Obam announces plan to streamline government

[KingOrfeo]

CNN:

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama asked Congress Friday for more power to streamline and reorganize the federal government, a move designed to claim the political middle ground in an election likely to be dominated by questions about Washington's role in the economy.

The president asked legislators to grant him the authority to merge agencies that perform similar functions. If that power is granted, Congress would be required to hold an up-or-down vote on the president's streamlining plan within 90 days of its submission.

Among other things, the president's plan would combine several agencies that focus on commerce and trade, including the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Trade and Development Agency.

Under the move, the Commerce Department as currently constituted would be eliminated. Some of its responsibilities would be shifted to a new department yet to be named, while other functions would be shifted elsewhere.

In the meantime, the president is elevating the Small Business Administration to a Cabinet-level agency -- a largely symbolic move that does not require congressional approval.

"No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations," Obama told a group of business leaders and administration officials at the White House. "So why is it OK for our government? It's not. It has to change."

The proposal is designed initially to save up to $3 billion over the next decade, partly by cutting up to 2,000 jobs through attrition, according to the administration.

Obama noted Friday that presidents starting in the midst of the Great Depression were authorized to submit federal reorganization plans to Congress for a guaranteed up-or-down vote. That authority, however, expired in 1984.

"When this process was left to follow the usual Congressional pace, not surprisingly, it slowed down," Obama said. "Congressional committees fought to protect their turf. Lobbyists fought to keep things unchanged because they're the only ones who can navigate the bureaucracy. And because it's always easier to add than to subtract in Washington, inertia prevented any real reform from happening."

Obama's plan -- building on a promise made in last year's State of the Union address to streamline government -- could help to place the president in a more centrist position heading into the election, political analysts note. It could also put congressional Republicans in a politically awkward position by forcing them to either accept the plan -- thereby handing Obama a political win -- or reject it and risk ceding a core conservative issue to the president.

"President Obama is trying to counter the perception that he is a big-government liberal," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director. "If he gets his way and can brag about reorganizing the government, that may help him in the fall."

On the other hand, Holland noted, "when then-Vice President Al Gore was put in charge of a 'Reinventing Government' initiative under Bill Clinton, it didn't seem to affect views of Gore in that regard, possibly because few Americans really noticed."

Skeptical Republicans questioned both the merit and the timing of Obama's announcement.

"Given the president's record of growing government, we're interested to learn whether this proposal represents actual relief for American businesses or just the appearance of it," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "American small businesses are more concerned about this administration's policies than from which building in Washington they originate. We hope the president isn't simply proposing new packaging for the same burdensome approach."

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said that "after presiding over one of the largest expansions of government in history, and a year after raising the issue ... it's interesting to see the president finally acknowledge that Washington is out of control."

Republicans frequently cite the rapid growth in deficit spending over the last three years as an example of explosive government growth under Obama. Democrats insist such spending was necessary to prevent a deeper economic downturn.

California Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, criticized the administration for allegedly not working more closely with Congress on earlier reorganization efforts.

"I stand ready to work with President Obama on proposals to reorganize federal agencies," Issa said in a written statement. "While I have been disappointed that the White House has not embraced earlier bipartisan congressional efforts seeking collaborative engagement on proposals to reorganize government, I hope this announcement represents the beginning of a sincere and dedicated effort to enact meaningful reforms."

Issa noted a letter sent last March from several congressmen to the White House seeking "a tentative timeline for development and implementation of (a) reorganization proposal."

A national government's departments should be reorganized every few decades, anyway. Agencies are created ad-hoc for specific purposes and sometimes that leads to several different ones doing similar things without coordination.

Of course, the point of the Department of Homeland Security was mainly simply to hive off several security-related agencies from their parent departments and group them under a new one. I dunno if that has really made any of them more efficient, alone or together.

 

[Ham Murabi]

In a largely symbolic move, I'd like to see the president eliminate every cabinet position except Defense, State and Treasury.

 

[renard_ruse]

This is an effort to win back the "Ron Paul youth" that he's lost. Its completely due to the Ron Paul effect. Paul is forcing him to move to the center in a way that no other Republican candidate can because he's winning over Obama's youth base from 2008.

 

[islandman]

In a largely symbolic move, I'd like to see the president eliminate every cabinet position except Defense, State and Treasury.

Given that the other Cabinet members are the heads of their respective departments, eliminating their Cabinet seats would be even more so a largely symbolic move.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Given that the other Cabinet members are the heads of their respective departments, eliminating their Cabinet seats would be even more so a largely symbolic move.

Hammer don't hurt him!

 

[TexasWife25]

I'm looking forward to the GOP response to this

Clearly this is a political move on his part
a rather smart one too

If the GOP indorses it, then they are actually agreeing with POTUS
if they oppose it, then they lose their ground as the party
of small government, and come across as petty to the
American voters.

 

[phrodeau]

This is an effort to win back the "Ron Paul youth" that he's lost. Its completely due to the Ron Paul effect. Paul is forcing him to move to the center in a way that no other Republican candidate can because he's winning over Obama's youth base from 2008.

Ron Paul, really? What was Ron Paul doing in 2008, when Obama was promising to increase government efficiency?

http://obama.3cdn.net/0080cc578614b42284_2a0mvyxpz.pdf

 

[KingOrfeo]

This is an effort to win back the "Ron Paul youth" that he's lost. Its completely due to the Ron Paul effect. Paul is forcing him to move to the center in a way that no other Republican candidate can because he's winning over Obama's youth base from 2008.

A streamlining-reorganization of government is not a libertarian agenda, except to the extent it saves money. It does nothing to reduce the scope of the government's functions.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

This is an effort to win back the "Ron Paul youth" that he's lost. Its completely due to the Ron Paul effect. Paul is forcing him to move to the center in a way that no other Republican candidate can because he's winning over Obama's youth base from 2008.

Ron Paul has absolutely nothing to do with this as Phrodeau points out below. The "Ron Paul Effect"... Jesus, fucking Paultards come out of the woodwork every Presidential election year and claim that this time he's really gonna matter!

Ok, maybe next time!

Ron Paul, really? What was Ron Paul doing in 2008, when Obama was promising to increase government efficiency?

http://obama.3cdn.net/0080cc578614b42284_2a0mvyxpz.pdf

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm looking forward to the GOP response to this

Clearly this is a political move on his part
a rather smart one too

If the GOP indorses it, then they are actually agreeing with POTUS
if they oppose it, then they lose their ground as the party
of small government, and come across as petty to the
American voters.

Actually, it's not something that can be done between now and the election, therefore it is a political ploy, a continuation of the tactic that says, if I can't brag about me, then blame the other guys for obstructing me, which, btw, in my book is a point in the Republicans favor since they were put back into the Congress in 2010 to oppose his plans and to obstruct him; his signature plan is more reviled today, now that we're reading it to see what's in it, than it was then.

What the Republicans CAN do, is counter with an offer that includes the Department of Education, for it is clearly failing to educate in so many ways.

Head Start is a demonstrably failed idea as is No Child Left Behind.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There’s a very troubled company out there called U.S. Government, Inc. It’s teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. And it badly needs to be taken over and turned around. It probably even needs the services of a good private-equity firm, with plenty of experience and a reasonably good track record in downsizing, modernizing, shrinking staff, and making substantial changes in management. Yes, layoffs will be a necessary part of the restructuring.

A quick look at the income statement of this troubled firm tells the story. Just in the past year (FY 2011) the firm spent $3.7 trillion, but took in only $2.2 trillion in sales revenues. Hence its deficit came to $1.5 trillion.

Just in the first three months of the new year (FY 2012), the firm’s troubles continued. Outlays for all purposes came in at $874 billion, but income was only $554 billion. So the shortfall was $320 billion. No hope of a self-imposed turnaround here. Indeed, both the senior management and the board of directors show no signs of making major changes to their business strategy.

Hope for future profits? That’s out of the question. The firms only chance of survival is a takeover.

Worldwide employment for U.S. Government, Inc. is estimated to be over two million, a completely unmanageable number for a venture like this. Total compensation for this company is roughly twice the level of its private-sector counterparts. And its retirement and health-insurance benefits are so large in relation to contributions paid that its benefit plans are careening toward insolvency.

In fact, the total debt of this firm now equals its total income — an unsustainable position that suggests to many observers that future financing needs will not be met.

The product line of this troubled firm has been rejected over and over by growing segments of its customer base. And its product pricing (taxes) is not even remotely competitive. Even worse, heavily unionized work rules and regulations are so onerous that the prospects for even reasonable productivity and efficiency are long gone.

Its credit rating? That’s been marked down, with more downgrades expected in the future.

The very troubled U.S. Government, Inc. had long been either number one or in the top three worldwide in terms of economic freedom. But as a result of all these deteriorating conditions, it has fallen four years in a row in this category, slipping all the way to tenth. In fact, over the past ten years, the firm has barely grown and its share price has been flat. Without the kind of radical change that comes from a takeover and turnaround, more economic slippage is baked in the cake.

Restructuring this company seems a hopeless proposition. But wait a minute. There’s a highly regarded private-equity operation located in Boston that has a good (but not perfect) track record in turning around hopeless ventures. Though there have been failures for this firm, notable successes include Staples, The Sports Authority, Domino’s Pizza, and Steel Dynamics.

Anyone operating in business knows full well that even the smartest reorganizing firms are prone to failure as well as success in our free-market capitalist system. But the customer base of the troubled U.S. Government, Inc. seems like it is desperate enough to go the takeover route.

Some are concerned that private-equity specialists are too hard hearted. But in these tough times, people are willing to take a risk. That even includes the current CEO of the failed U.S. Government, Inc., one Barack Obama. He just announced plans to merge the Department of Commerce, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. In other words, he’s borrowing a private-equity tactic.

Alas, this move is way too small and way too late. Much more radical surgery will be necessary.

Larry Kudlow
NRO

 

[KingOrfeo]

In a largely symbolic move, I'd like to see the president eliminate every cabinet position except Defense, State and Treasury.

But, why?

 

[KingOrfeo]

There’s a very troubled company out there called U.S. Government, Inc. It’s teetering on the edge of bankruptcy . . .

Larry Kudlow
NRO

More economic fallacies . . .

America the bankrupt: National debts don't work like your personal debt. For example, people don't buy your debt to prop up your currency. Yet for some reason a lot of writers tend to think of the national debt in the same terms as a bank loan, with angry creditors and everything. When this trope is invoked expect to see a consortium of angry foreign dignitaries banging on a conference table that they want their money back. In reality, if countries actually acted like this, the global financial system would probably collapse pretty spectacularly and everyone would be screwed. This trope is not specific to America, but for some reason Americans are exceptionally paranoid about the National Debt, particularly when the Chinese are buying it up, and now not buying it anymore. Oddly enough, America's National Debt isn't even that bad by international standards. Also, the US national debt is in terms of dollars, and the government can create as many dollars as they need to pay off the debt. Everyone would be paid the amount owed, but the new dollars would lead to inflation. The key here is that governments usually owe substantial portions of their debt to 'themselves,' i.e. either the government owes money to different branches, or those branches hold their assets as bonds and treasury bills instead of money; by owing money to yourself, you usually don't charge yourself interest (beyond inflation) and you theoretically can't default on money you owe yourself. This is how Japan can have gross debt worth over 100% of their yearly economic output and have little economic effects: 70-80% of its debt is owned by the Japanese Central Bank. In the United States, around 35-40% of the government debt is owed to itself, mainly to the Social Security Administration. Also, debt owned to foreign entities makes up MUCH less of the debt than people seem to think: as an example, China owns only 6% of the total US debt.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's* 100.2% of GDP.

That is simply unsustainable.

Owing money to yourself is one of the classic inflationary tools.

That is a tell of Socialist governments that get locked into economic death spirals.



Try some Murray N. Rothbard.

 

[MeeMie]

That's kinda like shutting the barn door after all the animals are running down the road.

Obama is transparent. Not his government but rather his political tactics.

 

[klippert]

Stalin did the same think.... Great hero of the left that he is.... Stalin called it the PURGE

 

[renard_ruse]

Ron Paul has absolutely nothing to do with this as Phrodeau points out below. The "Ron Paul Effect"... Jes*s, f***ing Paul supporters come out of the woodwork every Presidential election year and claim that this time he's really gonna matter!

Paul is the one talking openly about eliminating cabinet positions. Someone just hearing this Obama plan could think its about reducing government, even if its not.

Don't think for a minute that the Obama people aren't worried about loosing support from their youth base. Obama won primarily due to the massive support from Gen Y in 2008. Paul is definitely drawing a good bit of support from that demo. They are worried about it, if that group stays home in large numbers in 2012 they could be in trouble.

 

[renard_ruse]

Paul is the one talking openly about eliminating cabinet positions. Someone just hearing this Obama plan could think its about reducing government, even if its not.

Don't think for a minute that the Obama people aren't worried about loosing support from their youth base. Obama won primarily due to the massive support from Gen Y in 2008. Paul is definitely drawing a good bit of support from that demo. They are worried about it, if that group stays home in large numbers in 2012 they could be in trouble.

Of course, according to the posters on here I've never been right on anything so no surprise they would try to counterdict this obvious point as well. Its kind of funny.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Paul is the one talking openly about eliminating cabinet positions. Someone just hearing this Obama plan could think its about reducing government, even if its not.

See post #8. This reorganization is not a libertarian agenda and is not being sold as one, it's a good-government agenda -- which is practically the opposite thing, being based on the idea that the government should be doing certain things and therefore should be doing them more efficiently.

Look, the important subject for discussion here, and I would have thought that was obvious, is not whether this reorganization will help Obama's re-election chances, but whether it really will do what it is supposed to do, in terms of administrative efficiency.

Has the Department of Homeland Security proved a more efficient arrangement, or not, than when all its constituent agencies were under separate departments? Does anybody know or have an opinion?

 

[TexasWife25]

See post #8. This reorganization is not a libertarian agenda and is not being sold as one, it's a good-government agenda -- which is practically the opposite thing, being based on the idea that the government should be doing certain things and therefore should be doing them more efficiently.

A lot of what POTUS is suggesting is really obvious stuff, that should have been done a long time ago.

I find it kind of funny that previous presidents showed there displeasure in certain government officials by moving around departments in a really childish way.

 

[jeninflorida]

Clearly government has become very fat. We need to send these people in government to the biggest loser.

CNN:



A national government's departments should be reorganized every few decades, anyway. Agencies are created ad-hoc for specific purposes and sometimes that leads to several different ones doing similar things without coordination.

Of course, the point of the Department of Homeland Security was mainly simply to hive off several security-related agencies from their parent departments and group them under a new one. I dunno if that has really made any of them more efficient, alone or together.

 

[miles]

Obama is going to shrink the size of government by making it bigger.

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

He'll close down three agencies and build one monolithic mega agency.

He wants to bypass the Constitution as much as possible.

 

[phrodeau]

See post #8. This reorganization is not a libertarian agenda and is not being sold as one, it's a good-government agenda -- which is practically the opposite thing, being based on the idea that the government should be doing certain things and therefore should be doing them more efficiently.

Look, the important subject for discussion here, and I would have thought that was obvious, is not whether this reorganization will help Obama's re-election chances, but whether it really will do what it is supposed to do, in terms of administrative efficiency.

Has the Department of Homeland Security proved a more efficient arrangement, or not, than when all its constituent agencies were under separate departments? Does anybody know or have an opinion?

Here's a fairly recent report on the DHS: http://www.npr.org/2011/09/11/140367706/homeland-security-remains-an-agency-in-progress