President Obama wants Herbert Hoover/Reagan type powers to shrink federal government

[Better Believe It]

Obama seeks power to merge agencies
By the Associated Press
January 13, 2012

President Barack Obama on Friday took aim at his government's own messy bureaucracy, prodding Congress to give him greater power to merge agencies and promising he would start by collapsing six major economic departments into one. Pressing Republicans on one of their own political issues, Obama said it was time for an "effective, lean government."

Obama wants the type of reorganizational authority last held by a president when Ronald Reagan was in office. Obama's version would be a so-called consolidation authority allowing him to propose only mergers that promise to save money and shrink government. The deal would help Obama considerably by entitling him to an up-or-down vote from Congress in 90 days.

"We can do this better," Obama declared in an event with business owners at the White House, even presenting slides to help make his case.

In an election year and a political atmosphere of tighter spending, Obama's move is about more than improving a giant bureaucracy. He is attempting to directly counter Republican arguments that he has presided over the kind of government regulation, spending and debt that can undermine the economy — a dominant theme of the emerging presidential campaign.

Read the full article at:

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/13/10148099-obama-seeks-power-to-merge-agencies


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Obama proposes reorganizing trade offices
By David Jackson, USA TODAY
January 13, 2012

President Obama asked Congress today to give him the power to make it easier to reorganize the federal government, starting with a plan to combine various offices devoted to international trade.

"We live in a 21st-century economy, but we've still got a government organized for the 20th century," Obama said in remarks at the White House.

Speaking to a group of invited business owners, Obama asked for what is called "fast-track authority." It would enable him -- and future presidents -- to propose specific re0rganizations for up-or-down congressional votes; Congress could not amend or change the plan submitted by the president.

Obama -- who has clashed with Congress in recent months, particularly the Republican-run House -- noted that an early Congress gave reorganization authority to President Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression; (And didn't that just work out great! BBI) it took away that authority during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Read the full article at:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-proposes-re-organizing-trade-offices/1

[MannyGoldstein]

1. You got a problem with slashing jobs in a depression?

Our continued insistence on harming the Middle Class is a wonder.

[SunsetDreams]

2. Which programs is he getting rid of?

[Better Believe It]

4. That's yet to be revealed and this is just the first step in the slimming down reorganization.

But, I'll take President Obama's word for it when he says he intends to reduce the size of the federal government.

That of course will mean a reduction in jobs just like state government cuts have resulted in mass layoffs.

[politicallycorrect]

6. while on the surface it sounds bad. but it would make more a leaner and meaner govt.

[Better Believe It]

14. Right. Isn't that been the talking point of state and local governments when they cut jobs?

They are just being leaner and meaner (toward the government workers).

[politicallycorrect]

15. what exactly is the Presidents argument for these actions?

I feel they are the same as mine.

[sad sally]

16. A Leaner Meaner Government - sounds like a perfect campaign slogan

[politicallycorrect]

17. sounds like the argument the President made in his remarks.

[SunsetDreams]

9. If he is not getting rid of programs,

how do you suppose it will mean that there will be a reduction in overall jobs?

If it hasn't been revealed as you say, and the article doesn't support...then why is it characterized as slimming down, downsizing or shrinking?

[Better Believe It]

19. "why is it characterized as slimming down" Because that's the outcome of merging gov't departments

And that's the outcome of both government department mergers and private corporate mergers .... fewer workers and major layoffs.

That's the outcome. That a major purpose of such mergers. I hope you don't think the purpose is to create tens of thousands of new federal government jobs. President Obama has made it clear that is not his intention. Perhaps you should read his statement at the White House website on his proposal. Do you need a White House link?

This is Economics 101.

And you understand that.

Right?

Before President can detail what kinds of government department mergers he will propose to Congress he must first get authority from Congress to pursue his job cutting strategy.

Do you need more information on how legislation is presented to Congress by the President?

[Robb]

24. Can you cite an example?

Can you cite an example of two sizable federal agencies that have merged and resulted in "major layoffs"?

[SunsetDreams]

26. BBI, I'm detecting

condescending undertones in your post. Should I be worried?

"Do you need more information on how legislation is presented to Congress by the President?"

No actually I don't, and I'm not sure where you got that idea from my post.

My question to you was in a nutshell this: If programs are not being removed, then why on earth would you characterize it as shrinking government?

Nowhere have I been condescending to you...I expect the same treatment. I enjoy your posts, they actually do help me in reading different sides of an argument. However this particular one, I am just not seeing your characterization.

Edited to add: It's not just your characterization, it's the authors' as well. You have endorsed that characterization, which is why I am asking you the question.

[Better Believe It]

36. "why on earth would you characterize it as shrinking government?" Because that is what President

Obama is proposing to do. Leaner and meaner!

Read the articles and Obama's official statement.

Are you aware of the fact the state and local governments have also merged departments and that private employers have merged companies in order to cut their payrolls?

Assuming you are aware of this history, why do you think federal department mergers will not result in any layoffs.

Perhaps you can cite some recent examples or even older examples under Presidents Herbert Hoover or Ronald Reagan.

[FarLeftFist]

43. Can't mergers also mean no layoffs just merging dept's saving $ on paperwork/supplies?

It's not like it saves a hell of alot of money, isn't it like $3 billion over 10 years? This is more of a political strategy it seems.

[jwirr]

5. Consolidating is not "getting rid of". He is taking many of the business related programs in the

government and consolidating them into one office. Yes some of the top people in many of those offices will lose their jobs. But the programs will continue and probably work better when they are working together.

[JoePhilly]

8. Shuuuush ... you're ruining the manufactured outrage parade.

[jwirr]

11. Oh! Sorry.

[SunsetDreams]

18. lol I know that

The OP characterized it as "shrinking", which is why I asked that

[Better Believe It]

21. And only "top" management people will be laid off. Right.

We need a meaner government for sure.

[JoePhilly]

28. I'm hearing that as people retire and leave these areas, they simply won't be back filled.

A fairly common approach to consolidation.

Or we can flip out and run screaming.

[Better Believe It]

38. Ahhhhhh! You're "hearing" but you don't know. Might one call that a cut in government jobs?

Assuming that's the job cutting method you're "hearing" about is the one that will be deployed to reduce the federal governments payrolls and employees.

President Obama won't present his plan until after Congress gives him the authority to present the plan to Congress for an up and down vote. First things first!

[JoePhilly]

39. Ahhh ... but I did not post an OP with a misleading headline.

I have a good friend who works for the government in DC. His organization has been "consolidated" numerous times.

He's also told me that it is extremely rare for the federal government to simply lay off people. That's not what they do.

First, there is always what you might call "natural attrition" within an organization ... people "choose to leave" ... this means that every years, some people may decide to retire, some may move to new jobs in some other part of the federal government (often as a career enhancement), and some will have decided to leave the federal government and go to the private sector (for more money).

When an organization is overstaffed, these people, who leave of their own choice, are not back filled. You simply don't replace them.

Second, there is also what's called "managed attrition" ... this is the process in which you ask certain people to leave based on poor performance. I think you would agree that at times, any organization might find the need to fire employees based on "poor performance".

The Federal government does VERY LITTLE of this. The process of firing some one for performance in the Federal government requires numerous bureaucratic steps. It requires lots of documentation. It usually requires the creation of an improvement plan, and then a formally specified time period in which the individual either "improves" or gets fired. The process is so arduous, that its very rare.

But look, I understand your perspective ... you see, to enter most of these discussions of the Obama administration, and its actions, starting with the "Obama is about to do something bad" perspective. Which is fine. From that position, sure, one can argue that Obama is about to fire innocent government workers in these agencies without any consideration of what the right thing to do actually is.

Probably why you mention Hoover in your title, but ignore that this same ability was available for every President up to Reagan.

[jwirr]

29. Actually I don't think we can be sure who will be laid off but it is certain that some of the top

will. I would assume that if the programs are consolidated that there will still be a need for the people who still do the record keeping and stuff like that.

We are between the devil and the deep blue sea on issues like this. If government continues to cost more the rethugs are going to use this to push for getting rid of the whole program. On the other hand if we consolidate and bring costs down then we add to unemployment. Damned either way.

As the user of the safety net for years I learned the hard way that if things are not done to keep costs down then we lose the programs. I am not saying it is good just that it is reality.

[sad sally]

25. The plan isn't to get rid of anything - it's to consolidate six into one,

U.S. Department of Commerce’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 U.S. Trade and Development Agency.

Then it will take a new giant czar to oversee this new and improved agency, which will need all new technology so they can all be integrated, which won't cost a dime. And of course, all the old departments in the new improved agency will get along just fine and congress, who probably has pet earmarks in each one, will eagerly approve of the changes.

Anybody who has ever worked in a government agency knows all about the appointees and consultants who each new administration adds on make everything better and all confusion is eliminated.

[joeybee12]

7. He wants more power...

And future repuke presidents will have more power...a big no to this idea.

[dawg]

10. This sounds like mosly like housekeeping to me.

I'm not going to overreact and criticize until there is a good reason to do so. Consolidation of duplicated duties is almost always a good thing, it helps the government do it's job more effectively.

[Better Believe It]

23. Good point. Don't "criticize" or sound the alarm on potential government layoffs until ....

after they have happened and it's too late to stop them!

Now that's Effective Political Action 101!

Thanks for your advice.

[dawg]

34. I doubt very seriously that this would involve very many people losing their jobs.

But if the President can administer the same programs more efficiently, I don't have a problem with letting him make those choices. This whole thing is probably 99% election-year public relations b.s. anyway.

Let me clarify, I am very much against budget cuts when unemployment is still above 8%, but this doesn't sound like anything substantial. And I have long since given up any hope that the President would make a spirited public defense of government-spending as a remedy for insufficient demand in the economy.

[SidDithers]

12. Awesome thread title...

Sid

[JoePhilly]

32. All that's was missing was this ...

Obama has yet to deny that he kicks puppies competitively for distance and accuracy
By Bob Upndown
January 13, 2012

Some say Obama kicked this puppy over 30 feet, it did a somersault, and then landed in a glass of water.



The Obama administration has yet to deny these allegations, which if true, demonstrate that he only bought Bo the White House dog, as a campaign stunt to win over the lobbyists for "Big Dog".

[joshcryer]

47. Would've been better if it said "Obama seeking Chavez-like decree powers!"

I would've cracked the fuck up!

[phleshdef]

13. Any system should be cleaned up and streamlined from time to time.

[librechik]

20. Hoover and Reagan--The Repubs ought to love this, right?

He's doing just what they asked him to do!

[snagglepuss]

22. The global 1% are calling the shots. The Guardian UK has a great piece

about Cameron blaming the public sector for the economic woes while letting banks off the hook. It is no coincidence that Cameron, Obama and others are marching to the same tune.

snip

Since Lehman Brothers went under, I've watched in awe as the right transformed a crisis of the market into a crisis of public spending. Even as a battery of cuts suck jobs and growth out of the economy, Cameron's Tories still define the political debate. Despite winning just 36% of the vote, they look increasingly like Britain's third radically transformative government since the war – the other two being the Attlee and Thatcher administrations.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/13/david-cameron-cynical-propaganda

[ProSense]

27. So

Obama wants the type of reorganizational authority last held by a president when Ronald Reagan was in office. Obama's version would be a so-called consolidation authority allowing him to propose only mergers that promise to save money and shrink government. The deal would help Obama considerably by entitling him to an up-or-down vote from Congress in 90 days.

...Obama wants the executive authority Presidents up to Reagan enjoyed and an "up-or-down vote from Congress"?

This doesn't seem scary. If it was good enough for FDR, Truman, LBJ and Carter, it should be good enough for Obama.

[Robb]

31. "President Obama wants FDR/Carter type powers" doesn't have the same ring, though.

[SidDithers]

33. Excellent...

Sid

[joshcryer]

44. Ouch.

[emulatorloo]

30. You've topped yourself re Misleading Headlines

[Ikonoklast]

37. Give BBi time, today is still young.

Poor BBi, worrying about some political funtionary losing their sinecure!

Crocodile tears shed in an oblique attack against power that the Executive has held in this nation since, well, forever.

[mythology]

41. And you can be certain that he'll try.

Over and over and over again.

[Better Believe It]

42. Misleading? Obama wants the presidential power that Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan had.

That's made very clear in the articles.

Read the articles!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Downsizing? Restructuring? Getting rid of the "dead wood"? Where have we heard that before?

[joshcryer]

45. Venezuela?

Fucking gold.

[Better Believe It]

40. We all understand what "shrinking" and "downsizing" the government means. Nothing to spin here!

Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2012, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Even the most inventive political spin can't paint a pretty face on this obvious proposal to "save" money and cut jobs by merging government agencies. This has been happening for several years now at the state and local levels. And now it's going to happen on the federal level. The proposed merger is only the first of several federal agency mergers that will be proposed should legislation be passed approving the increased presidential powers.

Do we really want to "seize" and champion Republican demands for a "leaner and meaner" government, something Republicans have been pushing for years now? BBI



Obama Bid to Cut the Government Tests Congress
By MARK LANDLER and ANNIE LOWREY
January 13, 2012

President Obama on Friday announced an aggressive campaign to shrink the size of the federal government, a proposal less notable for its goal — the fight against bloat has been embraced by every modern-day president — than for the political challenge it poses to a hostile Congress.

The White House estimated that the consolidation would save $3 billion over 10 years and result in reductions of 1,000 to 2,000 jobs. The savings is a mere rounding error in the $3.7 trillion annual budget, but the numbers may be less important than the message that Mr. Obama wants to cut wasteful spending.

By putting the onus on Congress to provide authority for streamlining the government, Mr. Obama is seizing a core Republican issue — the inexorable growth of the public sector in recent decades — and trying to turn it to his advantage. Even his language was reminiscent of Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential front-runner, who says he would use his experience in business to make government more efficient.

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/politics/obama-to-ask-congress-for-power-to-merge-agencies.html

So what other "core Republican" economic issues should President Obama embrace to win some conservative business votes and money in this election? BBI

[NashvilleLefty]

46. Equating Obama with Hoover and Regan? Oh, come on!

That's bullshit and everyone knows it.

Obama has long advocated eliminating waste "with a scapel", not a hatchet.

This is just plain incendiary and un-productive.

[Fumesucker]

50. A hatchet is much more effective for clearing out "dead wood" than is a scalpel..

[killbotfactory]

49. rule by decree!!!!