WOW - Trump was serious about draining the swamp

[tucker6]

New executive order yesterday says he wants to reorganize the entire executive branch, including eliminating agencies. Goodbye EPA and Education. Maybe turn the VA over to the military. This Order should have been issued by any of the last four presidents.

Bold is mine.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...zing-executive

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR REORGANIZING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch by directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies (as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code), components of agencies, and agency programs.

Sec. 2. Proposed Plan to Improve the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability of Federal Agencies, Including, as Appropriate, to Eliminate or Reorganize Unnecessary or Redundant Federal Agencies. (a) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall submit to the Director a proposed plan to reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of that agency.

(b) The Director shall publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to suggest improvements in the organization and functioning of the executive branch and shall consider the suggestions when formulating the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) Within 180 days after the closing date for the submission of suggestions pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the Director shall submit to the President a proposed plan to reorganize the executive branch in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of agencies. The proposed plan shall include, as appropriate, recommendations to eliminate unnecessary agencies, components of agencies, and agency programs, and to merge functions. The proposed plan shall include recommendations for any legislation or administrative measures necessary to achieve the proposed reorganization.

(d) In developing the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section, the Director shall consider, in addition to any other relevant factors:

(i) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the Federal Government or would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise;

(ii) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are redundant, including with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iii) whether certain administrative capabilities necessary for operating an agency, a component, or a program are redundant with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iv) whether the costs of continuing to operate an agency, a component, or a program are justified by the public benefits it provides; and

(v) the costs of shutting down or merging agencies, components, or programs, including the costs of addressing the equities of affected agency staff.

(e) In developing the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section, the Director shall consult with the head of each agency and, consistent with applicable law, with persons or entities outside the Federal Government with relevant expertise in organizational structure and management.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 13, 2017.

[rastajenk]

Lefties are mulling over just how to spin this reduction of the federal sphere as Hitler-esque.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Lefties are mulling over just how to spin this reduction of the federal sphere as Hitler-esque.

They've already started by saying Trump is obviously anti-jobs since this would throw thousands of valuable govt workers out of work. Never heard valuable and govt worker used in the same sentence before. Maybe we should check whether all the inmates are still inside the asylum.

[boxcar]

Suck it up, lefties. It's called trimming the fat, and God knows that if there's a fat, bloated pig in this country, it's the Federal Government! Lots of fat to cut away before we can get down to the lean bacon.

[fast4522]

Well the President knows full well in order to go down into history favorably he must face the national debt. No one on the left would credit the twenty trillion growing because the size of the government. But when you grow jobs inside the private sector and shrink jobs inside the government at the same time it effects our national debt in a positive way. Not only will this President eliminate big departments inside our government, he is freezing hiring too. And just watch what he does to the Post Office and their budget in the second and third year of his administration. Borrow more moneys from China to give it to PBS, maybe today but everyone will feel the knife in spending reductions soon enough.

[dkithore]

Tucker, thanks 4 bringing to our attention. So much is going on with Trump. It is hard to keep up.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Steve Bannon's idea of deconstructing government is more the motivating factor than debt management. If you really wanted to manage the debt you would tackle entitlement programs. But assuming Medicaid and Medicare remain some level of responsibilities, social security doesn't get addressed, we still have to run the prison system, homeland and the military actually get increases, eliminating everything else would essentially save maybe 15% of the budget. That's shutting down government except for entitlements, prisons, homeland, and defense. The other thing is that Trump can't eliminate departments - only Congress can do that. Trump can put a moratorium on new hires, and he can appoint agency heads that will implement his regulatory policies. However, what he can't do is change Congressional deadlines for the issuance of regulations, and if he misses them he'll get sued and wind up under court order. I don't know how far he gets, but it's more than a pen stroke to deconstruct government.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Steve Bannon's idea of deconstructing government is more the motivating factor than debt management. If you really wanted to manage the debt you would tackle entitlement programs. But assuming Medicaid and Medicare remain some level of responsibilities, social security doesn't get addressed, we still have to run the prison system, homeland and the military actually get increases, eliminating everything else would essentially save maybe 15% of the budget. That's shutting down government except for entitlements, prisons, homeland, and defense. The other thing is that Trump can't eliminate departments - only Congress can do that. Trump can put a moratorium on new hires, and he can appoint agency heads that will implement his regulatory policies. However, what he can't do is change Congressional deadlines for the issuance of regulations, and if he misses them he'll get sued and wind up under court order. I don't know how far he gets, but it's more than a pen stroke to deconstruct government.

You have obviously have no business sense! In the business world, when one is faced with numerous complex problems to solve or resolve, the best way to begin, assuming the house isn't already burning down, is to tackle the problems that are less time-consuming and less complex first, gradually working your way to the more complicated and time-consuming ones. The rationale is easy to understand: Some things actually get accomplished on the journey to arrive at the bigger goals.

Trump is a savvy business man. He's going about this the right way.

[DSB]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I don't know how far he gets, but it's more than a pen stroke to deconstruct government.

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

[Binder]

Doing the job, that he said he would do. I am looking forward watching his agenda continue to Make America Great Again,

No more easy rides , you work hard you stay,

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You have obviously have no business sense! In the business world, when one is faced with numerous complex problems to solve or resolve, the best way to begin, assuming the house isn't already burning down, is to tackle the problems that are less time-consuming and less complex first, gradually working your way to the more complicated and time-consuming ones. The rationale is easy to understand: Some things actually get accomplished on the journey to arrive at the bigger goals.

Trump is a savvy business man. He's going about this the right way.

and this is exactly what has to be done and why Trump was elected for the job. Lefties have no business sense for the most part. And this is why the country is in the shape it is in. Nobody said swamp draining was going to be easy, fun or popular. Good business people don't care about that. They just roll up their sleeves and get it done. What a breath of fresh air.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Someone ask boxcar how shutting down the Department of Education fixes social security along the way.

Trump's motivation is political, which is fine. It's his sandbox. But don't mistake wiping out agencies for solving the debt crisis.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Someone ask boxcar how shutting down the Department of Education fixes social security along the way.

Trump's motivation is political, which is fine. It's his sandbox. But don't mistake wiping out agencies for solving the debt crisis.

Can you provide us with examples of govt reduction that you would find altruistic?

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

This is why the appropriate background for Chief Executive of the country is Chief Executive of a business.

Governors are more appropriate than Senators or Congressmen and

NEVER ELECT A LAWYER.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Can you provide us with examples of govt reduction that you would find altruistic?

I would spend most of my time trying to make entitlement programs viable in the longer term. In terms of value, that is where the big money is being spent. The savings Trump will get from downsizing is peanuts compared to what is needed to keep entitlements solvent.

I never said that shutting the Department of Education was a bad reduction. I simply disagreed that it had anything to do with debt reduction. I'll say what I said previously. It is being done for political reasons, which is fine because Trump is in control of the sandbox. He's running the show. But as long as the Trump plan is to pump billions (maybe trillions) into infrastructure, defense, a wall, and homeland agents, the amount saved from closing Education would hardly put a dent in those increased expenditures. My point was that you could shut the entire government except for defense, homeland, prisons and entitlements and you'd still wouldn't have enough revenue to fund them at the levels Trump is talking about. You'd have to be pretty naive to see that as some sort of balancing act. Let's call a spade a spade. You like the cuts because it sounds like government will be smaller (if only momentarily). But the bigger picture is that you have to balance both sides of the equation.

I'm not sure how cutting Education or EPA has anything to do with altruism. On the other hand, making social security viable is altruistic.

I've argued on multiple occasions for a budget that balances revenues and expenditures, and doesn't simply focus on one side or the other at a time. And the expenditures can be based on the priorities within Trump's administration. I have a few simple questions. How much do you want to spend? What do you want to spend it on? Where will the money come from?