+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: Obama seeks authority to continue to shrink goverment

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    5,000
    Country: United States

    Obama seeks authority to continue to shrink goverment

    Obama proposes consolidating six agencies - The Washington Post great graphic
    MELISSA BLOCK, HOST:

    From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block.

    AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

    And I'm Audie Cornish.

    Call it a gesture, call it an election year conversion. President Obama called it a step in the right direction. He announced today that he wants to combine half a dozen agencies into one with the mission of promoting trade and commerce at home and abroad.

    As NPR's Scott Horsley reports, it's part of a broader government streamlining effort that the president says he wants to undertake if Congress gives the okay.

    SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Boosting the U.S. economy is President Obama's top priority, but he says it's harder to help small businesses and promote exports when the task is scattered across six different government agencies.

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: In this case, six is not better than one.

    HORSLEY: Mr. Obama wants to consolidate large parts of the Commerce Department, the Small Business Administration, the U.S. Trade Representative and other agencies under a single Cabinet secretary. Before he can do that, he needs a green light from Congress.

    OBAMA: With the authority that I'm requesting today, we could consolidate them all into one department with one website, one phone number, one mission, helping American businesses succeed.

    HORSLEY: The White House says the move would eliminate one to 2,000 government jobs through attrition and save taxpayers $3 billion over the next decade. Mr. Obama told an audience of small business owners at the White House today the consolidation would also improve service.

    OBAMA: Go talk to ordinary Americans, including some of the small business leaders here today, they'll tell you that to deal with government on a regular basis is not always the highlight of their day.

    HORSLEY: I decided to call Roy Paulson, the owner of a California manufacturing firm who's gotten help from the Commerce Department to boost his sales overseas. Paulson had high praise for the hardworking employees at Commerce and the Small Business Administration, but he admits it can be difficult to navigate the government's bureaucratic maze.

    ROY PAULSON: You almost need a GPS to figure out the U.S. government. I know that in the U.S. government they are also frustrated because they themselves get confused and don't know what to do.

    HORSLEY: Paulson says in his own business, he needs to step back occasionally and see if there's a way to operate more efficiently. He thinks the government should do the same.

    PAULSON: This reorganization that the president is discussing not only could be applied to commerce. But let's assume that it was a good model, what they achieve there, he could apply that into other areas also.

    HORSLEY: In fact, Mr. Obama's asking Congress for the power to streamline other parts of the government where agencies overlap. Each reorganization would be subject to lawmaker's up or down vote.

    OBAMA: This is the same sort of authority that every business owner has to make sure that his or her company keeps pace with the times. And let me be clear. I will only use this authority for reforms that result in more efficiency, better service and a leaner government.

    HORSLEY: Congressional Republicans expressed a grudging willingness to consider the president's proposals, though some were skeptical about whether Mr. Obama would be interested in shrinking the federal bureaucracy if this were not an election year
    Obama Seeks To Streamline The Federal Government : NPR audio also available
    Obama seeks power to merge agencies, starting with trade, commerce, in election-year pitch
    By Associated Press, Published: January 13
    WASHINGTON — Seeking more power to shrink the government, President Barack Obama on Friday suggested smashing six economic agencies into one, an election-year idea intended to halt bureaucratic nightmares and force Republicans to back him on one of their own favorite issues.

    “The government we have is not the government we need,” Obama told business owners he’d gathered at the White House. Lawmakers seemed willing to at least consider his ideas.

    Sounding like a manager of a disorganized company, and looking like one by pointing to slides as he spoke, Obama asked Congress to give him a kind of reorganization power no president has had since Ronald Reagan. It would guarantee Obama a vote, within 90 days, on any idea he offers to consolidate agencies, provided it saves money and cuts the government.

    His first potential target: Merging six major trade and commerce agencies into a one-stop-shopping department for American businesses. The Commerce Department would be among those that would cease to exist.

    Attacking senseless duplication across the executive branch he runs, Obama said: “Why is it OK for our government? It’s not. It has to change.”

    Politically, Obama is seeking advantage on the turf often owned by Republicans: Smaller government.

    He is attempting to directly counter Republican arguments that he has presided over the kind of regulation, spending and debt that can undermine the economy — a dominant theme of this year’s debate and one often cited by his potential re-election rival, Republican Mitt Romney.

    Obama said he would use his expanded authority to recommend the collapsing of other agencies across the government, not just in the business field, without getting specific. Congress would keep the final say over any proposal. But fast-track power would give Obama a stronger hand to skip much of the outside lobbying and turf battles and get right to a vote.

    Congressional reaction was mixed, but generally followed a pattern from both parties — support for making government more efficient, and wariness about how Obama’s plan could upend the trade American trade agenda or undermine the prerogatives of Congress.

    Republicans skeptically pointed to Obama’s past promises as the size of the nation’s debt keeps growing.

    “It’s not often that we see real proposals from this administration to make government smaller,” said Rep. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “I look forward to reviewing the proposal and hope that it will be the first of many to unravel the red tape.”

    Indeed, Obama promised more plans to shrink things if given more power, citing inefficiencies all across the government.

    In an unusual united front that underscored some bipartisan skepticism, the chairmen of two of Congress’ most powerful committees joined in a statement that questioned the president’s desire to wrap the U.S. Trade Representative office into a new agency. The House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont, said government cannot be reduced “at the expense of programs that are helping businesses, ranchers and farmers create jobs.”

    For Obama, it was all about common sense.

    He spoke of business people who deal with the government as part of their daily life and are exasperated by a maze of agencies, permits and websites.

    “We can do this better,” he told them. “So much of the argument out there all the time is up in 40,000 feet, these abstract arguments about who’s conservative or who’s liberal. ...You guys are just trying to figure out, how do we make things work? How do we apply common sense? And that’s what this is about.”

    Obama had an imperative to deliver. He made the promise to come up with a smart reorganization of the government in his State of the Union speech last January.

    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.

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she hoped Congress would quickly approve Obama’s proposal, which she said tracked with worries Democrats have been hearing from small business owners.

    Beyond the politics, the merger Obama offered would have big implications for trade and commerce in America.

    Presidents held a fast-track reorganizational authority for about 50 years until it ran out during Reagan’s presidency in 1984, the White House argued.

    Obama wants to merge: 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 White House says 1,000 to 2,000 jobs would be cut, but the administration would do so through attrition. The administration says the consolidation would save $3 billion over 10 years by getting rid of duplicative overhead and programs, although it has yet to spell out any plan in detail.

    Obama’s announcement treads on ground that Romney, the Republican front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, frequently stakes out on the campaign trail. Romney often says he would try to shrink government by eliminating offices that duplicate functions performed somewhere else, citing as examples more than 80 different workforce training programs.

    Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said streamlining government was always a potentially good idea but expressed suspicion about whether the plan by Obama would really help business. Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, pledged Obama’s plan would get a careful review.

    But he added: “It’s interesting to see the president finally acknowledge that Washington is out of control.”

    Obama seeks power to merge agencies, starting with trade, commerce, in election-year pitch - The Washington Post

    It's good goverment and the drift in mission as well as the overlap should never of been allowed. Frankly the dysfunctional divided responsibility that in some cases goes back 40 yrs from what I have read should never of occurred. I honestly didnt realize the NOAA wasnt interior. I only hope the cases where the duplication of efforts and inefficencies were done as either rewards or punishment based on political loyalty isn't one repeated often. IMO that kind of action is intolerable reguardless of party.

    On the political side like the Healthcare mandate originally floated and backed by conservative groups and republicans this not only is good goverment it is another example of the President's excellent political instincts. It should be done and after clamoring for it and having elimination of agencies a regular talking point in republican debates I can't see how it could play well if congress blocked this too. They block it it strengthens the narrative the mission is to prevent the President from governing. If they back him it might put a few cracks in the republican charges about explosive growth in goverment under Obama. I believed he had grown the goverment signifigantly till I looked at goverment growth researching the story. Total Government Employment Since 1962 Despite a population increase of 50 million we have less federal employees than 1996 Federal jobs fast becoming an endangered species - Fortune Management The bottom chart is from the BLS. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/10/art3full.pdf
    Attached Images  
    Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
    ~Ronald Reagan

  2. #2
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    11,793
    Country: United States
    Where's his fierce urgency of now?

    -dale

  3. #3

    Join Date
    04 Apr 11
    Posts
    431
    Country: United States
    I really don't get it either - he's had years to undertake this, and I think it's simply a whitewash for his expansion of federal government - an attempt to mitigate criticism in this regard in advance of the election.

    In all of these years - why hasn't he presented a comprehensive plan proposing a precise strategy for effecting this? The GAO issued a comprehensive report on redundant government programs last March - yet there's only talk on the issue eight months out.

    I believed he had grown the goverment signifigantly till I looked at goverment growth researching the story.
    Despite a population increase of 50 million we have less federal employees than 1996
    You have to take into consideration federal contractors.

    Anybody whose wage is paid from a contract with the federal government must be included alongside federal employees.

    Therefore, it's useless to look at strictly the official federal payroll, and come to conclusions about the number of employees employed by the federal government.

    As far as expansion in employment - the employed civilian labor force in December 2011 was 140.8 million (source). There were 142.2 million employed in January 2009 - we still have a net loss of 1.4 million in employment from the time Obama took office.

    The graph you've posted is not present in the publication you claim it was from.
    Attached Images  
    Last edited by tgbyhn; 15 Jan 12, at 13:29.

  4. #4
    Contributor
    Join Date
    16 Sep 10
    Posts
    303
    Country: United States
    And what do we get from a merger of Dept.s and Agencies? Less government for the same price. This is exactly how the system has become what it is today, and is just another exercise from the bureaucracy playbook ( find a need, get it funded, eliminate the need, redirect that funding to your pet project)

    Obama is an idea-log. Look closely and you will see that this is a straw man. A way for him to make it look like he is doing something, when he really is not. He really is a master at it. If there ever was a thing as a 'sheep in wolves clothing' he is it. The mere fact that Pelosi is on board, makes it suspect. If they are going to eliminate a Govt. function ( their word would be streamline) shouldn't there be a corresponding tax cut?

    Now when he starts talking about actually cutting something, like HUD, or welfare, or the debt, then I'll believe (cautiously).
    Don't listen to me, I'm a wack job.

  5. #5
    New Member
    Join Date
    10 Jan 12
    Location
    Fort Wayne IN
    Posts
    8
    Country: United States
    How many of those "public" workers was Federal non-postal employees? Have those numbers grown or dropped in the last 3 years?

    I do not think a graph of total public workers from city - county - state - post office - federal can prove that Obama did anything but have a horrible economy.

  6. #6
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    5,000
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by scruffer View Post
    How many of those "public" workers was Federal non-postal employees? Have those numbers grown or dropped in the last 3 years?

    I do not think a graph of total public workers from city - county - state - post office - federal can prove that Obama did anything but have a horrible economy.
    actually it doesnt prove anything it disproves the assertion he greatly expanded federal payrolls. As to the ecomomy one of the wuestions we fail to ask is what doing what the opposition wished when they wished it would of done.
    Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
    ~Ronald Reagan

  7. #7

    Join Date
    04 Apr 11
    Posts
    431
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
    actually it doesnt prove anything it disproves the assertion he greatly expanded federal payrolls. As to the ecomomy one of the wuestions we fail to ask is what doing what the opposition wished when they wished it would of done.
    Federal employees means nothing.

    Federal employees + federal contractors is the only way to assess the number of people on the federal payroll.

  8. #8
    Contributor
    Join Date
    16 Sep 10
    Posts
    303
    Country: United States
    By the way, you might want to check, I THINK I recently read in the Federal Daily that federal employees just received a .5% pay increase. It's happy days if you work for the Fed! I guess that's their idea of sharing the pain. Go OBAMA!

    As an edit, I could not find where I read about a Fed payroll increase. Mabey someone else could verify.

    And, to be accurate, Fed employees are coming off of a 2 year pay freeze. However, a 3 year Fed pay freeze, matched to the proposed private sector payroll tax cut, just failed in the Senate.
    Last edited by Laser; 17 Jan 12, at 20:48.
    Don't listen to me, I'm a wack job.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    5,000
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by tgbyhn View Post
    Federal employees means nothing.

    Federal employees + federal contractors is the only way to assess the number of people on the federal payroll.
    Yeah that's called privatization but you really didntprovide any evidence that number had grown substantially and traditionally I think everyone would agree privatization isnt stronger under democrats
    Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
    ~Ronald Reagan

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Posts
    4,339
    Country: Macedonia
    I have a question...

    Does anyone know what is the % of GDP spent for fed/state/contractor salaries compared by years?

    The number of employees is smaller then 30-40 years ago, but do you pay less and do you get same or better level of services.

    If you pay less and get the same, nothing to complain.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  11. #11
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    13,648
    Country: United States
    Personally, I do see how this claim can be made when the Administrative Branch section of government has never ceased to stop growing.

    Kill the stupid projects and adjust the laws to suit modern times IMO. That may produce tangible results they can brag about.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  12. #12
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    9,165
    Country: United States
    laser,

    By the way, you might want to check, I THINK I recently read in the Federal Daily that federal employees just received a .5% pay increase. It's happy days if you work for the Fed! I guess that's their idea of sharing the pain. Go OBAMA!
    more accurately, it's happy days if you work in the financial industry, where their salaries have not been frozen for two years with a proposed 0.5% pay increase for the third year...

    the proposed 0.5% increase is minimal compared to the cost of living increases here in DC; for instance, my rent went up 30% in the last two years!
    The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"

    -Leo Tolstoy
    War and Peace

  13. #13
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    5,000
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Laser View Post
    By the way, you might want to check, I THINK I recently read in the Federal Daily that federal employees just received a .5% pay increase. It's happy days if you work for the Fed! I guess that's their idea of sharing the pain. Go OBAMA!
    A one half of one percent increase after giving back something like 2.5 percent the last year and a half. Here is a wider picture. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/94-971_20100120.pdf I have to agree federal workers should be recieving slower increases than the private sector for a while. The increases before the recession were extremely generous when compared to cpi increases and the deficits projected this decade even w/o the great recession
    Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
    ~Ronald Reagan

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    5,000
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    I have a question...

    Does anyone know what is the % of GDP spent for fed/state/contractor salaries compared by years?

    The number of employees is smaller then 30-40 years ago, but do you pay less and do you get same or better level of services.

    If you pay less and get the same, nothing to complain.
    I have always believed privatization was about rewarding corporate supporters of both parties at the expense of federal taxpayers. there is no track record of all the projected savings becoming actual savings
    Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
    ~Ronald Reagan

  15. #15

    Join Date
    04 Apr 11
    Posts
    431
    Country: United States
    Yeah that's called privatization but you really didntprovide any evidence that number had grown substantially and traditionally I think everyone would agree privatization isnt stronger under democrats
    And federal departments/agencies weren't required to furnish data on the number employed in federal contract/grant jobs until required to do so in FY2011 by the OBM. The reports aren't in yet to the best of my knowledge.

    The number of those employed by federal contract/grant jobs isn't precisely known, however, is at least 4-5 times the number of federal employees.

    Here's a chart documenting the expansion in direct federal employment over the last several years (source).

    Corroborated by OPM's FedScope: FedScope - Employment Cubes (Enhanced Interface)

    Whomever is claiming the federal government employment has shrunk since Jan 2009 is using skewed data in very misleading ways.

    Most government employment loss has occurred on the local level, in the education sector. Federal employment has not fallen, it has expanded.
    Attached Images    
    Last edited by tgbyhn; 18 Jan 12, at 03:54.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. FCC wants to shrink the "broadband gap"
    By gunnut in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11 Nov 11,, 01:46
  2. The Problem with Centalized Authority
    By Shek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23 Jun 08,, 19:44
  3. Fall Down Abulgarian Goverment
    By SEDRIC in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Feb 07,, 16:44
  4. Moral Authority?
    By kmchugh in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 06 Oct 05,, 05:28

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts