNING

Under the Equine Activity Liability Act, each participant who engages in
an equine activity expressly assumes the risks of engaging in and legal
responsibility for injury, loss, or damage to person or property
resulting from the risk of equine activities.

Mike

[Bob Noel]

In article <NC08g.1164$KB.165@fed1read08>, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

> > please don't feed the trolls.
>
> Hi Bob,

Hi.

> Actually, I thought it's an interesting question...

perhaps, but consider the "name" of the OP...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jay Honeck]

> > Actually, I thought it's an interesting question...
>
> perhaps, but consider the "name" of the OP...

If I did that, I wouldn't respond to 25% of the posts in this
newsgroup.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[soxinbox]

No TFRs! There useless flight restrictions provide no increase in safety for
the protected person. It is the ultimate in self important hubris.


Also free flight IFR for any aircraft with a mode S transponder and an ADS-B
traffic display.

"NoMasWetbacks" > wrote in message
...
> You are the President. You can make one major decision that
> will improve civil aviation in America.
>
> What would you do?

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > > Actually, I thought it's an interesting question...
> >
> > perhaps, but consider the "name" of the OP...
>
> If I did that, I wouldn't respond to 25% of the posts in this
> newsgroup.

You aren't trying to respond to every post are you?

:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"NoMasWetbacks" > wrote in message
...
> You are the President. You can make one major decision that
> will improve civil aviation in America.
>
> What would you do?

I have no idea that this is a troll but whoever you are you need to
understand that the US is not a dictatorship. The regulations and rules
surrounding aviation in this country are based on the laws passed by
Congress.

So a more legitimate questions would be, "What could our Government do to
improve civil aviation"?

Tort Reform would be my answer.

[ktbr]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "NoMasWetbacks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You are the President. You can make one major decision that
>>will improve civil aviation in America.
>>
>>What would you do?
>
>
> I have no idea that this is a troll but whoever you are you need to
> understand that the US is not a dictatorship. The regulations and rules
> surrounding aviation in this country are based on the laws passed by
> Congress.

Boy I feel better already... congress has a fantastic track record of
creating useful laws that benefit American citizens. [NOT]

>
> So a more legitimate questions would be, "What could our Government do to
> improve civil aviation"?

Government has caused much of the trouble in aviation as well as just
about everything else it tries to "improve".

>
> Tort Reform would be my answer.
>

yes, it would but politicians are mostly lawyers anyway and that's
like asking Iran to monitor its own nuclear program.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not yet. But given the Patriot Act and other constitutional breaches
> that reveal the direction the current administration is moving, it
> shouldn't be to much longer ...
>

You make it sound like we had constitutional government prior to the current
administration or passage of the Patriot Act.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because corporations are not citizens, they should be permitted no
> influence in government policy.
>

By this logic then organizations such as the AOPA, AARP, NRA and PTA should
have no influence?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 16:43:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Not yet. But given the Patriot Act and other constitutional breaches
>> that reveal the direction the current administration is moving, it
>> shouldn't be to much longer ...
>>
>
>You make it sound like we had constitutional government prior to the current
>administration or passage of the Patriot Act.
>

That was not my intent.

It is just the acceleration of unconstitutional acts perpetrated by
the current administration that makes it blatantly obvious.

[Jim Macklin]

Which unconstitutional acts?




"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 10 May 2006 16:43:38 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
| > wrote in
| t>::
|
| >
| >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
| ...
| >>
| >> Not yet. But given the Patriot Act and other
constitutional breaches
| >> that reveal the direction the current administration is
moving, it
| >> shouldn't be to much longer ...
| >>
| >
| >You make it sound like we had constitutional government
prior to the current
| >administration or passage of the Patriot Act.
| >
|
| That was not my intent.
|
| It is just the acceleration of unconstitutional acts
perpetrated by
| the current administration that makes it blatantly
obvious.
|

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 10 May 2006 11:46:39 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Because corporations are not citizens, they should be permitted no
>> influence in government policy.
>>
>
>By this logic then organizations such as the AOPA, AARP, NRA and PTA should
>have no influence?
>

While those groups certainly are corporations, they do represent their
members (hundreds of thousands of citizens) unlike Halliburton, Enron,
Exxon, Accuweather, Carlyle Group, ..., that exert more legislative
influence than the lawmakers' own constituents.

Big business only represents greed, and their unethical
(Abramoffesque) corruption of legislators must be stopped.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 11:46:39 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
> >::
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Because corporations are not citizens, they should be permitted no
>>> influence in government policy.
>>>
>>
>>By this logic then organizations such as the AOPA, AARP, NRA and PTA
>>should
>>have no influence?
>>
>
> While those groups certainly are corporations, they do represent their
> members (hundreds of thousands of citizens) unlike Halliburton, Enron,
> Exxon, Accuweather, Carlyle Group, ..., that exert more legislative
> influence than the lawmakers' own constituents.
>
> Big business only represents greed, and their unethical
> (Abramoffesque) corruption of legislators must be stopped.
>


So it's just companies that you don't agree with for one reason or another
that shouldn't have influence? I'll make sure when the reform laws are
passed we legislate that you get the final OK on who gets free speech.

The problem isn't the companies doing the influencing and not really the
politicians that allow themselves to be to be influenced. The problem is the
voters that keep reelecting the politicians.

Everybody thinks Congress as a whole sucks but love their own rep and/or
senator.

[Jay Beckman]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> So it's just companies that you don't agree with for one reason or another
> that shouldn't have influence? I'll make sure when the reform laws are
> passed we legislate that you get the final OK on who gets free speech.
>
> The problem isn't the companies doing the influencing and not really the
> politicians that allow themselves to be to be influenced. The problem is
> the voters that keep reelecting the politicians.
>
> Everybody thinks Congress as a whole sucks but love their own rep and/or
> senator.

Very well said...

Jay B

[Jim Macklin]

Congress is powerful because of the tax laws. Business
can't plan ahead more than a 2 years because every election
brings new tax policies. Alter the tax code, perhaps H.R.
25 The Fair Tax Act, that will remove a lot of the day to
day special loopholes for one segment and also do away with
the IRS. Then taxes will be based on what you spend, not
what you earn. If Congressmen have less power they won't be
bribed as often because they would not be able to give
special favors.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
|
| "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
| ...
| > On Wed, 10 May 2006 11:46:39 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
| > <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
| > >::
| >
| >>
| >>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
| ...
| >>>
| >>> Because corporations are not citizens, they should be
permitted no
| >>> influence in government policy.
| >>>
| >>
| >>By this logic then organizations such as the AOPA, AARP,
NRA and PTA
| >>should
| >>have no influence?
| >>
| >
| > While those groups certainly are corporations, they do
represent their
| > members (hundreds of thousands of citizens) unlike
Halliburton, Enron,
| > Exxon, Accuweather, Carlyle Group, ..., that exert more
legislative
| > influence than the lawmakers' own constituents.
| >
| > Big business only represents greed, and their unethical
| > (Abramoffesque) corruption of legislators must be
stopped.
| >
|
|
| So it's just companies that you don't agree with for one
reason or another
| that shouldn't have influence? I'll make sure when the
reform laws are
| passed we legislate that you get the final OK on who gets
free speech.
|
| The problem isn't the companies doing the influencing and
not really the
| politicians that allow themselves to be to be influenced.
The problem is the
| voters that keep reelecting the politicians.
|
| Everybody thinks Congress as a whole sucks but love their
own rep and/or
| senator.
|
|

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:4ds8g.18330$ZW3.15406@dukeread04...
> Congress is powerful because of the tax laws. Business
> can't plan ahead more than a 2 years because every election
> brings new tax policies. Alter the tax code, perhaps H.R.
> 25 The Fair Tax Act, that will remove a lot of the day to
> day special loopholes for one segment and also do away with
> the IRS. Then taxes will be based on what you spend, not
> what you earn. If Congressmen have less power they won't be
> bribed as often because they would not be able to give
> special favors.
>
>

I have not a clue as to what the Fair Tax Act calls for or does. But keep in
mind that like all laws that Congress passes it can be changed by yet
another law Congress passes.

Remember the law on unfunded mandates. Big news when that fine law passed.
There was no news when the one ending passed and passed it must have because
unfunded mandates are back.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Everybody thinks Congress as a whole sucks but love their own rep and/or
> senator.

Not everybody. Both of my senators suck and my rep is only fair to
middlin'.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> Everybody thinks Congress as a whole sucks but love their own rep and/or
> senator.

Not everybody. Please take the taxachusetts senators and reps. blech.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Edward Todd]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> While those groups certainly are corporations, they do represent their
> members (hundreds of thousands of citizens) unlike Halliburton, Enron,
> Exxon, Accuweather, Carlyle Group, ..., that exert more legislative
> influence than the lawmakers' own constituents.
>


Huh ???? As a stock owner of some of those companies (through my 401k,
mutual finds and other investments that will help me retire one day) ...
yes ... those corporations that "I" own ....do represent me.

Sooooo many people forget who the corps are. They are owned by
millions of little old ladies' retirement savings. People just see the
CEO fat cats and think they are the owners. Bt the vast majority of
most public corporations are owned by everyday Americans who have their
savings in IRA's, credit unions, banks, 401ks , etc.

WE, THE PEOPLE ... ARE corporate America. And I'm proud of it.

Edward

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> That was not my intent.
>
> It is just the acceleration of unconstitutional acts perpetrated by
> the current administration that makes it blatantly obvious.
>

What acceleration? The previous administration was responsible for the
Family Medical Leave Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act, neither
has any basis in the Constitution. Whether the Patriot Act gives the
government the power to do anything they weren't doing before is open to
question. In any case, the current administration doesn't come anywhere
near the records of the LBJ, FDR, or Lincoln administrations for trampling
the Constitution.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> While those groups certainly are corporations, they do represent their
> members (hundreds of thousands of citizens) unlike Halliburton, Enron,
> Exxon, Accuweather, Carlyle Group, ..., that exert more legislative
> influence than the lawmakers' own constituents.
>
> Big business only represents greed, and their unethical
> (Abramoffesque) corruption of legislators must be stopped.
>

The solutions are obvious. Stop regulating those businesses and establish
term limits for legislators.

[kontiki]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> The solutions are obvious. Stop regulating those businesses and establish
> term limits for legislators.
>

Exactly.

[birdog]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> The solutions are obvious. Stop regulating those businesses and
>> establish term limits for legislators.
>
> Exactly.

Right. Look at the congressional class of '94. They came roaring in ready to
change the world. After a few years, some quit in disgust and the rest were
chastized by the "Old Dogs" who taught them how to get along. If we had a
whole new class of '94 every 8-12 years, we'd come closer to getting an
honest government - i. e. term limits. Of course, congress is never going to
propose an amendment to put themselves out on the street, but the states can
bypass congress and call a constitutional convention. Since a lot of states
have tried, unsuccessfully, I don't understand why this has not been done.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"birdog" > wrote in message
...
>
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>> The solutions are obvious. Stop regulating those businesses and
>>> establish term limits for legislators.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Right. Look at the congressional class of '94. They came roaring in ready
> to change the world. After a few years, some quit in disgust and the rest
> were chastized by the "Old Dogs" who taught them how to get along. If we
> had a whole new class of '94 every 8-12 years, we'd come closer to getting
> an honest government - i. e. term limits. Of course, congress is never
> going to propose an amendment to put themselves out on the street, but the
> states can bypass congress and call a constitutional convention. Since a
> lot of states have tried, unsuccessfully, I don't understand why this has
> not been done.
>

I have one problem with term limits. It gives added power to several groups
that have shown very little ability to deal with power. Government
employees.

[Ash Wyllie]

Gig 601XL Builder opined

>"birdog" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>> The solutions are obvious. Stop regulating those businesses and
>>>> establish term limits for legislators.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> Right. Look at the congressional class of '94. They came roaring in ready
>> to change the world. After a few years, some quit in disgust and the rest
>> were chastized by the "Old Dogs" who taught them how to get along. If we
>> had a whole new class of '94 every 8-12 years, we'd come closer to getting
>> an honest government - i. e. term limits. Of course, congress is never
>> going to propose an amendment to put themselves out on the street, but the
>> states can bypass congress and call a constitutional convention. Since a
>> lot of states have tried, unsuccessfully, I don't understand why this has
>> not been done.
>>

>I have one problem with term limits. It gives added power to several groups
>that have shown very little ability to deal with power. Government
>employees.

Term limits should then apply to _all_ civilians in government.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Private]

snip
>>I have one problem with term limits. It gives added power to several
>>groups
>>that have shown very little ability to deal with power. Government
>>employees.
>
> Term limits should then apply to _all_ civilians in government.
>

Why limit only civilians? Some would submit that limits are also desirable
for uniformed employees as they have even more opportunity for empire
building, and are also more likely to experience loss of ability, discretion
and motivation due to burnout.

[Ash Wyllie]

Private opined

>snip
>>>I have one problem with term limits. It gives added power to several
>>>groups
>>>that have shown very little ability to deal with power. Government
>>>employees.
>>
>> Term limits should then apply to _all_ civilians in government.
>>

>Why limit only civilians? Some would submit that limits are also desirable
>for uniformed employees as they have even more opportunity for empire
>building, and are also more likely to experience loss of ability, discretion
>and motivation due to burnout.

Because there is no civilian equivilant of a soldier... Not even a policeman.

For other government jobs a person can serve for a while and then go onto
another simular job.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Jose[_1_]]

> Because there is no civilian equivilant of a soldier...

Lawyer.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote

> For other government jobs a person can serve for a while and then go onto
> another simular job.

My question is, how far up your rectal canal is your head?

These people then have forgone the opportunity to contribute to a pension
program, that can lead to retirement, then?

Why would ANYONE ever work for a governmental job, in that case. I see lots of
opportunity for even greater incompetance. Only losers would take a government
job.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Because there is no civilian equivilant of a soldier...
>
> Lawyer.

Don't insult the soldier

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Ash Wyllie]

Jose opined

>> Because there is no civilian equivilant of a soldier...

>Lawyer.

Using lawyers as shock troops has been found to contravene the Geneva
Conventions.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Ash Wyllie]

Morgans opined

>"Ash Wyllie" > wrote

> > For other government jobs a person can serve for a while and then go onto
>> another simular job.

>My question is, how far up your rectal canal is your head?

Not as far as you, I would think.

>These people then have forgone the opportunity to contribute to a pension
>program, that can lead to retirement, then?

If they have, it was thier choice to do so. There are IRAs for a start, and
government pensions are often better than private pensions. Pensions should
be portble in any case.

But bad pension laws are nt a reason to have a permanent professional bureaucracy
running a country for thier own benifit.

>Why would ANYONE ever work for a governmental job, in that case.

A sense of civic duty?

> I see lots
>of opportunity for even greater incompetance. Only losers would take a
>government job.

Some might suggest that is the situation we have now.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>These people then have forgone the opportunity to contribute to a pension
>>program, that can lead to retirement, then?
>
> If they have, it was thier choice to do so

My point, exactly. Not much reason for quality people to go to work for someone
(like the government) that they can not retire with.

> There are IRAs for a start,

IRA programs do not have employer matching, like good pension programs.

> and
> government pensions are often better than private pensions.

Yes they are, but you have to be able to retire with the government for them to
work.

>Pensions should
> be portble in any case.

Yeah, right. What planet are you from. They are not, in 99.99% of the cases.

> But bad pension laws are nt a reason to have a permanent professional
> bureaucracy
> running a country for thier own benifit.

What? The government is controlled by, and at the wim of politicians.

>>Why would ANYONE ever work for a governmental job, in that case.
>
> A sense of civic duty?

That does not put food on the table. Try again.

>> I see lots
>>of opportunity for even greater incompetance. Only losers would take a
>>government job.
>
> Some might suggest that is the situation we have now.

Never assume what is happening at the present is as bad as it can get. You may
be proved wrong.
--
Jim in NC