There are too many incentives to do things that could be ultimately damaging to the country. Someone pushing every law they can just to show they are doing something (this somewhat happens now during election years). Then there is the problem of how you actually award a merit. Is it cutting taxes? Is it popularity from polls? Is it cutting spending - even if not in your state?

There are a slew of problems with an idea like this. But more important for me, there are several times in government when legislators need to make unpopular decisions. In a majority of issues our legislators cannot act as delegates for the majority of their constituents. They need to weigh information and details that are much more than I think people give them credit. How does that work with merit pay?

While it's fun to attack congress as being ineffective and joke about how they should get merit pay, I think we forget too often the responsibility they have and the work they do. Even more, the people that work in the bureaucracy don't get the credit that I also think they are due. Hell, calling someone a 'bureaucrat' is almost as negative as using an 'ism' on them in pundit circles.

Our system is not perfect and there is no perfect system but it seems as if people can find fault with every part of it in one way or another. I think when people look at the forest instead of the trees, you might give the people that work in government a little more credit. And yes, this includes Congress.

I'm on board with spending more on a lot of Obama's programs, that's why I voted for him. But we need to squeeze the bureaucracy so that we can make cuts in unessential programs. Personally I'd like him to finalize the budget then send it back with 10% less to every agency. That way the choices can be made by the secretaries and their long hierarchy of managers that know these issues well. They can cut the inefficient programs and make better use of what they have.

There is already something like this I believe, where the final budget is cut by 5% or some amount. However, I think people already expect this and just inflate their budgets by 5%. Additionally, you need to question whether cutting 10% of the State Department's budget is wise since they receive so little now compared to say DoD or HLS.

It's a tricky game and I think Obama is up to the task however, I just want to see more in the way's of cuts to our spending. I'm ok with debt as long as there is a return on that investment, but we really need to get the debt back down to a manageable level where we aren't spending so much on interest.

I agree. After reading all the snippets of news on the Budget I went to OMB and actually read it.

There are a lot of interesting points within that I think people are overlooking. I am somewhat concerned that almost all agencies have an increase in funds and some agencies, DOE, do not have funding for some items that I consider priorities (nonproliferation) but I'm sure that will be shown soon. It'll be a test to see if he can realize savings over the long-term to get costs down. I like this approach, since most of our issues are debated only in the short-term and I believe have been problematic for awhile now.

I think some people forget what the President was promising in the campaign and what is reality in his first budget. It lines up pretty well with what you heard. The big difference is that we have an economic situation right now to deal with. I think time will tell if this is the right way to go. If you are ranting against this budget, will you be willing to accept that you were wrong if it works?

Name recognition is all this is. Palin will get tore to pieces if she goes into a primary race for the nomination. No way the GOP is going to let her get by with the crap she did during the campaign for VP.

I'm not even sure why this is something anyone cares about right now.

Kills me to hear this outrage as if it's something new that is happening in our government. How much did the government grow during Bush? You have no ground to stand on if you weren't protesting him too.

"Fuller added that the GOP is not "the party of 'no,'" and does have constructive ideas -- but, she said, the mainstream media keeps them from the public."

That's rich.

And even more voted against Bush and his policies.

How can you even stand on such an argument?

BTW, I *will* enjoy my latte thanks.

I think some of you are missing the point. If the government sees AIG as a company that cannot fail, then they are going to keep it going as long as needed.

This is not a simple situation we are in where we can just let our economic system fall apart. If the government thinks they need to give them 30billion more, then I believe that a bunch of people, a lot smarter than me or those in the blogsphere, know what they are doing. People can rant on the internet all they want but when it comes to being the people in that room making those decisions, are you sure you'd act any differently? Yes, put yourself in their shoes for once.

The only thing I'm concerned with is, when it's all over we don't ignore the problems that got us into this situation in the first place. I want to see regulations restored and more control over the economy than we presently have.