|
Yea, sure. And the Pope is also Jewish!!!!
Sadly the media will report anything our government masters say as fact. Obama is big government and it ain't going to change. Just a week or so ago Emperor Obama claimed he was going to cut the military by 8 percent over 10 years, which is a stinking cut of .8 percent per year. Obama takes on big government President wants to combine 6 business agencies by Ben Feller - Jan. 13, 2012 11:57 PM Associated Press WASHINGTON - Seeking more power to shrink the government, President Barack Obama on Friday suggested smashing six economic agencies into one, an election-year idea intended to halt bureaucratic nightmares and force Republicans to back him on one of their own favorite issues. "The government we have is not the government we need," Obama told business owners he'd gathered at the White House. Lawmakers seemed willing to at least consider his ideas. Sounding like a manager of a disorganized company, and looking like one by pointing to slides as he spoke, Obama asked Congress to give him a kind of reorganization power no president has had since Ronald Reagan. It would guarantee Obama a vote, within 90 days, on any idea he offers to consolidate agencies, provided it saves money and cuts the government. His first target: merging six major trade and commerce agencies into a one-stop-shopping department for American businesses. The Commerce Department would be among those that would cease to exist. Congress would keep the final say, but Obama would have a stronger hand to skip much of the outside lobbying and fighting and get right to a vote. Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Republican House Speaker John Boehner, said streamlining government was always a potentially good idea but expressed suspicion about whether the plan by Obama would really help business. Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, pledged Obama's plan would get a careful review. But he added: "It's interesting to see the president finally acknowledge that Washington is out of control." Attacking duplication across the executive branch he runs, Obama said: "Why is it OK for our government? It's not. It has to change." Politically, Obama is seeking advantage on the turf often owned by Republicans: smaller government. He is attempting to directly counter Republican arguments that he has presided over the kind of regulation, spending and debt that can undermine the economy -- a dominant theme of this year's debate and one often cited by his potential re-election rival, Republican Mitt Romney. Obama put himself on the side of businesspeople who deal with the government as part of their daily life and are exasperated by a maze of agencies, permits and websites. "We can do this better," he told them. "So much of the argument out there all the time is up in 40,000 feet, these abstract arguments about who's conservative or who's liberal. ...You guys are just trying to figure out, how do we make things work? How do we apply common sense? And that's what this is about." In making his case, the president sought to target the design of the bureaucracy as the problem, not the employees who serve it. Congressional reaction seemed generally favorable, but cautious. "It's not often that we see real proposals from this administration to make government smaller," said Rep. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Not in decades has the government undergone a sustained reorganization. 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 wants to merge: 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.
"Obama announced ... a bid to save $3 billion by eliminating more than 1,000 jobs over the next decade." Big stinking deal. That is only cutting 100 jobs a year for the next 10 years and that ain't jack sh*t in the huge Federal government. "the specific consolidations being proposed would barely dent the number of workers and the amount of spending in the country’s 2.1 million-employee federal bureaucracy" And cutting $3 billion over 10 years is only a measly $300 million a year. Again that ain't jack sh*t in the $3.7 trillion budget for 2012. $300 million is less then a .01 percent savings. "His announcement came a day after he notified Congress of his intent to raise the national debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion to cover increased U.S. spending commitments" The $1.2 trillion increase in spending is 400 times his $3 billion in alleged savings. And of course the $1.2 trillion increase will be increase NOW, not over 10 years as the alleged $3 billion in savings. Obama seeks more power to merge agencies, streamline government By David Nakamura and Ed O’Keefe, Published: January 13 After a year of interminable feuds with congressional Republicans who made smaller, cheaper federal government a political crusade, President Obama on Friday signaled his intention to do some sail-trimming of his own. Obama asked Congress for the authority to consolidate the roles of several federal agencies which he said would lead to streamlined services and a smaller government workforce. The proposal comes at a politically opportune moment for the president, who has faced sustained Republican criticism that his administration has failed to tame a bloated federal bureaucracy. With an eye squarely on his reelection campaign, Obama announced that he would initially focus on merging sprawling entities that deal with small businesses in a bid to save $3 billion by eliminating more than 1,000 jobs over the next decade. Almost a year ago, Obama promised in his State of the Union address to create a leaner, more efficient federal bureaucracy. Since then, Republicans — both on Capitol Hill and in the presidential campaign — have charged that the administration’s health-care, environmental and financial reforms have added layers of red tape and costs at the worse possible time. For a president who has spent months pushing his $447 billion jobs bills, the proposal sought to establish that he is also committed to reducing spending over the long term. His announcement came a day after he notified Congress of his intent to raise the national debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion to cover increased U.S. spending commitments. Obama noted before an audience of small-business owners at the White House that the federal bureaucracy includes five different entities involved in housing and more than a dozen that regulate food safety. “No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations,” Obama said. “So why is it okay in our government? It’s not. It has to change.” Obama is scheduled to deliver this year’s State of the Union address on Jan. 24, and Republican critics, while embracing the spirit of paring the government’s size, questioned whether Obama was scrambling to make good on his pledge with his reelection effort looming. “A year after raising the issue . . . it’s interesting to see the president finally acknowledge that Washington is out of control,” said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Other lawmakers expressed concern that the reorganization could harm U.S. trade policy, noting that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which is among the agencies the president would consolidate, was established to serve a distinct role. In a joint statement, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) questioned whether the legislation would hamper the government’s ability “to aggressively open new markets to American-made goods and services and create U.S. jobs.” Yet the White House was banking on muted opposition from GOP lawmakers, because the consolidation proposal goes right to the Republicans’ core ideological belief that the government is too large. Under the plan, Obama is seeking broad consolidation authority, which had been granted to the White House by Congress during the Great Depression but was taken away from President Ronald Reagan after a sunset provision in the law kicked in, in 1984. Once Congress grants him authority, officials said, Obama would establish a new department charged with overseeing trade and investment, business and economic development, technology and innovation, and economic statistics. The new department would combine the trade and commerce functions of the Commerce Department, the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Trade and Development Agency. The Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics would also be included to focus on government statistical data. But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — now the largest part of Commerce’s budget — would be moved to the Interior Department. The new department would be led by a Cabinet secretary; the U.S. trade representative would remain a member of the Cabinet, officials said. Congress would be able to vote on each specific proposed merger. Jeffrey D. Zients, the Obama administration’s chief performance officer, stressed that any proposal would have to reduce the size of government and save money. “The government we have is not the government that we need,” Obama said. “We live in a 21st-century economy, but we’ve still got a government organized for the 20th century. ” In a signal that the proposal may hold some attraction for Republicans, Rep. Darrell Issa, who is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and one of Obama’s biggest GOP critics, said Friday that he stands “ready to work with President Obama” on the reorganization. “I hope this announcement represents the beginning of a sincere and dedicated effort to enact meaningful reforms,” said Issa (Calif.). While symbolically important — especially because similar reform efforts by previous administrations have often failed — the specific consolidations being proposed would barely dent the number of workers and the amount of spending in the country’s 2.1 million-employee federal bureaucracy. Still, despite GOP criticisms of the government’s size, White House budget data show that the number of federal employees last year was fewer than in 1985, under Reagan, despite a U.S. population that is about 30 percent larger now. In his 2011 State of the Union address, Obama vowed to tackle federal inefficiency, famously joking: “The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they’re in salt water. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they’re smoked.” Aides said the quip came from White House Chief of Staff William M. Daley, who served as commerce secretary during the Clinton administration and had urged Obama to tackle concerns with the sprawling federal bureaucracy. Despite the prominent discussion of the issue and Obama’s vow to release specific plans within six months, administration officials spent most of last year playing down the goal of a major reorganization. They said they were sidetracked by the need to draft contingency planning for a possible government shutdown and the acrimonious debate in the summer over raising the federal debt ceiling. At the same time, Obama commissioned a study of which entities should be targeted and received the results in June. Though White House officials estimated that 1,000 to 2,000 jobs could be eliminated in the first wave of reorganizations, they said most of the cuts would come through natural attrition as employees retire or seek outside employment. Elaine Powell-Belnavis, president of the Council of Small Business Administration locals, said she could not rubber-stamp the president’s plan without knowing what the “slimmer” workforce the White House promises will mean for her union members. “Nothing goes away tomorrow,” Small Business Administration director Karen G. Mills told her employees in a Friday conference call. Staff writers Lisa Rein and Paul Kane contributed to this report. |