• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will ask Congress on Friday for greater power to shrink the federal government, and his first idea is merging six sprawling trade and commerce agencies whose overlapping programs can be baffling to businesses, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.Obama will call on Congress to give him a type of reorganizational power last held by a president when Ronald Reagan was in office. The Obama version would be a so-called consolidation authority allowing him to propose mergers that promise to save money and help consumers. The deal would entitle him to an up-or-down vote from Congress in 90 days.

Read more: Obama Seeks 'consolidation Authority' To Merge Agencies | Fox News​
Click to expand...


Yeah, this is just a crass political ploy. "Hey America, the Republican's don't want a smaller government see, they aren't giving me the ability to get the job done for you!" OR if the power is grants, it also requires the Congress APPROVE said plans Obama proposes, which means he can slip in things that just won't fly, and say "See look America, I tried but the GOP is standing in the way of better Government"

Brilliant from a political stand point, disgusting from any other. Obama's abuses of power demand he NOT be given MORE power. Especially after he **** on the Constitution by declaring he had the power to claim when Congress is in session or not. That's not how Separation of Powers works.
 
So let me get this straight. Anything that Obama says or do, regardless of what party it favors you will b****.

:damn
 
Who has the authority now to create or end departments? Is it something that the legislature drafts and votes on first, then signed by the president? If that's the case then what he SHOULD do is submit a proposal to the legislature outlining what he wants done and follow proper procedure instead of asking for more authority. Personally, I think this could blow up on him. There are already those who are (with modest success) convincing the electorate that Obama is power-hungry and "taking over". Asking for or taking MORE power will hardly benefit him.

That said, I agree with the premise of downsizing/consolidating. I've been calling for such measures to reduce redundancies and eliminate the delays and red-tape involved in cross-department interactions, so kudos to Obama for taking a step on that. I still don't like his proposed method of doing such...nor do I like that Reagan did it....at least if it bucks standard check-and-balance procedures.
 
rcart76 said:
So let me get this straight. Anything that Obama says or do, regardless of what party it favors you will b****.

:damn
Click to expand...


You just proved my point... I thank you. Of course, I have said rock on when Obama's done things I agree with, but don't let that fact piss all over your avoidance of the issue at hand.
 
tessaesque said:
Who has the authority now to create or end departments? Is it something that the legislature drafts and votes on first, then signed by the president? If that's the case then what he SHOULD do is submit a proposal to the legislature outlining what he wants done and follow proper procedure instead of asking for more authority. Personally, I think this could blow up on him. There are already those who are (with modest success) convincing the electorate that Obama is power-hungry and "taking over". Asking for or taking MORE power will hardly benefit him.

That said, I agree with the premise of downsizing/consolidating. I've been calling for such measures to reduce redundancies and eliminate the delays and red-tape involved in cross-department interactions, so kudos to Obama for taking a step on that. I still don't like his proposed method of doing such...nor do I like that Reagan did it....at least if it bucks standard check-and-balance procedures.
Click to expand...

Taht power ended in 84 after being available for 50 years.
 
Why can't Congress merge these agencies?

We don't need the President to take on extraordinary powers to do what Congress should do.
 
There's nothing stopping him from proposing such consolidation now. There doesn't need to be a new "power" to do this.
 
Obama's saying, "but you wanted smaller government and me to cut spending?" Yeh, right only if they get to pick the cuts. I see it as, "these aren't the social programs we'd like to cut" coming from the republican congessional majority. Haven't they more or less sworn to say to "no" to everything that comes from Obama. I hope he has them over a barrel.
 
I can see why it would piss you off that a president would propose something that would shrink the federal government and save taxpayer dollars. Conservatives hate that kind of thing... when they are proposed by Democrats of course...

It's hard not to laugh at people like you, lol.
 
Did anyone actually read the article? As it plainly states:

1. This isn't unprecedented -- Reagan enjoyed the same authority. Did conservatives oppose it then?

2. The President proposes the changes and then Congress gets an up or down vote on them. He can't do anything unilaterally.

Why do it this way instead of the usual process? First, it makes more sense for the proposal to come from the executive branch, given that these are structural changes in the executive branch. Second, it's a fast-track process that would help avoid the gridlock we've been seeing for the last two years.

It's political? Yes, in the sense that it's an attempt to work around the purely political wall that Republicans have thrown up to block almost everything that the President proposes. It's another opportunity for Republican to prove that they are in Washington to improve government and not just to beat Obama. Tick tock....
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
There's nothing stopping him from proposing such consolidation now. There doesn't need to be a new "power" to do this.
Click to expand...
I think the difference is this would require a vote within 90 days. Obama can currently propose whatever he wants, but Congress is under no obligation to consider it.
 
Barring the fact I'm not too familiar with all the details of this deal, as a conservative I fully support it. It may be a political ploy by the President, but who cares, we are achieving the same goal of making government smaller, more efficient, and more effective. From what I've heard so far the move does have bipartisan support, so hopefully this won't get entrenched in a deeper fight about specifics and pork.

+1 to Obama on this one for me.

EDIT: Gotta love a political climate where all sides of the political spectrum are in favor of cutting costs by making the government smaller.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Yeah, this is just a crass political ploy. "Hey America, the Republican's don't want a smaller government see, they aren't giving me the ability to get the job done for you!" OR if the power is grants, it also requires the Congress APPROVE said plans Obama proposes, which means he can slip in things that just won't fly, and say "See look America, I tried but the GOP is standing in the way of better Government"

Brilliant from a political stand point, disgusting from any other. Obama's abuses of power demand he NOT be given MORE power. Especially after he **** on the Constitution by declaring he had the power to claim when Congress is in session or not. That's not how Separation of Powers works.
Click to expand...
What is your problem with this from a policy perspective? That Obama could "slip in" something and thereby trap Republicans into voting against it? Aren't Congressmen constantly don't the same thing to each other? I don't really see what the problem is. If Republicans don't like Obama's proposal they can vote no and then vote on their own counterproposal. If they want to vote no and then sit on their asses and do nothing they deserve to be ridiculed as do-nothing hypocrits.
 
So let me see if I have this correct. Republicans are angry because Obama is... not going around the checks and balances system?

At this point, if it turned out that Obama was Jesus, you guys would all become Jews in order to oppose him.
 
Paschendale said:
So let me see if I have this correct. Republicans are angry because Obama is... not going around the checks and balances system?

At this point, if it turned out that Obama was Jesus, you guys would all become Jews in order to oppose him.
Click to expand...

From what I've read so far, Republicans support this move.

Republicans said they liked the idea of streamlining government, a sentiment that could increase the chances of action this year.

"Americans want a government that's simpler, streamlined, and secure," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) "We'll be sure to give it a careful review once the White House provides us with the details of what it is he wants to do."
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204542404577158361834894658.html

But one Republican leadership aide said both parties might resist Mr. Obama's proposal to force Congress to accept or reject an administration plan without the chance to alter it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rhapsody1447 said:
Barring the fact I'm not too familiar with all the details of this deal, as a conservative I fully support it. It may be a political ploy by the President, but who cares, we are achieving the same goal of making government smaller, more efficient, and more effective. From what I've heard so far the move does have bipartisan support, so hopefully this won't get entrenched in a deeper fight about specifics and pork.

+1 to Obama on this one for me.

EDIT: Gotta love a political climate where all sides of the political spectrum are in favor of cutting costs by making the government smaller.
Click to expand...

I agree, and even though it does seem to be done for mostly political reasons, the fact it is getting done is good enough for me.
 
Krhazy said:
What is your problem with this from a policy perspective? That Obama could "slip in" something and thereby trap Republicans into voting against it? Aren't Congressmen constantly don't the same thing to each other? I don't really see what the problem is. If Republicans don't like Obama's proposal they can vote no and then vote on their own counterproposal. If they want to vote no and then sit on their asses and do nothing they deserve to be ridiculed as do-nothing hypocrits.
Click to expand...


Let's go with track record, Obama's not got a good one, it's unnecessary this can be done without giving the Executive branch MORE power and frankly I don't trust the man's motives. He says he wants to do something we can all support, a leaner more efficient Government... where is his track record of this?

He HAS a track record of setting up "See the GOP isn't working with me", his campaign is quite clearly geared to play the "Run against a do nothing Congress" route... So call me crass all you want, I'm going on Obama's track record and his track record says "Political gamesmanship" not "shrink Government"
 
Joining the chorus saying I don't care who is doing it or how as long as the blockade Congress has put on any progress toward raising revenue and lowering cost is not able to block progress.

This year and in 2014, we need to vote out a lot of the Congressmen that have helped maintain the blockade since Obama took office and demand both parties start working toward forging solutions instead of political posturing.

Personally, I would like to see recalls used more to oust those that form blockades to anything getting done. Realizing they could be removed in mid-term would force these bozos to work toward solving the many problems we are facing.
 
MrVicchio said:
Let's go with track record, Obama's not got a good one, it's unnecessary this can be done without giving the Executive branch MORE power and frankly I don't trust the man's motives. He says he wants to do something we can all support, a leaner more efficient Government... where is his track record of this?

He HAS a track record of setting up "See the GOP isn't working with me", his campaign is quite clearly geared to play the "Run against a do nothing Congress" route... So call me crass all you want, I'm going on Obama's track record and his track record says "Political gamesmanship" not "shrink Government"
Click to expand...

I generally agree with that and how this plays out remains to be seen. However, I don't think opposing it purely on speculation of what he might do is healthy as you could use that argument against ANYTHING he tries to do. Generally, I'm in favor of giving the POTUS more power to make moves like this as Congress has proved absolutely ineffective at getting anything significant done. If a President wants to act like a CEO in order to make government smaller and more efficient, than I support it. The bureaucracy of government is the major reason why nothing can change in the first place.

I feel if this was a Republican president you would feel the same way. Hopefully this move sets a precedent for similar action to be taken by Romney in 2013.
 
MrVicchio said:
Let's go with track record, Obama's not got a good one, it's unnecessary this can be done without giving the Executive branch MORE power and frankly I don't trust the man's motives. He says he wants to do something we can all support, a leaner more efficient Government... where is his track record of this?

He HAS a track record of setting up "See the GOP isn't working with me", his campaign is quite clearly geared to play the "Run against a do nothing Congress" route... So call me crass all you want, I'm going on Obama's track record and his track record says "Political gamesmanship" not "shrink Government"
Click to expand...
Ok fine, but what about the rest of my point? Why can't Congress simply vote no on a scheming Obama plan and then pass their own plan without the "catch" or whatever it is you are worried about and thereby escape ridicule? In fact, they could probably pass their own plan with their own "catch" and force Obama to veto it, which would make him look pretty stupid.
 
I agree with the general notion of what Obama is stating he wants to do.

I agree with the general notion of MrV concerning his actual intent and plan regarding why he wants to do it.

I'm relatively okay with giving him the ability, and will fully support the congress if Obama then stuffs these actions with a plethora of things unrelated to the primary purpose in nothing but a partisan political ploy. And if he pulls it, which I would fully expect him to do based on his history, I'd condemn him for being dishonest and deceitful not to mention frothing hypocrite (That thing liberals claim they hate) given his stance on "changing politics as usual".

If he actually doesn't stand by his normal MO, and actually uses it just for the reason he states and without playing political games, then I'd applaud him for it.
 
MrVicchio said:
Yeah, this is just a crass political ploy. "Hey America, the Republican's don't want a smaller government see, they aren't giving me the ability to get the job done for you!" OR if the power is grants, it also requires the Congress APPROVE said plans Obama proposes, which means he can slip in things that just won't fly, and say "See look America, I tried but the GOP is standing in the way of better Government"

Brilliant from a political stand point, disgusting from any other. Obama's abuses of power demand he NOT be given MORE power. Especially after he **** on the Constitution by declaring he had the power to claim when Congress is in session or not. That's not how Separation of Powers works.
Click to expand...

Have you read any other take on this story, or are you just sticking with what Fox News tells you to think?
 
Krhazy said:
I think the difference is this would require a vote within 90 days.
Click to expand...

That's not quite what it's cracked up to be.


Obama can currently propose whatever he wants, but Congress is under no obligation to consider it.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's most likely that this is a political ploy. By proposing the power instead of actual, specific consolidation, he gets to have the fight he wants without being pinned down to supporting any particular consolidation.

I'd rather see what specifically he'd consolidate. My guess is, not too terribly much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom