• 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

I have a question about the procedure for this Congressional up-or-down vote:

If one branch of Congress...say, the Senate...doesn't bring it up for a vote, what happens? Do Obama's merges happen after 90 days?
 
It certainly appears political. The same was tried in 2001 and in 2005:

http://www.oswego.edu/~ruddy/Educational Policy/CRS Reports/President's Reorganization Authority.pdf

http://wagner.nyu.edu/performance/files/RESTORING THE PRESIDENT'S REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY.pdf

but I could find no finite result of the efforts other than the obvious.

The action currently being considered was thoroughly researched last year:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41841.pdf

One wonders if this is not a new idea why the timing of promoting such action.
 
Dickieboy said:
One wonders if this is not a new idea why the timing of promoting such action.
Click to expand...

It was something he brought up last year. It's been researched and now is the time to act, but I don't doubt there is a political element to it. Right before the State of The Union address and of course the election.
 
Zyphlin said:
...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".
Click to expand...

Can you give some examples of Obama nefariously stuffing things with other things unrelated to the primary purpose? Would that be things like, e.g. including an oil pipeline approval deadline in a payroll tax bill?
 
Mycroft said:
I have a question about the procedure for this Congressional up-or-down vote:

If one branch of Congress...say, the Senate...doesn't bring it up for a vote, what happens? Do Obama's merges happen after 90 days?
Click to expand...

It's a good question -- I would dispute the constitutionality of that, though.
 
AdamT said:
Can you give some examples of Obama nefariously stuffing things with other things unrelated to the primary purpose? Would that be things like, e.g. including an oil pipeline approval deadline in a payroll tax bill?
Click to expand...


Can't wait to see the replies to this. :popcorn2:
 
Its simple: if a republican did such a thing, as Reagan did (which he did): Pshh thats ok he is a good guy!
But if a democrat such as Obama uses this power: Thats bad and unconstitutional, expanding gov is bad!

Its simple people.... Come on.
 
Last edited:
Oh the utter hypocrisy of it all. If a Republican did this or proposed this it would be getting rave reviews from republicans and those on the right.
 
Seems like a good plan to me. If we're serious about streamlining the federal government, the executive is in a better position to do that than Congress. And, it still requires Congressional approval, so it isn't stripping them of any power or anything. The actual mergers he is proposing definitely make sense. Those are agencies that have largely overlapping areas that make it a pain for businesses to work with all of them.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Its simple: if a republican did such a thing, as Reagan did (which he did): Pshh thats ok he is a good guy!
But if a democrat such as Obama uses this power: Thats bad and unconstitutional, expanding gov is bad!

Its simple people.... Come on.
Click to expand...

People who really have no idea what they're talking about usually look pretty silly when they try anyway, and this is no exception.

Reagan didn't seek this power; it had existed for 50 years and expired while it he was in office, and he didn't seek to renew it. I don't even think he used it -- if you have examples of when he did, by all means, let's see them. (But of course every press item is quick to point out it "last existed" when Reagan was in office to make it appear that Obama wants something Reagan had, and any objection to it MUST then be partisan in nature.)

Obama doesn't have the power to use; no one said it was "unconstitutional," and no one said anything about "expanding government." It's even about reducing government, which everyone has said they support.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
People who really have no idea what they're talking about usually look pretty silly when they try anyway, and this is no exception.

Reagan didn't seek this power; it had existed for 50 years and expired while it he was in office, and he didn't seek to renew it. I don't even think he used it -- if you have examples of when he did, by all means, let's see them. (But of course every press item is quick to point out it "last existed" when Reagan was in office to make it appear that Obama wants something Reagan had, and any objection to it MUST then be partisan in nature.)

Obama doesn't have the power to use; no one said it was "unconstitutional," and no one said anything about "expanding government." It's even about reducing government, which everyone has said they support.
Click to expand...

It must not be much of a power if the guy who got elected on the promise of shrinking government never even tried to use this tool for shrinking government.
 
AdamT said:
It must not be much of a power if the guy who got elected on the promise of shrinking government never even tried to use this tool for shrinking government.
Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't follow, but even if it did . . . so?
 
haymarket said:
Oh the utter hypocrisy of it all. If a Republican did this or proposed this it would be getting rave reviews from republicans and those on the right.
Click to expand...

But Bush tried it in 2001 and 2005 unsuccessfully. Remind me again who was in the majority in Congress during that time...
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...
He's already proposed one particular consolidation.
 
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...


Brilliant political manuever.

Love 'em or hate 'em.....The Obama crew (obama, plouffe, axlerod, "alinsky") are major league political ninjas. All sincerity. These guys are good.
 
Harshaw said:
Well, that doesn't follow, but even if it did . . . so?
Click to expand...

Well, it does follow, so if it's not much of a power there's not much to worry about.
 
AdamT said:
Well, it does follow, so if it's not much of a power there's not much to worry about.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, because there are a lot of ways to do the same thing. Reagan was dead-set on burying the Soviet Union; did he ever launch any bombers at them?

If it's not much to worry about, then 1) why bother with it, and 2) why make a big stink if someone objects to it? Your reach here exceeds your grasp.
 
Krhazy said:
He's already proposed one particular consolidation.
Click to expand...

If it's only one, then there's not much of a need to create a new power.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it doesn't, because there are a lot of ways to do the same thing. Reagan was dead-set on burying the Soviet Union; did he ever launch any bombers at them?

If it's not much to worry about, then 1) why bother with it, and 2) why make a big stink if someone objects to it? Your reach here exceeds your grasp.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Reagan shrank the size of government by other means? Because if he did I missed it.
 
AdamT said:
So you're saying that Reagan shrank the size of government by other means? Because if he did I missed it.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about what Reagan did or didn't do other than a) I don't think he used that power (if he did, cite it), b) he didn't try to renew that power, and c) he didn't bomb the USSR.
 
Harshaw said:
I said nothing about what Reagan did or didn't do other than a) I don't think he used that power (if he did, cite it), b) he didn't try to renew that power, and c) he didn't bomb the USSR.
Click to expand...

Reagan did indeed use Fast Track authority, but he seems to have used it in the area of trade rather than to shrink government.

The Rise and Fall of Fast Track: Regime 5 - 1975-2008

Seems to be a much more complex subject than I realized.
 
haymarket said:
Oh the utter hypocrisy of it all. If a Republican did this or proposed this it would be getting rave reviews from republicans and those on the right.
Click to expand...

Did you people completely miss the fact that I specifically said I didn't like Reagan doing it anymore than Obama doing it if it in anyway inhibits the checks-and-balances system? Of course you did..'cause it wouldn't be possible to make stupid claims of hypocrisy (based on absolutely no supporting posts, mind you) if you actually looked at what was and wasn't said.
 
Harshaw said:
We aren't talking about Fast Track.
Click to expand...

I guess we should tell the press to stop calling it fast track authority then. :shrug:
 
Its just rearraqnging deck chairs on the Titanic if, at the end of the day, he' still running Obama deficits (that have more digits than any prior deficit in the Universe).

So, which seat would you like as you drown ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom