Obama says his job is too tough, even for him

[Clocker]

In an interview with fan boy Chris Matthews, Obama pulled out a few new excuses why ObamaCare is such a train wreck, including cynicism and Washington gridlock. Then he came up with the big one: it's not his fault, the government is just too big and complex to manage.

So he is committing himself to making it bigger. From the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304096104579242452346401592):

"The challenge, I think, that we have going forward is not so much my personal management style or particular issues around White House organization," he said. "It actually has to do with what I referred to earlier, which is we have these big agencies, some of which are outdated, some of which are not designed properly. . . . The White House is just a tiny part of what is a huge, widespread organization with increasingly complex tasks in a complex world."

[tucker6]

In an interview with fan boy Chris Matthews, Obama pulled out a few new excuses why ObamaCare is such a train wreck, including cynicism and Washington gridlock. Then he came up with the big one: it's not his fault, the government is just too big and complex to manage.

So he is committing himself to making it bigger. From the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304096104579242452346401592):
The answer seems pretty apparent in his response. Downsize govt by ridding ourselves of outdated departments and fixing and scaling back those departments that are still useful. I mean, I'm not as smart as he is obviously (:rolleyes: ), but even a blind squirrel could find this nut.

If they hadn't gone to commercial break, it was likely Matthews' next question. :rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

Then he came up with the big one: it's not his fault, the government is just too big and complex to manage.

:

Maybe the Presidency is too big in range for any one man to manage anymore.
Certainly both Obama and Bush floundered in trying to do so.
The role of the Vice President needs to be looked at and given more responsibilities.
Possibly a second Vice President needs to be added.

[tucker6]

Maybe the Presidency is too big in range for any one man to manage anymore.
Certainly both Obama and Bush floundered in trying to do so.
The role of the Vice President needs to be looked at and given more responsibilities.
Possibly a second Vice President needs to be added.
Aren't we running out of teets for politicians to suck on?

[Tom]

...my personal management style
Say what?????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Greyfox]

Aren't we running out of teets for politicians to suck on?

It's long been known that the older organizations get, the more complex they become. Talcott Parsons, a sociologist at Harvard, pointed this out in the 1940's to business leaders.
Obviously that process has taken place in the U.S. Federal Government.
If it were a company, it would have been restructured years ago to meet the demands of the shareholders and the changing market.
But restructuring doesn't seem to be a strong suit of any men who have been elected as President.
They seemingly accept the "organism" as they find it and add more pieces as they go, thereby increasing the complexity of the total field.
Heaven forbid that anyone should call for a fundamental examination of the Government structures as they are now.
Yet that is what is needed.
The job is seemingly beyond the abilities of any one man to do.
When a true incompetent is as the top, the problems are magnified even further, as has been the case with the last two Presidents.
Adding a second VP and simplifying the reporting structures beneath the two VP's might be a way to go.

[BlueShoe]

The role of the Vice President needs to be looked at and given more responsibilities.
Possibly a second Vice President needs to be added.
Oh my, just what we do not need. Can you imagine what it would be like with two Joe Bidens? :eek: :faint:

[Greyfox]

Oh my, just what we do not need. Can you imagine what it would be like with two Joe Bidens? :eek: :faint:

No - definitely not two Joe Bidens. He's a joke.
Cheney was bright, but his health prevented him carrying much load.
I'm talking about two bright individuals - not necessarily elected politicians, but experts brought in with reviewing management structures in mind.

[Clocker]

Can you imagine what it would be like with two Joe Bidens? :eek: :faint:

It would be great, according to Obama.
"I think Joe Biden will go down in history as one of the best vice presidents — ever," Obama told MSNBC's Chris Matthews, according to a transcript. "And he has been with me, at my side, in every tough decision that I've made, from going after Bin Laden to dealing with the health care issues to — you name it, he's been there."

WashPost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/05/obama-biden-among-the-best-vps-ever-clinton-among-best-secretaries/)

[Clocker]

Possibly a second Vice President needs to be added.

That would require a president who is a competent manager with the ability to delegate.

[Greyfox]

That would require a president who is a competent manager with the ability to delegate.

Yes.

[iceknight]

No - definitely not two Joe Bidens. He's a joke.
Cheney was bright, but his health prevented him carrying much load.
I'm talking about two bright individuals - not necessarily elected politicians, but experts brought in with reviewing management structures in mind. We don't run an injured horse in a race, do we? Cheney was just getting free government healthcare while not working enough.

[jdhanover]

I rarely post here because I find the arguments put forth here are more of the screaming/close-minded type than open discussion to get to solutions type. And that is both the left and right on here.

But on this topic, I do feel I can give a bit of perspective. The consulting company I work for (and indeed some of the projects I have worked on) are of the turnaround/restructuring variety. What it takes to do these is much, much more than I suspect most of you realize. It is easy from the outside to say something is too big, too complex etc. but it is an entirely different thing to PROPERLY restructure it.

Often, before we are called in to clean up the resulting mess, companies 'restructure' by simplistic methods - a simple "all depts cut x%" type approach. Invariably this fails. What is needed is fundamental restructuring of the people and process to get the same output but at a lower cost to deliver.

One person at the top can NOT accomplish this (a CEO for example) without a LOT of help (not just 1 or 2 VPs). But the people who do this work are very hard to find (it is part of the reason my firm exists).

So what is the solution? Oddly the only way I see the govt ever fixing this would be to:
[a] get outside help from a firm like mine (BTW - we do not do any gov't work for a variety of reasons so no sales pitch in here). Each Dept is probably a 12+ month project..easily a 7 figure consulting cost, and,
[b] this is the killer in today's world - agreement from both parties on the desired outcome. This needs to be defined as services provided not a $ number per se. I don't think the parties can agree on this for virtually any department. Heck I am not sure today the parties can agree on the color of the sky.

The simple solutions (eliminate a dept with no regards to the current value/services provided nor impact of those going away, reduce by x%, etc) will, and historically have, fail(ed).

Just my 2 cents

[Clocker]

[b] this is the killer in today's world - agreement from both parties on the desired outcome.

The killer in government, especially at the federal level, is that you can't get agreement from one party, let alone both. Reagan found this when he tried to reduce the size of government. The results are well documented in "the Triumph of Politics" by David Stockman.

Stockman was Reagan's budget director, and was charged with coordinating budget cuts and head count reduction. Everyone on both sides of the aisle were in total agreement for the need to reduce the size of government. Except for my department, or my office, or my pet project. Everything there is vital to the survival of the country.

Reagan once said that the closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a government program. The reason is that every program has a special interest group supporting it and fighting for it. That group includes the lawmakers that established it, the government employees that work for it, and those in the private sector that benefit from it. There is no equal and opposite concentrated power on the other side, because that particular project is a drop in the bucket in the scheme of things.

Reagan could not get anything resembling agreement within his own administration, let alone any kind of bipartisan consensus. One story from Stockman's book's is typical. At a Cabinet meeting to discuss the budget, Stockman was presenting his proposed cuts. At one point, he proposed a head count reduction of 600 people at the State Department. Secy of State Al Haig went ballistic, saying that there was no way that his department could function with those kinds of draconian cuts. State had a head count of 22,000 at the time. Reagan hated that kind of thing, and suggested that Haig and Stockman work it out. Haig kept on about the cuts, and Reagan suggested that they just split the difference and cut 300 jobs. Haig went off again, and finally agreed to 150 jobs. The cuts of course never happened, and the Department continued to grow. As did the rest of government.

The bottom line is that for people in power, there is no reward for operating more efficiently and there is no punishment for failure to do so. But there is psychic reward for increasing your fiefdom and your power.

[Tom]

A president and two vice presidents?

We are getting into Troika territory here.
We would increase the number on total incompetents on federal staffs by 67%.

[Greyfox]

What is needed is fundamental restructuring of the people and process to get the same output but at a lower cost to deliver.



Bingo. :ThmbUp:

Has any of that happened in the last 50 years?

[Tom]

The killer in government, especially at the federal level, is that you can't get agreement from one party, let alone both. Reagan found this when he tried to reduce the size of government. The results are well documented in "the Triumph of Politics" by David Stockman.

Governments first priority is to itself.
All governments are cancers, that feed to grown and gather power.
No exceptions.

We have to have term limits and no pay, no bennies, no thing - one term, your dime, and get the hell out of town. The only government that could ever work is one filled with citizens who live under it's rules - people to step up, take their turn, and then go RIGHT back to their old jobs. No one should be able to get rich in office. No group should be able to take control of the congress.

[Clocker]

The only government that could ever work is one filled with citizens who live under it's rules - people to step up, take their turn, and then go RIGHT back to their old jobs.

Congress was a lot more efficient when they had to get their work done in time to go home and do the spring planting.

[Clocker]

What is needed is fundamental restructuring of the people and process to get the same output but at a lower cost to deliver.



This presents a threshold question that needs to be asked before any restructuring, both in the private sector and even more so in the public sector. The question is whether or not the "same output" is appropriate.

Certainly a lot of businesses are doing things because they always did them, without analysis of the value produced. In government, there are two basic questions: should government be doing this, and if so, should the federal government be the one to do it. Too often, especially in the latter case, the answer is no.

[jdhanover]

I used the term 'same output' because here the discussion was reducing the size of the govt
The question of whether less (or more) output from the government is needed is another can of worms

[tucker6]

I used the term 'same output' because here the discussion was reducing the size of the govt
The question of whether less (or more) output from the government is needed is another can of worms
is there really a question as to the sustainability of more govt?

[davew]

It seems that he is relying on a group of yes-men to give him information and run major departments in his organization. It should be even obvious to him that the results speak for themselves:D

[fast4522]

Obama says his job is too tough, even for him - from post #1

Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President.

The only other thing that apples is that he be a "good man"

Considering a President is a "good man" he will rise to the occasion and do what the people need, leaving his agenda in the backseat.

The problem with this man is he always puts agenda first.
The need of the many always outweigh the needs of the few, but not according to this man.

[mostpost]

I rarely post here because I find the arguments put forth here are more of the screaming/close-minded type than open discussion to get to solutions type. And that is both the left and right on here.

But on this topic, I do feel I can give a bit of perspective. The consulting company I work for (and indeed some of the projects I have worked on) are of the turnaround/restructuring variety. What it takes to do these is much, much more than I suspect most of you realize. It is easy from the outside to say something is too big, too complex etc. but it is an entirely different thing to PROPERLY restructure it.

Often, before we are called in to clean up the resulting mess, companies 'restructure' by simplistic methods - a simple "all depts cut x%" type approach. Invariably this fails. What is needed is fundamental restructuring of the people and process to get the same output but at a lower cost to deliver.

One person at the top can NOT accomplish this (a CEO for example) without a LOT of help (not just 1 or 2 VPs). But the people who do this work are very hard to find (it is part of the reason my firm exists).

So what is the solution? Oddly the only way I see the govt ever fixing this would be to:
[a] get outside help from a firm like mine (BTW - we do not do any gov't work for a variety of reasons so no sales pitch in here). Each Dept is probably a 12+ month project..easily a 7 figure consulting cost, and,
[b] this is the killer in today's world - agreement from both parties on the desired outcome. This needs to be defined as services provided not a $ number per se. I don't think the parties can agree on this for virtually any department. Heck I am not sure today the parties can agree on the color of the sky.

The simple solutions (eliminate a dept with no regards to the current value/services provided nor impact of those going away, reduce by x%, etc) will, and historically have, fail(ed).

Just my 2 cents
Your 2 cents is worth a heckuva lot more. The problem comes in trying to restructure a government that is interconnected horizontally as well as vertically. In the Hardball interview, Obama mentioned that a small business owner might have to interact with 17 different government departments.

I don't know what all of those departments would be, but I do not see the feasibility of combining them. For example, a small business owner must deal with the IRS in order to pay taxes. He must deal with OSHA for matters of safety, and if he runs the food service industry, the FDA. None of those agencies could take on the responsibilities of the other two.

That does not mean that it can't be done. There are certainly areas where consolidation can be made, but that is where we run into the next problem-turf wars. In the same Hardball interview, Obama mentioned that members of Congress are reluctant to give up areas of power. That applies to all members of Congress; Republican, Democratic, Independent, Whig-no matter.

Every department thinks it does not have enough people to do its job and every department thinks that every other department is filled with dead weight.

[mostpost]

In an interview with fan boy Chris Matthews, Obama pulled out a few new excuses why ObamaCare is such a train wreck, including cynicism and Washington gridlock. Then he came up with the big one: it's not his fault, the government is just too big and complex to manage.

So he is committing himself to making it bigger. From the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304096104579242452346401592):
No where in the Hardball interview does Obama say it's not his fault. His response is an explanation of why things went wrong and why it is difficult to maintain control in any organization as complex as the United States government.

But I want to talk about another idea in the WSJ article:
Built-in incompetence and bureaucratic inertia are two of the reasons that some of us opposed handing the feds power over, oh, say, one-seventh of the economy.
This whole idea that the Affordable Care Act gives the government power of the Health Care Industry which it did not have previously. Let's start with that one-seventh part.

The health care industry does account of 15+ percent of the economy, but the exchanges are for use by less than 5% of the population. The Federal Government does not set the prices on the exchanges; the insurance companies do. The federal government does not approve nor disapprove the rates; that is done by the states. The federal government does not offer insurance products nor medical services in conjunction with the exchanges. Those are provided by private insurance companies and by private and municipal hospitals.

The WSJ makes it sounds like there is a government agent in every insurance office, every doctors office, every operating room and it makes it sound as if that agent is dictating every move of every person in those offices.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Your 2 cents is worth a heckuva lot more. The problem comes in trying to restructure a government that is interconnected horizontally as well as vertically. In the Hardball interview, Obama mentioned that a small business owner might have to interact with 17 different government departments.

I don't know what all of those departments would be, but I do not see the feasibility of combining them. For example, a small business owner must deal with the IRS in order to pay taxes. He must deal with OSHA for matters of safety, and if he runs the food service industry, the FDA. None of those agencies could take on the responsibilities of the other two.

That does not mean that it can't be done. There are certainly areas where consolidation can be made, but that is where we run into the next problem-turf wars. In the same Hardball interview, Obama mentioned that members of Congress are reluctant to give up areas of power. That applies to all members of Congress; Republican, Democratic, Independent, Whig-no matter.

Every department thinks it does not have enough people to do its job and every department thinks that every other department is filled with dead weight.

To quote George Will: "the education of this president is a protracted, amusing process."

By the way Most, healthcare.gov already exists in private form - eHealth, Inc. The govt could have purchased the entire company for less than a billion dollars, and it works!

[Clocker]

The health care industry does account of 15+ percent of the economy, but the exchanges are for use by less than 5% of the population. The Federal Government does not set the prices on the exchanges; the insurance companies do. The federal government does not approve nor disapprove the rates; that is done by the states.

The article talks about government control of health insurance. You are talking about the exchanges. They are two entirely different things. The exchanges are a small part of ObamaCare.

Not everyone has to use the exchanges, but everyone is subject to federal control of their health insurance. Insurance company offerings must comply with federal regulations regarding qualified plans. Insurance company premiums and benefits must comply with federal community rating standards and with federal regulations regarding such things as medical loss ratios.

Anyone that wants to see if they qualify for a subsidy must use the exchanges. That is currently applicable only to the 5% of the population that has private individual insurance. That number will skyrocket next year when the 85% of the public that have employer-provided insurance must have qualified plans. Those that lose group insurance at that time will also have to go on the exchanges to look for plans and subsidies, unless they opt to find insurance on their own. Why would they do that without checking for a subsidy first? The 5% figure may be correct regarding the exchanges, for the next 6 months or so. That number will increases greatly next year. And the exchanges aside, the number of people subject to federal control of their health insurance will be 100% in 2015.

[Clocker]

To quote George Will: "the education of this president is a protracted, amusing process."



It took him 5 years in office to figure out that the government is big and complex. And after 3 years working on ObamaCare,

...what we’re also discovering is that, you know, insurance is complicated to buy.

And this is the brightest guy in the room? The rest of that room must be really scary. :eek:

[tucker6]

It took him 5 years in office to figure out that the government is big and complex. And after 3 years working on ObamaCare,



And this is the brightest guy in the room? The rest of that room must be really scary. :eek:
what he really meant by your second quote is that private enterprise is complicated and hard work, and only for the smartest and toughest among us. All else may apply for govt work.