Podcasts about four ways

Shannon discusses the multifaceted role of business owners as resource allocators. She introduces a quadrant framework that helps identify where businesses stand in terms of capital and information, offering actionable advice for each scenario—whether you're capital-constrained, data-constrained, or simply overwhelmed with resources.   Tune in for practical insights on how to better manage your financial metrics, cash flow, and prioritization to ensure steady growth and sustainability for your business. Don't miss out on learning how to make informed decisions that propel your business forward.   What you'll hear in this episode: [0:00] Introduction to Keep What You Earn [0:45] The Multifaceted Role of a Business Owner [1:40] Resource Allocation: The Key to Business Growth [2:35] The Quadrant Framework for Resource Allocation [3:15] Low Information, High Capital: Data Constraints [4:15] Low Information, Low Capital: Flying Blind and Broke [5:20] High Information, Low Capital: Capital Constraints [6:15] High Information, High Capital: Decision Constraints [7:30] The Role of a Fractional CFO   Learn more about our CFO firm and services: https://www.keepwhatyouearn.com/   Connect with Shannon: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shannonweinstein Watch full episodes: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMlIuZsrllp1Uc_MlhriLvQ Follow along on IG: https://www.instagram.com/shannonkweinstein/   The information contained in this podcast is intended for educational purposes only and is not individual tax advice. We love enthusiastic action, but please consult a qualified professional before implementing anything you learn.

Every suburb in Joburg has its own personality. You don’t need a map – the traffic, the people, even the shopping centres tell you exactly where you are. Imagine if our suburbs had to sell themselves with a slogan. Fourways would be easy: “Fourways in, one way out.” It’s basically the story of sitting in traffic before you even hit Winnie Mandela. Bryanston could lean into its polished reputation – “Where the Wi-Fi is faster than the traffic.” And Sandton? It’s already branded itself as “The driest square mile in Africa. Hang out with Anele and The Club on 947 every weekday morning. Popular radio hosts Anele Mdoda, Frankie du Toit, Thembekile Mrototo, and Cindy Poluta take fun to the next level with the biggest guests, hottest conversations, feel-good vibes, and the best music to get you going! Kick-start your day with the most enjoyable way to wake up in Joburg. Connect with Anele and The Club on 947 via WhatsApp at 084 000 0947 or call the studio on 011 88 38 947Thank you for listening to the Anele and the Club podcast.Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 06:00 to 09:00 to Anele and the Club broadcast on 947 https://buff.ly/y34dh8Y For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/gyWKIkl or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/K59GRzu Subscribe to the 947s Weekly Newsletter https://buff.ly/hf9IuR9 Follow us on social media:947 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/947Joburg/ 947 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@947joburg947 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/947joburg947 on X: www.x.com/947 947 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@947JoburgSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Diligent Teacher with Lisa Earl A Bible podcast for ladies Ep289 - Four Ways That We Can Make A Difference

This sermon was preached at Hope Fellowship on Sunday, August 24, 2025 by Kyle Truman.We gather every Sunday at 10 a.m. in the gymnasium at Gatesville Elementary School in Gatesville N.C.Contact us and learn more about Hope Fellowship at hopegatesville.com.Sunday's Live Sermon Broadcast: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegatesville6365/streamsPastor Kyle's Blog: https://onthechristianlife.substack.com/Online Giving: https://app.aplos.com/aws/give/hopegatesville/general

AP correspondent Donna Warder reports on how Immigration and Customs Enforcement is looking to hire another 10,000 people before the end of the year.

In this episode, Leslie explores four key ways to build a truly Christ-centered marriage, not just a marriage with a Christian label. These truths are important even for single women, because many of these principles can be cultivated in your life long before you meet your spouse. There is a spiritual battle over Christian marriages. This message can help you become equipped for the battle over marriage and lay the foundation for a relationship that will stand the test of time.For more resources from Leslie, visit https://setapart.org/. To learn about the Honorable Womanhood Online Course, visit https://setapart.org/honorable-womanhood/. To learn about the Honorable Womanhood Fall Retreat at Ellerslie, visit https://setapart.org/hwretreat/. To support Set Apart Ministries, visit https://setapart.org/support/.

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Reach Out Via Text!In this heartfelt Marriage Monday episode, Jeremiah and Savannah Jennings remind couples—especially entrepreneurs—that no level of business success is worth a struggling marriage. They unpack practical ways to prioritize your spouse, from daily intentional check-ins to protecting time together in the middle of chaos. With honesty about their own wins and struggles, they share how small shifts in attention, words, and service can radically strengthen a relationship. Whether you're in your first year or your fifteenth, this episode is a timely nudge to put your marriage back in its rightful place.Support the show 10% off LMN Software- https://lmncompany.partnerlinks.io/growinggreenpodcast Signup for our Newsletter- https://mailchi.mp/942ae158aff5/newsletter-signup Book A Consult Call-https://stan.store/GrowingGreenPodcast Lawntrepreneur Academy-https://www.lawntrepreneuracademy.com/ The Landscaping Bookkeeper-https://thelandscapingbookkeeper.com/ Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/growinggreenlandscapes/ Email-ggreenlandscapes@gmail.com Growing Green Website- https://www.growinggreenlandscapes.com/

Hub Headlines features audio versions of the best commentaries and analysis published daily in The Hub. Enjoy listening to original and provocative takes on the issues that matter while you are on the go.   1:34 - Four ways to solve our growing crime crisis, by Adam Zivo and Josh Dehaas   9:32 -  The chances that Canada's recognition of Palestine actually happens? Don't hold your breath, by Rick Ekstein   This program is narrated by automated voices. To get full-length editions of each instalment of Hub Headlines and other great perks, subscribe to the Hub for only $1 a week: https://thehub.ca/join/hero/   The Hub's podcast channel is sponsored this month by Airbnb. To learn more about how Airbnb is helping, not hurting Canada's economy, visit Airbnb.ca/closerlook.   Subscribe to The Hub's podcast feed to get all our best content: https://tinyurl.com/3a7zpd7e (Apple) https://tinyurl.com/y8akmfn7 (Spotify) Watch The Hub on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheHubCanada Get a FREE 3-month trial membership for our premium podcast content: https://thehub.ca/free-trial/ The Hub on X: https://x.com/thehubcanada?lang=en     CREDITS: Alisha Rao  – Producer & Sound Editor   To contact us, sign up for updates, and access transcripts, email support@thehub.ca

What if the biggest performance problem in your organization isn't a lack of talent, but a lack of care? This week, Mark and Randy dive into the real difference between motivation and engagement and why leaders must take full responsibility for keeping hearts in the game. Discover the four keys to cultivating a team that cares deeply about their work, their coworkers, and your vision.Subscribe to Our Newsletter Here: https://leadeveryday.com/newsletter/

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 2683: Dr. Margaret Rutherford outlines four empowering ways to find emotional closure after a relationship ends, especially when the other person won't engage. By focusing on personal growth, setting boundaries, and trusting yourself to process grief, you can heal and move forward with integrity and peace. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://drmargaretrutherford.com/4-ways-to-get-emotional-closure-in-a-relationship-by-yourself/ Quotes to ponder: "Often the conversation you can imagine having is just that. It's in your imagination, or your fantasy." "Guide your own life in a way that reflects your values. Your children will learn. Your friends will take sides or they won't." "You can give yourself closure. And you can move on." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Lindsey from Fourways has officially cracked the Sound of the City — and just like that, she's walking away with a whooping R20,000! All it took was one sharp ear and a little bit of luck!Congrats, Lindsey — Fourways is proud, your bank account is smiling, and the city is buzzing! Think you’ve got what it takes to guess the next Sound? Keep listening — you could be our next big winner! Hang out with Anele and The Club on 947 every weekday morning. Popular radio hosts Anele Mdoda, Frankie du Toit, Thembekile Mrototo, and Cindy Poluta take fun to the next level with the biggest guests, hottest conversations, feel-good vibes, and the best music to get you going! Kick-start your day with the most enjoyable way to wake up in Joburg. Connect with Anele and The Club on 947 via WhatsApp at 084 000 0947 or call the studio on 011 88 38 947Thank you for listening to the Anele and the Club podcast.Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 06:00 to 09:00 to Anele and the Club broadcast on 947 https://buff.ly/y34dh8Y For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/gyWKIkl or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/K59GRzu Subscribe to the 947s Weekly Newsletter https://buff.ly/hf9IuR9 Follow us on social media:947 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/947Joburg/ 947 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@947joburg947 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/947joburg947 on X: www.x.com/947 947 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@947JoburgSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What does it take to quit your job and earn a full-time income on YouTube?

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3222: Sean Mullaney offers four strategic approaches to reduce your exposure to inflation, including savvy tax planning, leveraging low-interest debt, maximizing travel rewards, and making spending choices that minimize future costs. With a unique lens on how current decisions shape future financial burdens, he encourages a balanced mix of retirement accounts and intentional living to stay ahead of inflation's bite. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://fitaxguy.com/2022/06/ Quotes to ponder: "Getting money into Roths and HSAs excuses future growth from taxation, including growth attributable to inflation." "Inflationary environments are great for debtors, particularly those debtors who have locked in a low interest rate for a long term." "You can use today's spending to reduce your exposure to future inflation." Episode references: Camp FI: https://campfi.org/ Mark's Money Mind: https://marksmoneymind.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3222: Sean Mullaney offers four strategic approaches to reduce your exposure to inflation, including savvy tax planning, leveraging low-interest debt, maximizing travel rewards, and making spending choices that minimize future costs. With a unique lens on how current decisions shape future financial burdens, he encourages a balanced mix of retirement accounts and intentional living to stay ahead of inflation's bite. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://fitaxguy.com/2022/06/ Quotes to ponder: "Getting money into Roths and HSAs excuses future growth from taxation, including growth attributable to inflation." "Inflationary environments are great for debtors, particularly those debtors who have locked in a low interest rate for a long term." "You can use today's spending to reduce your exposure to future inflation." Episode references: Camp FI: https://campfi.org/ Mark's Money Mind: https://marksmoneymind.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3222: Sean Mullaney offers four strategic approaches to reduce your exposure to inflation, including savvy tax planning, leveraging low-interest debt, maximizing travel rewards, and making spending choices that minimize future costs. With a unique lens on how current decisions shape future financial burdens, he encourages a balanced mix of retirement accounts and intentional living to stay ahead of inflation's bite. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://fitaxguy.com/2022/06/ Quotes to ponder: "Getting money into Roths and HSAs excuses future growth from taxation, including growth attributable to inflation." "Inflationary environments are great for debtors, particularly those debtors who have locked in a low interest rate for a long term." "You can use today's spending to reduce your exposure to future inflation." Episode references: Camp FI: https://campfi.org/ Mark's Money Mind: https://marksmoneymind.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In episode 89 I shared several variations of ONE exercise that can solve (OR create) multiple problems on the barrel pattern, all depending on how it's performed. For many more barrel racing resources, visit BarrelRacingTips.com. Please subscribe, rate & review to help support on-going content and resources - thanks for listening! Click here to support the show.

In this episode of Retire with Style, Alex Murguia and Wade Pfau answer listener questions on retirement planning for high earners. They explore tax strategies like Roth conversions and qualified charitable distributions, and discuss how tools like life insurance and annuities can help hedge longevity risk and support a stable retirement income.   Takeaways The importance of community engagement in retirement planning. High earners face unique tax challenges and strategies. Qualified charitable distributions can help manage tax implications. Roth conversions can be beneficial for reducing future RMDs. Understanding the widow's penalty in retirement planning is crucial. Annuities can provide income stability in later years. Life insurance can hedge against the risk of not living long enough. The interplay between income sources and tax brackets is complex. Gifting strategies can help manage estate taxes effectively. Combining life insurance and annuities can optimize retirement income.   Chapters 00:00 Introduction and Community Engagement 03:12 Exploring Tax Strategies for High Earners 06:09 Navigating Retirement Risks for Couples 11:49 Hedging Against Longevity Risks in Retirement 28:59 Conclusion and Future Q&A Sessions   Links If you want to better understand how to protect your retirement from bad market timing, don't miss Retirement Researcher's free webinar: “Four Ways to Manage Sequence of Returns Risk,” hosted by Wade Pfau happening July 15th, 2025 from 1:00 - 2:00 PM ET. You'll learn practical strategies to reduce volatility's impact on your retirement income. Register now at retirewithstyle.com/podcast. Explore the New RetireWithStyle.com! We've launched a brand-new home for the podcast! Visit RetireWithStyle.com to catch up on all our latest episodes, explore topics by category, and send us your questions or ideas for future episodes. If there's something you've been wondering about retirement, we want to hear it! The Retirement Planning Guidebook: 2nd Edition has just been updated for 2025! Visit your preferred book retailer or simply click here to order your copy today: https://www.wadepfau.com/books/ This episode is sponsored by Retirement Researcher https://retirementresearcher.com/. Download their free eBook, 8 Tips to Becoming A Retirement Income Investor at retirementresearcher.com/8tips

Bongani Bingwa speaks to Debra De Souza, publicist for Bluey’s Big Play the Stage Show, about the beloved production heading to the Theatre at Montecasino in Fourways, where it opens tomorrow, July 9, and runs until July 20, 2025. Bongani makes sense of the news, interviews the key newsmakers of the day, and holds those in power to account on your behalf. The team bring you all you need to know to start your day Thank you for listening to a podcast from 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 06:00 and 09:00 (SA Time) to Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa broadcast on 702: https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/36edSLV or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/zEcM35T Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Without meaning to, sometimes leaders keep those around them weak. That's not what we want to do! In this episode, Chad shares four ways you might be keeping those around you from growing stronger, better, and more capable. Audio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com 

Send us a text

Lets talk Monday Night Raw that aired June 16th, 2025 that saw the return of Goldberg, who challenged Gunther to a match at SNME, Asuka in action for the first time in over a year, Liv Morgan suffer a serious shoulder injury and much more!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-wwe-podcast--2187791/support.

In this episode we take a look at R-Truth's attack on John Cena, the potential winners of the KOTR for the men & women, Nikki Bella's return, The Wyatt Sicks in action, Seth Rollins MITB win and when he may cash in, and much more!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-wwe-podcast--2187791/support.

Amanda from the UK reviews WWE SmackDown that aired June 13th, 2025 that saw appearances from Cody Rhodes, John Cena, Randy Orton, R-Truth, LA Knight and much more!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-wwe-podcast--2187791/support.

Today, I'm talking about protein supplements, amino acids, surgery, and recovering from injury.

A spirit of heaviness refers to a spiritual and emotional state of deep discouragement, despair, or oppression. A spirit of heaviness is exhausting. It can wear you out, and if you're not careful, it can burn you out. Have you ever been weighed down by a "spirit of heaviness"? Join me for Today's Daily Word & Prayer to learn four ways to overcome this debilitating spirit. Scripture Used in Today's MessageIsaiah 61:1-3If you've not read my book, Takin' it to Their Turf. request a copy on my website, www.CampusAmerica.com.You'll be inspired, encouraged, and learn plenty about evangelism and spiritual warfare through the 70+ stories I share of my campus evangelism experiences.We send a copy to anyone who donates to our ministry, but if you can't do so, simply request a copy by sending us an email. Who do you know that needs to hear today's message? Go ahead and forward this to them, along with a prayer that God will use it in their life.To find Tom on Instagram, Facebook, TiKTok, and elsewhere, go to linktr.ee/tomthepreacher To support Tom Short Campus Ministries, click herehttps://www.tomthepreacher.com/support************ Do you want to have all your sins forgiven and know God personally? *********Check out my video "The Bridge Diagram" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0Kjwrlind8&t=1sCheck out my website, www.TomthePreacher.com, to learn more about my ministry and sign up for my daily email. And make sure to request a copy of my book, Takin' it to Their Turf, when you visit my website.Check out my videos on this channel to learn how to answer tough questions challenging our faith.

Episode Summary Feel organized on the outside but chaotic behind the scenes? In this episode, I'll unpack four hidden ADHD trouble spots — like email overload, scattered to-do lists, and time blindness — that quietly fuel disorganization. You'll explore simple, ADHD-friendly strategies for managing your time, memory, mood, and tasks, so you can stop spinning... The post Still Disorganized With ADHD? Four Ways to Get On Track appeared first on Marla Cummins.

Rancho Mesa's Marketing & Media Communications Specialist Megan Lockhart sits down with Rory Anderson, Partner with the Tree Care Group, to talk about several ways tree care companies can strengthen their insurance profile. Show Notes: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to Rancho Mesa's Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Host: Megan LockhartGuest: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Rory Anderson⁠Producer/Editor: ⁠Jadyn Brandt⁠Music: "Home" by JHS Pedals, “Breaking News Intro” by nem0production© Copyright 2025. Rancho Mesa Insurance Services, Inc. All rights reserved.

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3003: Eric Bach shares four strategic methods to enhance your workout stamina and push past plateaus, helping you achieve more in less time. His practical approach empowers you to train smarter, manage fatigue, and build the mental and physical resilience necessary for lasting progress. Read along with the original article(s) here:  https://bachperformance.com/4-ways-to-train-longer-and-harder/ Quotes to ponder: "Training harder and longer is not about going until you vomit or black out." "Optimizing your workouts is about balancing effort with recovery to maximize performance." "True progress lies in consistently pushing your limits without burning out." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

esus is to be the obsession and focus of a Christian's life. Yet how do we discover what we are truly obsessed with?In this episode, we discover: the four indicators that reveal what we are obsessed with in our lives why it is imperative that Jesus is our sole obsession and the definition of idolatry (looking to anyone or anything besides Jesus to meet my needs) Simply, if Jesus isn't our obsession, then we will be distracted with something—for God made us to be obsessed. The question really is … what am I obsessed with?Watch this episode as a video on YouTubeCheck out the study notes for this episode-----------------» Join the Deeper Christian community and receive the Deeper Digest each Saturday, which includes all the quotes, articles, podcasts, and resources from Nathan and Deeper Christian from the week to help you grow spiritually.-----------------Deeper Christian Podcast • Episode 360View the shownotes for this episode and get other Christ-centered teaching and resources at: deeperChristian.com/360

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3003: Eric Bach shares four strategic methods to enhance your workout stamina and push past plateaus, helping you achieve more in less time. His practical approach empowers you to train smarter, manage fatigue, and build the mental and physical resilience necessary for lasting progress. Read along with the original article(s) here:  https://bachperformance.com/4-ways-to-train-longer-and-harder/ Quotes to ponder: "Training harder and longer is not about going until you vomit or black out." "Optimizing your workouts is about balancing effort with recovery to maximize performance." "True progress lies in consistently pushing your limits without burning out." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to our podcast today. I am Ronnie Floyd, your host and friend. Before I start this episode, let me introduce you to some important matters.  First, next Monday is Memorial Day. Thank you to all families throughout generations who have lost family members in the line of battle, protecting our freedom in America. Thank God for each one of them. Next week, we will not release a podcast due to Memorial Day, a shorter work week, and many of you will be formally beginning your summer. However, I will be back with you, releasing our next podcast on Wednesday, June 4. Don't miss it!  Second, pray for me. I will be preaching four Sundays in June. On June 1, I will preach at Cross Church Springdale and Pinnacle Hills. On June 8, Jeana and I will be in Dallas, Texas, attending the Southern Baptist Convention. On June 15, I will preach at Fellowship Church in Greenwood, Missouri, which is located in the greater Kansas City region. Pastor Chris Williams is a great leader and friend, and the Fellowship Church is phenomenal.  Then, on June 22, I will preach for my dear friend, Dr. Jeremy Roberts, at the First Baptist Church in Farmington, Arkansas. Then, on June 29-30, I will preach for Pastor Alan Arthur, the pastor of First Baptist Church in San Saba, Texas. He has asked me to speak several times, leading his church in a Prayer Conference. I am so grateful for these opportunities, so please pray for me. Now let's get started with the podcast for this week. Let's go! 

Dash with Carol Dixon is all about life and how to live that life positively, productively, and prayerfully. After decades of ministry, Dr. Dixon is qualified to address any topic of life from a Biblical perspective. Let's Listen Now as Dr. Dixon shares nuggets about “Four Ways the Bible Helps You Reset Your Life.”Send us a textBecome a Dash Legacy Builder Today! For more information go to caroldixon.net/dash

Product Manager Amit Navon discusses discusses the four ways Check Point provides a hybrid SASE solution.

Get ready for an action-packed episode of the First Black Champ podcast with hosts J.R. Bang and Camp From The Port, as they break down the latest wrestling event, Backlash! From the intense Fatal Four-Way featuring Jacob Fatu, Drew McIntyre, Damian Priest, LA Knight, and Jeff Cobb's buzzworthy debut, to Becky Lynch's controversial finish against Lyra Valkyria, the duo dives deep into every major match. They also spotlight Dominik Mysterio's controversial Intercontinental Championship reign alongside the mysterious El Grande Americano, analyze the entertaining Gunther vs. Pat McAfee showdown, and bask in the nostalgia of a John Cena vs. Randy Orton main event. The episode takes a heartfelt turn with a tribute to wrestling legend Sabu, celebrating his iconic ECW moments and unmatched contributions to the sport. Plus, the hosts throw in their signature humor, storyline predictions, and even a special Mother's Day shoutout. If you're craving expert analysis, raw opinions, and plenty of laughs, this episode is for you! Hit play and join the discussion about the matches, moments, and legacies shaping the wrestling world

Couples conflict coach Crystal Hansen joins Heather to reframe the way we experience conflict in our relationships. With honesty, humor, and real-life examples, Crystal walks listeners through four common patterns that keep us disconnected and offers simple mindset shifts to create deeper connection and emotional safety in marriage. Whether you're newly engaged or two decades in, these practical tools will change the way you navigate conflict and build intimacy.   For more information about Crystal and for links to access all she has to offer, please click HERE! To watch this interview on YouTube, go HERE. For more information and available downloads, go to: https://ldslifecoaches.com/ All content is copyrighted to Heather Rackham and featured coaches. Do not use without permission.  

In this episode of the Finding Financial Freedom Podcast, we sat down with Dr. Alex Schloe, a physician and real estate investor who transitioned from a traditional path in medicine to a life of autonomy and financial freedom. If you're a physician seeking more control over your time, career, and finances—this conversation is for you. Dr. Alex shares how his desire for flexibility and purpose led him to explore real estate, eventually finding success through residential assisted living and syndications. He breaks down how these investments create cash flow and how they can empower physicians to practice medicine on their own terms. Key Topics Covered: 1. Dr. Alex's Background From conventional medical training to pursuing autonomy through financial education and investing. 2. Starting the Real Estate Journey How Dr. Alex began investing in real estate and what sparked his interest. 3. Learning Syndication How he discovered real estate syndications and built confidence to get involved. 4. Residential Assisted Living Explained What it is, how it works, and why it's an opportunity for impact and profit. 5. Four Ways to Invest in Assisted Living Dr. Alex breaks down the different investment models available in this niche. 6. Cash Flow Potential A practical look at the cash flow potential in residential assisted living—and how it compares to traditional rental properties. 7. Practicing Medicine on Your Own Terms How real estate investing has allowed Dr. Alex to design a medical career that aligns with his passions and lifestyle. Resources Mentioned: Dr. Alex Schloe Website  Residential Assisted Living Academy Physicians and Properties Podcast Listener Takeaways: You don't need to leave medicine to take control of your time—you need financial freedom. Real estate investing, especially in assisted living, can provide both profit and purpose. Syndications and assisted living are powerful tools for physicians looking to diversify income. Autonomy is achievable with the right education and network. Connect with Us: Host: Dr. Disha Spath, The Frugal Physician Guest: Dr. Alex Schloe, Physician and Real Estate Investor   This episode is also sponsored by Set for Life Insurance – Providing more than just insurance policies—they deliver personalized coverage and expert guidance tailored to your needs. Whether you're looking for life, disability, or long-term care insurance, their team ensures you get the best protection at the most cost-effective rates. With priority underwriting, special discounts, and access to top-rated insurers, they make securing your future simple and stress-free. Take the next step in protecting what matters most. Visit setforlifeinsurance.com or call 1-888-553-3559 today.

Sean and Amanda are joined by Chris Ryan to recap their trip to the mobile Criterion Closet before celebrating the big box-office weekend performances of ‘Sinners' and ‘Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith' and explain why movies are so back (1:09). Then, they cover some recently released mediocre action films: ‘The Accountant 2' (14:30), ‘Havoc' (25:39), ‘A Working Man' (36:33), and ‘The Amateur' (44:41), and have a big-picture conversation on what these four films mean for the state of action movies (53:32). Finally, they discuss a handful of movie news headlines and share their excitement and concern for some upcoming releases (1:00:35). Hosts: Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins Guest: Chris Ryan Producer: Jack Sanders Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How are you doing? How is your marriage doing? With all the marriages that haven't made it, Dr. Randy wants to do a program about the marriages that have. What's your story? Sign up for Dr. Randy’s INTENTIONAL ONE THING CHALLENGE. Here’s an Intentional Living Blog for inspiration! Four Ways to Ignite Your Marriage What is […]

How are you doing? How is your marriage doing? With all the marriages that haven't made it, Dr. Randy wants to do a program about the marriages that have. What's your story? Sign up for Dr. Randy’s INTENTIONAL ONE THING CHALLENGE. Here’s an Intentional Living Blog for inspiration! Four Ways to Ignite Your Marriage What is […]

This talk was given by Gil Fronsdal on 2025.03.12 at the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City, CA. ******* For more talks like this, visit AudioDharma.org ******* If you have enjoyed this talk, please consider supporting AudioDharma with a donation at https://www.audiodharma.org/donate/. ******* This talk is licensed by a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

This talk was given by Gil Fronsdal on 2025.03.12 at the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City, CA. ******* For more talks like this, visit AudioDharma.org ******* If you have enjoyed this talk, please consider supporting AudioDharma with a donation at https://www.audiodharma.org/donate/. ******* This talk is licensed by a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

Phylicia Masonheimer joins us to discuss what a theology of sex is, why we struggle with it, and how to develop a better theology. Sponsor We LOVE Share the Soap! Check out their fabulous skin-care products made with from goat milk, essential oils, and other wholesome ingredients. From the Bible But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things! Galatians 5:22–23 (NLT) The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 1 Corinthians 13:4–7 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 1 John 4:16 (ESV) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God's throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Hebrews 4:15–16 Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.' “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don't fear God or care what people think, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually come and attack me!'” And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? Luke 18:1–7 So Moses brought their case before the Lord, and the Lord said to him, “What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father's relatives and give their father's inheritance to them. Numbers 27:5–7 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to anyone and has sex with her, he must pay the customary bride price and marry her. But if her father refuses to let him marry her, the man must still pay him an amount equal to the bride price of a virgin. Exodus 22:16-17 (NLT) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:25-33 Resources Every Woman a Theologian - Phylicia Masonheimer The Sex Talk You Never Had by Phylicia Masonheimer Episode 154: Why We're Against Porn and Erotica Common Myths of Romance Novels - Hot, Holy & Humorous Wired for Story: The Writer's Guide to Using Brain Science to Hook Readers from the Very First Sentence by Lisa Cron Why You Feel Worse Than He Does about the Premarital Sex - Hot, Holy & Humorous 5 Reasons Satan Targets Marriage • Bonny's Oysterbed7 Francie Winslow (mentioned by Phylicia, but

Breaking the February Fitness Funk | Staying Motivated After January Common reasons people drop off going to the gym in February. (1:13) Five methods to solve the problem of staying motivated after January. (5:12) #1 - Have an easy to commit to option. (6:36) #2 - Change the style of workout. (15:18) #3 - Make a more realistic commitment for time. (19:12) #4 - Read/watch something fitness-related every day. (22:44) #5 - Hire a coach. (27:08) Questions: If I reduce my training frequency, how much are my results going to slow down? (29:17) Is doing a little really better than nothing? (31:07) How do I know if a coach is good or bad? (32:31) Related Links/Products Mentioned Visit Eight Sleep for an exclusive offer for Mind Pump Listeners! ** Code MINDPUMP to get $350 off Pod 4 Ultra. Currently, it ships to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia. ** Special Promotion: MAPS Suspension or MAPS Bands HALF off! ** Code SB50 at checkout ** Mind Pump #2080: Get Jacked With Bands! Mind Pump #2137: The Best Suspension Training Workout Plan for Beginners Mind Pump Store Mind Pump #1172: Four Ways to Change Your Workout for Maximum Results Mind Pump #2385: Five Reasons Why You Should Hire a Trainer How Much Training is Necessary to Maintain Strength and Muscle? Mind Pump #2112: Is 15 Minutes Enough Time for an Effective Workout? Mind Pump #1622: Nine Signs Your Trainer Sucks Mind Pump Podcast – YouTube Mind Pump Free Resources