General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama is Beating the GOPers at their own game..Reducing Gov't
Them GOPers grumbling its not enough to reduce the deficit....oops
Obama plays chess...just got a free ROOK
oh08dem
(339 posts)The GOP pretenders play with themselves.
EC
(12,287 posts)one at a time and loudly. First cutting taxes, now smaller government..
leftstreet
(36,110 posts)izquierdista
(11,689 posts)They got someone to carry out 99% of their policies AND someone to blame it on when those policies don't work.
EC
(12,287 posts)They need to be IRRELEVANT. I know I'm tired of hearing the repubs and tps screaming about smaller government, taxes, deficit, yada, yada, yada...I'm glad he's taking these issues out of the mix.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)aka The Office of National Drug Control Policy
This is a govt. expansion program started by Ronald Raygun and resulted in govt waste and failure. It is a propaganda arm of the govt., and really has no useful function other than to provide some beltway insider a big salary and title.
Health and Human Services can handle the issue of drug abuse harm reduction. The FDA and DEA can handle their jobs - honestly, this is just bureaucratic pork.
via wiki - As of 2011, the ONDCP is requesting funding for 98 full time employees, 64 (65.31%) of whom would be paid at either GS-15, GS-14, or SES pay grades, or more than $105,211.00 yearly, being adjusted for Washington, D.C. cost of living expenses.[7]
I will not, of course, hold my breath waiting for this to happen.
In addition, Obama should instruct the DEA to assume cannabis has been decriminalized and move law enforcement to illegal meth and heroin production and distribution, with the goal of providing ways for addicts to move under the purview of HHS.
more wiki
In September 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that salaries and expenses at ONDCP be reduced from $26.6 million in fiscal 2006 to $11.5 million in fiscal 2007, to "more closely reflect actual performance." Committee members said they would request funding for a study of ONDCP by the National Academy of Public Administration. They also ordered a Government Accountability Office study on the distribution of grants. Plus, they directed the Director to provide quarterly updates on travel expenditures, staffing levels and plans for future hirings.[11]
By law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form) of illicit drugs.[12] According to the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998"[13] the director of the ONDCP
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that -- 1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and 2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;
The Government Accountability Office has found that this law authorizes the ONDCP to disseminate misleading information (lie) in order to oppose legalization[14]
Since when do American citizens need an office of anti-drug propaganda? Since when do we need to spend millions of dollar for their failed attempts - their work has, apparently, resulted in MORE cannabis use, not less. I'd say that demonstrates a HUGE FAILURE b/c Americans don't want the govt. to spend taxpayer dollars lying to them and they say... fuck you, in response.
They have PAID for writers to put propaganda in TV shows...wtf?
And their anti-marijuana commercials, from studies, indicated that they made females more likely to use marijuana. Two diff. studies indicated failure. Yet the office continues to lie.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/09/a_white_house_drug_deal_gone_bad.html
leftstreet
(36,110 posts)One needs a scorecard
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Geeze ... I used to think that progressive were smarter and understood complex issues, and were more nuanced, than the Tea Party.
Maybe not.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Especially in the military.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Killing is definately redundant in this world. Who needs another institution to get THAT done!
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I'd see the point, but the political upside (if any) is not enough to justify moving the national center further right. (For many elections to come)
Samantha
(9,314 posts)In the 90s, Clinton realized which Republican pushes were going to go through with or without his support. So he purloined them, taking credit, and infuriating the Republicans. It is a joy to see Obama doing this as well (for the most part).
Sam
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)indykatie1955
(63 posts)Consolidation of functions and use of attrition as a primary way to reduce excess jobs. This way he controls the approach which may not be perfect but is sure to be infinitely better than it would play out with republicans driving the process.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)the inevitable response:
If Obama did it, it must have a down side - a down side which must be proclaimed loudly and clearly, lest someone somewhere give him credit for something.
Had he announced a plan to hire more government workers, we'd be hearing about where the money was coming from to pay them.
Had he announced keeping gov't workers at the current number, he'd be accused of upholding the 'status quo' that everyone kvetches about.
With some folks, the man can't win. Whatever he does, it's wrong. Thank God DU is not representative of the real world, nor its inhabitants.
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Your whole post is gold.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Of course there may well be some firings that aren't replaced too but the gist is attrition, not that I think much of the whole direction.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . none. There will be a reduction of 1,000 workers over a ten-year period, to take place by attrition, not by lay-offs.
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)We have over 2,650,000 Federal employees. Normal efficiencies should result in more than a 1,000 reduction. Now, I agree it needs to be through attrition, but we need more than 100 a year.
LiberalFighter
(51,020 posts)I consider big government to be a myth until the numbers are produced for each year and there is a showing of big government. And if the increase is proportional to the population it serves then it still is not big government.
savalez
(3,517 posts)I read it yesterday and was happy to see at least some statistics:
Historically speaking, Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations. George W. Bush managed to both reduce the number of federal employees while at the same time growing the size of the government. He did this with an explosion of privatization. George W. Bush outsourced every government function that he could get his hands on. Bush more than doubled the amount that the federal government spent on private contracts. W. didnt reduce the size of the federal government. He cooked the books. The end result was the Republicans love of big government had been outsourced, not diminished.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-21st-century-government
pnorman
(8,155 posts)I never knew that! Thanks!
LiberalFighter
(51,020 posts)Not including increase in private contractors. Right?
Edweird
(8,570 posts)At least according to some here....
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Better get in line early.
Har-dee-har-har!
DCBob
(24,689 posts)What he is proposing makes sense and puts the GOPers on the hot seat. Plus it takes away a major talking point. I suspect we will be hearing more and more ideas like this as we campaign season heats up.
from Boston Globe:
-snip-
"Right now, we have a 21st century economy, but we've still got a government organized for the 20th century," Obama said. "Over the years, the needs of Americans have changed, but our government has not. In fact, it's gotten even more complex. And that has to change."
On government reorganization, Obama wants a guarantee from Congress that he could get a vote within 90 days on any idea to consolidate federal agencies, provided it saves money and cuts the government. His first order of business would be to merge six major trade and commerce agencies into one -- eliminating, among others, the Commerce Department.
-snip-
The proposal is in part a challenge to congressional Republicans since it embraces the traditional GOP goal of smaller government, and Obama called on Congress to back him.
-snip-
Obama is also promising new tax incentives for businesses that bring jobs to the U.S. instead of shipping them overseas, and he wants to eliminate tax breaks for companies that outsource.
more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2012/01/14/obama_promotes_insourcing_government_reorg/
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)MinervaX
(169 posts)The best Republican President since Clinton?
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Give your opponents what the want and when it fails or is unpopular what else can they say?
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)"Just got a free rook", that's great.
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)savalez
(3,517 posts)So someone's got to.
The strategic gamesmanship here isnt centered around a question of presidential power. Obamas remarks today were a stealth attack on Republican hypocrisy. If Republicans refuse to grant the president the power that he requested, this will become another campaign issue for Obama. If Republicans do grant him the authority to reorganize his branch, President Obama gets to campaign on streamlining the federal government for small business. Its a win-win for Obama, and all lose situation for the GOP.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-21st-century-government
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)dawg
(10,624 posts)The Republicans want to shrink it. Obama wants to shrink it.
Yay. We're all in agreement now.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Apparently I missed the part where giving your opponent some of what they want without getting anything in return from them was "brilliant chess strategy".
Yes, a chessmaster indeed!
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)Obama cut them off at the "Pass" once more...he gets the credit
and not the GOPers
hughee99
(16,113 posts)With Obama claiming "credit" for things the GOP have been demanding for years makes it look like the GOP was right all along.