... to merge Federal agencies. Link: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/13/10148099-obama-seeks-power-to-merge-agencies
QuotePresident Barack Obama will ask Congress on Friday for greater power to shrink the federal government, and his first idea is merging six sprawling trade and commerce agencies whose overlapping programs can be baffling to businesses, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.
Obama will call on Congress to give him a type of reorganizational power last held by a president when Ronald Reagan was in office. The Obama version would be a so-called consolidation authority allowing him to propose mergers that promise to save money and help consumers. The deal would entitle him to an up-or-down vote from Congress in 90 days.
It would be up to lawmakers, therefore, to first grant Obama this fast-track authority and then decide whether to approve any of his specific ideas.
The White House said Obama would address his proposals for government reform Friday morning. The official confirmed the details to the AP on condition of anonymity ahead of the president's event.
In an election year and a political atmosphere of tighter spending, Obama's motivation is about improving a giant bureaucracy — but that's hardly all of it.
To voters sick of dysfunction, Obama wants to show some action on making Washington work better. Politically, his plan would allow him to do so by putting the onus on Congress and in particular his Republican critics in the House and Senate, to show why they would be against the pursuit of a leaner government.
Obama also has an imperative to deliver. He made a promise to come up with a smart reorganization of the government in his last State of the Union speech. That was nearly a year ago.
At the time, Obama grabbed attention by pointing out the absurdity of government inefficiency. In what he called his favorite example, Obama said: "The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they're in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked."
The White House said the problem is serious for consumers who turn to their government for help and often do not know where to begin.
Not in decades has the government undergone a sustained reorganization of itself. Presidents have tried from time to time, but each part of the bureaucracy has its own defenders inside and outside the government, which can make merger ideas politically impossible. That's particularly true because "efficiency" is often another way of saying people will lose their jobs.
Obama hopes to enhance his chances by getting Congress to give him the assurance of a clean, relatively speedy vote on any of his proposals.
There is no clear sign that Obama would get that cooperation. He spent much of 2011 in gridlock with Republicans who control the House and can halt votes in the Senate.
Should he prevail, Obama's first project would be to combine six major operations of the government that focus on business and trade.
They are: the Commerce Department's core business and trade functions; the Small Business Administration; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and the Trade and Development Agency. The goal would be one agency designed to help businesses thrive.
The official said 1,000 to 2,000 jobs would be cut, but the administration would do so through attrition; that is, as people routinely leave their jobs over time.
The administration said the merger would save $3 billion over 10 years by getting rid of duplicative overhead costs, human resources divisions and programs.
The point, the official said, is not just making the government smaller but better by saving people time and eliminating bureaucratic nightmares. The idea for the consolidated business agency grew out of discussions with hundreds of business leaders and agency heads over the last several months.
The administration official presented Obama as the CEO of an operation who should have more power to influence how it is designed. According to the White House, presidents held such a reorganizational authority for about 50 years until it ran out during Reagan's presidency in 1984
I guess he couldn't have done this earlier, because it would not have been as politically useful.
Too little, too late.
But I support what I see so far. ;)
So the power is that the Congress has to vote on it in 90 days and not...what? Shelve it?
This makes a lot of sense. I've always thought that cutting the budget in the US in any serious way would be very difficult because so much is set up with Congressional approval, so can only be undone with Congressional approval.
I read the report of some government streamlining body (established by Congress, with a budget to study how government could be made more efficient) that found loads of bodies basically doing the same job differently and it proposed defunding, abolishing and merging lots. From what I remember none of that had happened for those bodies.
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 12:18:47 PM
So the power is that the Congress has to vote on it in 90 days and not...what? Shelve it?
Sounds to me like Congress can vote yes or no, but they can't change it.
Quote from: Maximus on January 13, 2012, 12:42:18 PM
Sounds to me like Congress can vote yes or no, but they can't change it.
Ah. That is pretty tricksie by Obama. If Congress objects to anything then they look like big government bloat lovers or whatever.
Meh.
It would probably go over pretty well. I think most people are sick of congress bickering but never getting stuff done.
Quote from: Maximus on January 13, 2012, 12:49:02 PM
It would probably go over pretty well. I think most people are sick of congress bickering but never getting stuff done.
Oh for sure politically this is a good move. Hopefully it will be policy-wise as well.
Presuming he gets what he wants of course.
Out of interest why did Reagan have this power, how did he have it and why didn't the Presidents who followed him have it? :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 12:50:29 PM
Out of interest why did Reagan have this power, how did he have it and why didn't the Presidents who followed him have it? :mellow:
Because Reagan was a god.
Too boring to score any political points.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 12:50:29 PM
Out of interest why did Reagan have this power, how did he have it and why didn't the Presidents who followed him have it? :mellow:
I think all Presidents prior to Reagan had this and the Congress passed laws limiting it. IIRC
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 12:55:13 PM
Too boring to score any political points.
In an election where howling about socialism and big government are going to be key it will be useful to him.
Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 12:45:45 PM
Ah. That is pretty tricksie by Obama. If Congress objects to anything then they look like big government bloat lovers or whatever.
Meh.
What is tricksie, of course, is that he is asking for no more than Congress gave Reagan. That puts them in the awkward position of denying the Reagan legacy or giving him what he wants.
Of course, the real tricksie part is that he can claim he gave Congress enough time to show that he didn't need the power before he asked for it. The timing is very clever, politically.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 12:50:29 PM
Out of interest why did Reagan have this power, how did he have it and why didn't the Presidents who followed him have it? :mellow:
One-time special good deal. It isn't needed whe Congress is from the President's own party (unless that party is the Democratic Party, in which case he'd never get it! :lol:)
QuoteThe official said 1,000 to 2,000 jobs would be cut, but the administration would do so through attrition; that is, as people routinely leave their jobs over time.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you, Obama.
Quote from: grumbler on January 13, 2012, 07:49:52 PM
One-time special good deal. It isn't needed whe Congress is from the President's own party (unless that party is the Democratic Party, in which case he'd never get it! :lol:)
:hmm: From the article:
QuoteAccording to the White House, presidents held such a reorganizational authority for about 50 years until it ran out during Reagan's presidency in 1984
That makes it sound like it wasn't a one-time deal, it was given when the majority in Congress was from the President's party, and that party was the Democratic party.
It sounds like it makes sense and a lot of folks on both side of party lines should support it.
I'm fearful though of politics and wanting to hurt Obama making the reps oppose it...
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 07:57:57 PM
QuoteThe official said 1,000 to 2,000 jobs would be cut, but the administration would do so through attrition; that is, as people routinely leave their jobs over time.
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you, Obama.
Right now, the NSA is recording this.
OH FUCK, I'm in this thread.
I just got an email asking whether I'd prefer indefinite detention or a nearby drone to get it over with quickly.
I mean, death by airpower? The man's a class act. :wub:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 09:08:13 PM
I just got an email asking whether I'd prefer indefinite detention or a nearby drone to get it over with quickly.
I mean, death by airpower? The man's a class act. :wub:
His killing of brown people by various means redeemed him somewhat in my eyes.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 09:08:13 PM
I just got an email asking whether I'd prefer indefinite detention or a nearby drone to get it over with quickly.
I mean, death by airpower? The man's a class act. :wub:
If you're extra-special nice, he might even drop a nuke. Just for you. :P
Ooh. Hope and change.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 01:10:08 AM
Ooh. Hope and change.
An uncontrolled mutagen change but still.
Smart way to make the Tea Party look bad.