Obama: "I'm going to eliminate three Departments -- Commerce, and, um..."

[The Mad Monk]

Okay folks, **** just got real.

Obama plan merges six agencies, may save $3B

* By David Hubler
* Jan 13, 2012

President Barack Obama today unveiled his plan to consolidate six government agencies into one, effectively eliminating the Commerce Department and saving up to $3 billion in the next decade, according to the administration.

Obama said the consolidation would create a more efficient agency to promote competitiveness, exports and American business, according to the White House website.

Currently, there are six major departments and agencies that focus primarily on business and trade in the federal government -- 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.

Consolidating these agencies along with other related programs, thereby cutting up to 2,000 jobs through attrition, will help entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes grow, compete, and hire, according to the White House. There would be one department with one mission: spur job creation and expand the U.S. economy.

The president asked Congress to grant him the authority to merge the agencies and if lawmakers agree, they would be required to hold an up-or-down vote on the plan within 90 days of its submission.

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/01/13/obama-commerce-cuts.aspx

My first response was "Great! Smaller Government!"

My second response was, "Is he trying to out-Paul Paul!?"

Okay, maybe that was my first response.

But really, is this serious, or just election year antics?

(Yes I know it was Perry, not Paul. But why out Perry Perry?)

[The Mad Monk]

Jan 13, 2012 11:47am
R.I.P., Department of Commerce? President Obama Seeks to Consolidate Government Agencies
Email 75 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print

The Department of Commerce will celebrate its 109th anniversary this year, having been created in 1903. And if President Obama gets his way, the agency won’t make it much past 110.

Announcing this morning that he is seeking authority to streamline the executive branch, President Obama said he needs the same kind 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.”

As an example, the president wants to shut down the Department of Commerce, taking its core functions and giving them to a new agency that will also fold in the tasks of the Small Business Administration, the U.S. Trade Representative, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency and the Export-Import Bank.

The savings the administration claims will come from this move is roughly 1/400th of the $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit that the president formally informed Congress yesterday that he was seeking.

“Right now, there are six departments and agencies focused primarily on business and trade in the federal government,” the president said. “Six. In this case, six isn’t better than one. It’s redundant and inefficient. With the authority I am requesting today, we could consolidate them all into one department with one website, one phone number and one mission – helping American businesses succeed.”

The president added: “This is a big idea. ”

This new agency would be smaller than the sum of its previous parts by up to two thousand employees (which will be lost through attrition, the White House says), and saving $3 billion over the next decade, said Jeffrey Zients, head of management at the Office of Management and Budget.

“We live in a 21st century economy, but we’ve still got a government organized for the 20th century,” President Obama said this morning. “Our economy has fundamentally changed – as has the world – but the government has not. The needs of our citizens have fundamentally changed but their government has not. Instead, it has often grown more complex.”

The president noted that there are “five different entities dealing with housing; more than a dozen agencies involved in food safety. And my favorite example, which I mentioned in last year’s State of the Union Address. As it turns out, the Interior Department is in charge of salmon in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater. Apparently, this all had something to do with President Nixon being unhappy with his Interior Secretary for criticizing the Vietnam War, and so he decided not to put NOAA in what would have been a more sensible place.”

The president is as of today elevating SBA Administrator Karen Mills to a cabinet-level position. However, her position would essentially disappear if Obama’s proposal is enacted as the SBA would be represented in the new Department.

The weather service provided by NOAA and housed in Commerce will become part of the Department of the Interior.

The Census Bureau, also part of Commerce, will combine with the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics and be housed in this new Cabinet-level agency.

“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 a skeptical 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. However, eliminating duplicative programs and making the federal government more simple, streamlined, and business-friendly is always an idea worth exploring. We look forward to hearing more about his proposal.”

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said “Americans want a government that’s simpler, streamlined, and secure. So after presiding over one of the largest expansions of government in history, and a year after raising the issue in his last State of the Union, it’s interesting to see the President finally acknowledge that Washington is out of control. And while we first learned of this proposal this morning in the press, we’ll be sure to give it a careful review once the White House provides us with the details of what it is he wants to do.”

The move might help GOP presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry, who has called for the elimination of three agencies – Commerce, Education, and Energy – but has seemed to struggle with remembering more than two of them.

-Jake Tapper

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/r-i-p-department-of-commerce-president-obama-seeks-to-consolidate-government-agencies/

[DinoDoc]

But really, is this serious, or just election year antics?

Is this a real question?

[Zevico]

First, $3 billion is a smidgen. You've got a trillion (more) dollar yearly budget deficit. This is not a solution. It's window dressing. And it is in fact speculative to even assert that a departmental "consolidation" will give the results posited. Here's why.

And the key point here is that consolidation=! elimination.

The real difference is made not when you consolidate departments but when you abolish or lessen their functions.
If Department A does X, Department B does Y and Department C does Z then creating an overarching Super-Department that does "X,Y, and Z" will still require tremendous resources to undertake the same functions. It's well and good to consolidate departrments, but there should at least be some consideration of the necessity of their respective functions. In other words, which laws are working, and which aren't.

If, for example, a two Departments each do audits for purpose A and B respectively, one Department that teaches its audtitors to undertake functions A and B may be more efficient. Or it could mean too much work to handle, overburden the department and lessen efficiency. Depends on the specifics.

As to this--

My second response was, "Is he trying to out-Paul Paul!?"

Okay, maybe that was my first response.

But really, is this serious, or just election year antics?

(Yes I know it was Perry, not Paul. But why out Perry Perry?)

No. Perry/Paul probably propose to abolish the Department and the regulatory functions that come with it. The Administration thinks it might save some money by firing some people in each department, giving those who remain new titles as "secretary of [new department name]", and telling everyone who remains to do the same job they were doing before (and perhaps some new ones to go with it). Again, that can reduce costs, but the real question when it comes to cost cutting is whether the functions in issue are worth it for the nation.

[Lorizael]

No matter what, I'm sure Republicans will find some way to oppose it.

[Felch]

First, $3 billion is a smidgen. You've got a trillion (more) dollar yearly budget deficit. This is not a solution. It's window dressing.

Zevico is absolutely right. Until America reduces its military spending, and pulls out of absurd overseas commitments, we're never going to solve our budget problem.

[Sava]

when you owe money primarily to yourself
there's no such thing as a budget problem
its numbers on a piece of paper
only useful to those who want to steal money
like finance twits

[Dinner]

No matter what, I'm sure Republicans will find some way to oppose it.

This.

[Sava]

Consolidating these agencies along with other related programs, thereby cutting up to 2,000 jobs through attrition, will help entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes grow, compete, and hire, according to the White House. There would be one department with one mission: spur job creation and expand the U.S. economy.

wtf kinda stupid ass nonsense is this
with 2,000 less people getting paid money, that's 2,000 less people (and their families) buying useless bull****
the government should just pay everyone $50,000 a year for doing nothing
that way, when there are poor people, we can legitimately say its their own damn fault

also free beer and porn for everyone

[Zevico]

Zevico is absolutely right. Until America reduces its military spending, and pulls out of absurd overseas commitments, we're never going to solve our budget problem.

You know, they're only absurd if you basically decide to ignore all the reasons for having those commitments in the first place. I'm not arguing in favour of this commitment or that. I'm saying that reducing a policy argument to platitudes about overseas commitments and nation building is to oversimplify a complex issue. And the risk there is trhat you throw the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, think of it--much of Europe exists today as democratic, free market societies because of American intervention. Do you understand what an immense benefit that has been for American society? It's not just an market--but a market of economic, social and political ideas, new technologies. All of it has had an immense effect on the American economy and people. It's an undoubted benefit derived from an eminently sensible investment--the Cold War. I'm not in favour of war for the sake of war--I'm saying that your defence spending helped preserve the West as we know it and that helped you tons. Defnece spending is not a zero sum game. You benefited from it. All I'm asking is that you think critically about an issue which you seem happy to opine on, but not so happy to consider in light of its practical implications. And I understand that it's not entirely your fault. How often have we seen in this day and age a practical analysis of the benefits of defence spending? It's not a topic on which attention is often devoted anywhere. You had the courage to think for yourself and decide that many government programs were unnecessary. Apply the same courage to a consideration of the US' strategic interests. Then make your decision.

[Aeson]

The Cold War is over. We won it. This is just like once you've taken over the risk board you keep moving armies around to piss off the other eliminated players until they decide to punch you in the face.

[Zevico]

The Cold War is over. We won it. This is just like once you've taken over the risk board you keep moving armies around to piss off the other eliminated players until they decide to punch you in the face.

Just like that? Really? It's these generalisations which are precisely the problem. Politics should not be reduced to a risk board game. The United States will have enemies working against it for the foreseeable future. You won the Cold War: but what of Russia? Or China? Latin America? Or the web of rivalry, hatred, revolution and war in the Middle East today and in the future? These issues and threats matter to you and to your future prosperity. You may not be living in the period known as Cold War anymore but that doesn't mean you should stop thinking strategically.
Think on what defence cuts, specific cuts, could mean. What, in other words, are the costs and benefits of this or that defence cut? What could it mean for the US' strategic interests overseas? The answer in a particular region may be "this defence investment exceeds its benefit." In another area, the opposite could be true. But until you start analysing defence from a cost-benefit point of view, and doing it seriously, then what you're doing is playing a very high risk game without any real attention to its consequences.

[DaShi]

Can't you write concisely? There's a lot of garbage in there meant to obfuscate that you really don't know what you're talking about. If you want to add value to the conversation, start by doing so yourself. Preferably without posting obviously biased articles of dubious accuracy. Just saying.

[DaShi]

Also, post less about what you think of yourself. Comparing you to Ben or Hera is easy enough already.

[DaShi]

Seriously, I've never seen anyone with such poor judgement make so many ill-informed posts with the very intent of making a judgement against others. Well, except for Ben, Hera, and Kid, but I covered that already.