Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: APNewsBreak: Obama seeks power to merge agencies

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,275

    APNewsBreak: Obama seeks power to merge agencies

    I am glad to see Obama make a move to make government smaller and more efficient. I am surprised to see this from Obama though. Hopefully it is a real move to start to streamline the government and not just a political move since the election is close. I would have liked to have seen a move like this in his first year but better late than never.

    [QUOTE]
    APNewsBreak: Obama seeks power to merge agencies

    Jan 13, 7:45 AM (ET)

    By BEN FELLER

    [FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][SIZE=2][COLOR=black] WASHINGTON (AP) - President 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.

    [B] 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.[/B]


    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.
    [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,563
    100% political move.

    Won't follow up with this after November, guaranteed.

  3. #3
    Give Obama his due, he is quite good at putting (R) in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don't, and stealing their thunder.

    He did it with the Social Security Tax Cut Extention, and he's doing it again here. By election day Obama will be the tax cutting, Govt. "reducing" candidate.

    Meanwhile Romney can't go ten feet without shoving his foot in his mouth.

    This election is going to be a laugher.

  4. #4
    I hope they do grant him this power. Then more so I hope it carries over to the next administration. Obama in his State of the Union/Jobs Plan talked a good game about taking executive action to reduce some budensome regulation as well. That has yet to happen but it sounded good in a speech. Props if government is streamlined in any way due to this. GOP should approve this request.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4327972]Give Obama his due, he is quite good at putting (R) in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don't, and stealing their thunder.

    He did it with the Social Security Tax Cut Extention, and he's doing it again here. By election day Obama will be the tax cutting, Govt. "reducing" candidate.

    Meanwhile Romney can't go ten feet without shoving his foot in his mouth.

    This election is going to be a laugher.[/QUOTE]

    Patrick Ramsey

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4328037]Patrick Ramsey[/QUOTE]

    I hate these bulls--t responses.

    Poster A makes a great point.

    Poster B ignores the point and talks about a time Poster A was wrong, about a totally different subject matter, more than 5 years ago.

    It happens to me with Drob/Gholston and it happens to Warfish with Ramsey.

    No matter how many times I admit wrong, people still throw it up there. I could be right about 100 things, people will still bring up Drob. as if I was the one who passed the card in at Radio city music hall.

    the difference between posters like us and posters like you is we have the balls to a) say something that isn't obvious and b) stick to the same username for years after we said it.

    maybe it's a compliment. Chiefs I could sit here and try to remember at time, 5 years ago, when you were wrong about something football related.

    But honestly your viewpoints don't make that much of an impact.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4328037]Patrick Ramsey[/QUOTE]

    Aye, I also predicted a Jets 8-8 finish this year. ;) What was your prediction? Do you even post on football, now that I think about it?

    And of course, I've got a few dozen other NFL/Jets things perfectly correct since ol' Ramsey. Like Shotty not being the answer at O-Co, or Mangini being a bad choice for HC, etc, etc, etc.

    The fact you'd have to dig that deep (and non-politics related) to find something I've been wrong about shows how terrified you are that I'm right, that Romney is going to get tarred, from the right as vastly too liberal/moderate/floppy, and from the left as a job killing millionaire corporatist, and the combo will ride the Obama back into office.

    It's ok Chiefs, just admit you're a Mass. style Romney-liberal moderate party-loyalist, and we can move on to have an honest discussion.;):D:P

  8. #8
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,570
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4327972]Give Obama his due, he is quite good at putting (R) in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don't, and stealing their thunder.

    He did it with the Social Security Tax Cut Extention, and he's doing it again here. By election day Obama will be the tax cutting, Govt. "reducing" candidate.

    Meanwhile Romney can't go ten feet without shoving his foot in his mouth.

    This election is going to be a laugher.[/QUOTE]

    I don't think it's going to be a laugher (it'll be closer than '08) but its true that Obama is much more savvy a politician than Romney. It might come down to the strength and skill of both candidates' advisors. Obama's team has an arrogant streak on them that can backfire on their candidate.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,563
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4328055]I hate these bulls--t responses.

    Poster A makes a great point.

    Poster B ignores the point and talks about a time Poster A was wrong, about a totally different subject matter, more than 5 years ago.

    It happens to me with Drob/Gholston and it happens to Warfish with Ramsey.

    No matter how many times I admit wrong, people still throw it up there. I could be right about 100 things, people will still bring up Drob. as if I was the one who passed the card in at Radio city music hall.

    the difference between posters like us and posters like you is we have the balls to a) say something that isn't obvious and b) stick to the same username for years after we said it.

    maybe it's a compliment. Chiefs I could sit here and try to remember at time, 5 years ago, when you were wrong about something football related.

    But honestly your viewpoints don't make that much of an impact.[/QUOTE]

    This entire post reminds me of your old ones about Gholston.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4328061]Aye, I also predicted a Jets 8-8 finish this year. ;) What was your prediction? Do you even post on football, now that I think about it?

    And of course, I've got a few dozen other NFL/Jets things perfectly correct since ol' Ramsey. Like Shotty not being the answer at O-Co, or Mangini being a bad choice for HC, etc, etc, etc.

    The fact you'd have to dig that deep (and non-politics related) to find something I've been wrong about shows how terrified you are that I'm right, that Romney is going to get tarred, from the right as vastly too liberal/moderate/floppy, and from the left as a job killing millionaire corporatist, and the combo will ride the Obama back into office.

    It's ok Chiefs, just admit you're a Mass. style Romney-liberal moderate party-loyalist, and we can move on to have an honest discussion.;):D:P[/QUOTE]

    I do post on Football just less than here. Used to do a lot on salary cap issues but Jason eventually became so good at it that my contributions were no longer necessary there. I'm bustin your ballz about your Romney will lose predictions is all. You seem a bit sensitive this morning.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4328055]I hate these bulls--t responses.

    Poster A makes a great point.

    Poster B ignores the point and talks about a time Poster A was wrong, about a totally different subject matter, more than 5 years ago.

    It happens to me with Drob/Gholston and it happens to Warfish with Ramsey.

    No matter how many times I admit wrong, people still throw it up there. I could be right about 100 things, people will still bring up Drob. as if I was the one who passed the card in at Radio city music hall.

    the difference between posters like us and posters like you is we have the balls to a) say something that isn't obvious and b) stick to the same username for years after we said it.

    maybe it's a compliment. Chiefs I could sit here and try to remember at time, 5 years ago, when you were wrong about something football related.

    But honestly your viewpoints don't make that much of an impact.[/QUOTE]

    DROB/Gholston

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4328055]I hate these bulls--t responses.

    Poster A makes a great point.

    Poster B ignores the point and talks about a time Poster A was wrong, about a totally different subject matter, more than 5 years ago.

    It happens to me with Drob/Gholston and it happens to Warfish with Ramsey.

    No matter how many times I admit wrong, people still throw it up there. I could be right about 100 things, people will still bring up Drob. as if I was the one who passed the card in at Radio city music hall.

    the difference between posters like us and posters like you is we have the balls to a) say something that isn't obvious and b) stick to the same username for years after we said it.

    maybe it's a compliment. Chiefs I could sit here and try to remember at time, 5 years ago, when you were wrong about something football related.

    But honestly your viewpoints don't make that much of an impact.[/QUOTE]


    I've been here since 2003 with the same user name and password posting sometimes controversial opinions both here and in football that I stand behind to this day. When I've been wrong about something I admit it. Even apologized to one or two folks for things that were written incorrectly. Get off your high horse and get a sense of humor.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4328061]Aye, I also predicted a Jets 8-8 finish this year. ;) What was your prediction? Do you even post on football, now that I think about it?

    And of course, I've got a few dozen other NFL/Jets things perfectly correct since ol' Ramsey. Like Shotty not being the answer at O-Co, or Mangini being a bad choice for HC, etc, etc, etc.

    The fact you'd have to dig that deep (and non-politics related) to find something I've been wrong about shows how terrified you are that I'm right, that Romney is going to get tarred, from the right as vastly too liberal/moderate/floppy, and from the left as a job killing millionaire corporatist, and the combo will ride the Obama back into office.

    It's ok Chiefs, just admit you're a Mass. style Romney-liberal moderate party-loyalist, and we can move on to have an honest discussion.;):D:P[/QUOTE]

    I agree with Jim Demint, Nikki Haley and Jack Welch that Romney is the best person for the job. You are clearly more worried about so called flops on social issues or something I'm not really sure. You have said that you wont be voting this election anyway so whats the difference. Its easy to sit here and criticize candidates but the reality is that there is no perfect candidate. Of the group that ran Romney is the most qualified, has the best experience and will do the best job. Its that simple.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,275
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4328152]I agree with Jim Demint, Nikki Haley and Jack Welch that Romney is the best person for the job. You are clearly more worried about so called flops on social issues or something I'm not really sure. You have said that you wont be voting this election anyway so whats the difference. Its easy to sit here and criticize candidates but the reality is that [B]there is no perfect candidate[/B]. Of the group that ran Romney is the most qualified, has the best experience and will do the best job. Its that simple.[/QUOTE]

    I think this is the real thing. You have to prioritize the issues for yourself and then pick the candidate that comes closest to your ideals based on your priorities. I am sure some have make or break issues as well, such as abortion, that could stop you from voting for anyone. Thankfully I am not in that position. I feel fiscal responsibility and smaller government are the most important things for me and I think any of the Republican candidates will be stronger in those areas than Obama is even with his token gesture that I posted earlier today.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4328129]You seem a bit sensitive this morning.[/QUOTE]

    See that, and after I went to the effort to make sure I put ;):D:P at the end, to indicate exactly the opposite. I wear my Ramsey Jets Jersey with Pride, thank you very much! :D

    [QUOTE]You have said that you wont be voting this election anyway so whats the difference.[/QUOTE]

    If the (R) nominee is Romney, no, I won't vote for him and will convince as many friends to not vote for him as possible. So let me count...me (1) and wife (2) and.....er, thats it.

    I'll most likely vote Libertarian, or Ron Paul if he runs Third Party (which I hope he does, thats where he belongs tbh).
    Last edited by Warfish; 01-13-2012 at 11:32 AM.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,563
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4328190]See that, and after I went to the effort to make sure I put ;):D:P at the end, to indicate exactly the opposite. I wear my Ramsey Jets Jersey with Pride, thank you very much! :D



    If the (R) nominee is Romney, no, I won't vote for him and will convince as many friends to not vote for him as possible. So let me count...me (1) and wife (2) and.....er, thats it.

    [B]I'll most likely vote Libertarian[/B], or Ron Paul if he runs Third Party (which I hope he does, thats where he belongs tbh).[/QUOTE]

    Who are we getting this time around? I hope not Bob Barr again. He's a bit of a joke.

    Paul has already said he won't run 3rd party this time. I think even he is willing to ensure he doesn't do anything that aids Obama this time around.

  17. #17
    back to the issue at hand, Obama is either going to shrink the size of gov't or he's going to be obstructed from doing so by a GOP led congress.

    smart.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,563
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4328334]back to the issue at hand, Obama is either going to shrink the size of gov't or he's going to be obstructed from doing so by a GOP led congress.

    smart.[/QUOTE]

    you asking for us to get "back to the issue at hand" may be the funniest thing I've ever read in this forum's history.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4328334]back to the issue at hand, Obama is either going to shrink the size of gov't or he's going to be obstructed from doing so by a GOP led congress.

    smart.[/QUOTE]

    According to Bit-Math from Previous posts, the amount of "shrinking" he will do is statisticly irrelevant. Less per year than Solyndra, and a tiny amount of lost jobs, not even more than normal attrition would have been.

    Id (R) is smart, they support it with gusto, then campaign on "thats it? Thats all he could cost-save?" in the election.

    As such, I fully expect....obstruction, lol.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,551
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4327972]Give Obama his due, he is quite good at putting (R) in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don't, and stealing their thunder.

    He did it with the Social Security Tax Cut Extention, and he's doing it again here. By election day Obama will be the tax cutting, Govt. "reducing" candidate.

    Meanwhile Romney can't go ten feet without shoving his foot in his mouth.

    This election is going to be a laugher.[/QUOTE]

    and the poor will get even poorer as they have done since the "New Era" of The Johnson administration.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us