Obama's Smaller Government Plan Kindles Some Republican Warmth

[Tx4obama]

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Republicans are cautiously embracing President Barack Obama's proposal for shrinking the size of the federal government, although many are watching to see if his actions will match up with his words.

Obama announced Friday that he will ask Congress to give him new authority to consolidate government agencies. His first project would involve merging six major trade and business agencies into one and eliminating the Commerce Department. The reorganization would save $3 billion over 10 years and streamline services for businesses.

"Today, I'm calling on Congress to reinstate the authority that past presidents have had to streamline and reform the executive branch," Obama said during remarks at the White House. "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."

SNIP

Key Republicans tentatively lined up to support the president's plan, which isn't surprising given that the GOP is traditionally the party of smaller government. In fact, Obama is effectively forcing House and Senate Republicans to prove their support for paring down the federal workforce.

SNIP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/obama-smaller-government-plan-republicans_n_1205332.html

[sabrina 1]

1. So, is he getting rid of the Dept. of Homeland Security now that he has the Republicans on

board. What a waste of money that is. He can point out that this was a Republican expansion of Government that has cost billions of dollars with zero results. We have agencies to do the job of protecting this country. Republicans are the party of Big Government and he can point right there to prove it.

[TheKentuckian]

4. Now that would be worth a hit in jobs.

Of course is not likely to be what is in mind here, that is not on the menu.

[grantcart]

2. Not smaller government, smaller bureacracy, big difference.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Here's Manny's take...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002166635

[msongs]

5. $3billion? what's that, one aircraft carrier? nt

[Fumesucker]

6. More like a B2 and a half..

The first twenty cost $2.2 B each..

http://www.cdi.org/issues/aviation/b296.html

[ellisonz]

7. People should read his remarks before jumping to conclusion:

We live in a 21st century economy, but we’ve still got a government organized for the 20th century. Our economy has fundamentally changed -- as has the world -- but our government, our agencies, have not. The needs of our citizens have fundamentally changed but their government has not. Instead, it's often grown more complicated and sometimes more confusing.

Give you a few examples. There are five different entities dealing with housing. There are more than a dozen agencies dealing with food safety. 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. (Laughter.) If you’re wondering what the genesis of this was, apparently, it had something to do with President Nixon being unhappy with his Interior Secretary for criticizing him about the Vietnam War. And so he decided not to put NOAA in what would have been a more sensible place.

No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations. You wouldn’t do it when you’re thinking about your businesses. So why is it okay for our government? It’s not. It has to change.

Now, what we’ve tried to do over the first three years of my administration is to do a whole range of steps administratively to start making processes, procedures, agencies more consumer-friendly. But we need to do more, and we need authority to do more.

So today, I’m calling on Congress to reinstate the authority that past presidents have had to streamline and reform the Executive Branch. 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.

Now, a little bit of history here. Congress first granted this authority to presidents in the midst of the Great Depression, so that they could swiftly reorganize the Executive Branch to respond to the changing needs of the American people and the immediate challenges of the Depression. For the next 52 years, presidents were able to streamline or consolidate the Executive Branch by submitting a proposal to Congress that was guaranteed a simple up or down vote.

In 1984, while Ronald Reagan was President, Congress stopped granting that authority.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/13/remarks-president-government-reform

[Tx4obama]

8. I hope everyone realizes that there is much more to the speech and they CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE

[ellisonz]

9. The speech ended in 1984...

...with the Goldstein revolution. Check your propaganda tube!