TGIF

If I am counting right, and there is a good chance I am not apparently, my magic number is down to 419.  As each day passes, I realize one certainty, that number started out too high.

Too high for me.  Too high for some. Simply too high.

As has been noted numerous times in the past, Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We have many examples of that in town, and you can add me to the top of any list as far a living proof of the "theory".

Just a personal observation.

Another is one simple fact, perhaps fact only in my mind, perhaps just a delusion, but I still absolutely believe that you cannot fit a two inch square peg into a one inch diameter round hole, without some pretty significant damage to either the square or the circle.

Neither should you have to be a cryptographer to figure out the plan that some seemingly have to actually accomplish that.

There are only two possible paths to a solution, that I can see anyway. One path requires you to either widen the hole or cut down the sides of the peg.  The other path is to down a combination of both.

In the end both are dependent though on just how big a peg you need or want, and how wide of a hole you feel you can live with.

Whatever path, as far as I am concerned, we need to also follow the old adage of measure twice, cut once.  I use "cut" because quite frankly simply widening the hole isn't a long term solution.  

Again I get that.  So if the first path really is a need to simply reduce the size of the peg, make the measurements, double check, and get it down with. 

Constant whittling away is just as apt to cause a mistake or render the peg useless as is trying to pound the peg into the hole with a pile driver. 

Once the decision is made, whatever it is, once you have measured twice, when you draw out the plan, can you make sure it is not be encrypted? 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind however that one problem in this town is efficiency. Of course related to that is the fact too many people want to use some of the "alternate" definitions of that concept.

I apologize to the general public for what I am about to say, but the definition applicable for me isn't the one thrown out on a repeated basis by to many who seek more money to provide more efficient service to the general public, i.e. free up time.

You spend more money to "free up" time when there is a need to either more tasks or there isn't enough time to get everything done that has to be done. I have made that point before, I will make it again.

We are absolutely going to have to become more efficient in the way it should be applied.  Doing more with what you have, better yet doing more with less where you can, and not expanding.

There are many ways to get there.  Many different paths.  

Want to truly cut expenditures, than if you cut a budget, take that money out of the flow. Take it away.  Don't require the tax payer to pay for it, unless you state clearly what you are going to do with it, tell them exactly why you have to raise the tax to raise the money.  

Is that too much to ask?

Maybe. Possibly.  Apparently.