• 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!

Trump administration to slaah funding for advisory committees

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
47,193
Reaction score
24,503
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
One of the hallmarks of the Trump era is a deep mistrust of professional experience and expertise. President Trump has claimed that he knows more about the military than the generals, and more about science than scientifists. He spends more time concerned with the opinions and recommendations of Fox News pundits over wasting time with formal briefings from the CIA, FBI, or the Pentagon.

So true to form, he has now asked that funding for advisory committees be slashed. This system up in the 1970s so that the government had an ability to reach out to experts in various fields, outside of Washington, for advice and recommendation on all sorts of issues.

Ironically, this is going to put more power in the hands of Washington Derek Kratz, and cut them off from people out in the real world who have experience and expertise in the areas for which were they have to make decisions.

But it seems this was done because it’s going to sound good on the campaign trail. “I have cut Government bureaucracy by 1/3!” :roll:

”CNN) - President Donald Trump on Friday announced plans to slash the formal system for advising regulators on nearly every area of federal policy.

The President signed an executive order directing each agency to "terminate at least one-third of its current" advisory committees by the end of September...

Advisory committees provide expertise on nearly every issue imaginable -- such as counseling the Department of Homeland Security on chemicals and data privacy or advising the Transportation Department on drones and motorcycle safety...

Rush Holt, the chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, criticized the move, saying that "making smart decisions should not be seen as optional or dispensable."
Trump's latest government overhaul aims to cut advisory panels by one-third - WFMZ
 
The embracing of ignorance as governments guidling light is so very typical of Trump and his infamous "gut". It is just the latest norm Trump has decided to discard to boost his own standing and his own power.

Every American should demand his removal ASAP before even more damage is done to our nation. He is doing the direct opposite of making the nation great again.
 
Is there any defending this latest act of stupidity from Trump? All national leaders rely extensively on expert advice and opinion otherwise how could they possibly function? I suspect those being terminated are the one's whose advice Trump least respects or listens to. Still, as long as he knows what's best America is in safe hands.
 
You don't need advice when you have the best brains on the planet. Experts? What do they know?
 
One of the hallmarks of the Trump era is a deep mistrust of professional experience and expertise. President Trump has claimed that he knows more about the military than the generals, and more about science than scientifists. He spends more time concerned with the opinions and recommendations of Fox News pundits over wasting time with formal briefings from the CIA, FBI, or the Pentagon.

So true to form, he has now asked that funding for advisory committees be slashed. This system up in the 1970s so that the government had an ability to reach out to experts in various fields, outside of Washington, for advice and recommendation on all sorts of issues.

Ironically, this is going to put more power in the hands of Washington Derek Kratz, and cut them off from people out in the real world who have experience and expertise in the areas for which were they have to make decisions.

But it seems this was done because it’s going to sound good on the campaign trail. “I have cut Government bureaucracy by 1/3!” :roll:

Hmmm... From the citation:

The President signed an executive order directing each agency to "terminate at least one-third of its current" advisory committees by the end of September. There are around 1,000 advisory committees reporting to more than 50 government agencies...Experts acknowledge the system is imperfect...many administrations have stacked too many industry voices on committees...Ian Bassin, an associate White House counsel in the Obama administration who worked on advisory committee issues, said eliminating outdated or ineffective committees could reduce government bloat. But there's also a danger in going too far, he said.
Trump's latest government overhaul aims to cut advisory panels by one-third - WFMZ

So, he has not eliminated ALL advisory committees, just issued an EO seeking to eliminate one-third of current advisory boards by September.

Moreover, experts from both sides see several problems with advisory boards, including the fact many are "stacked" with advisors who represent the special interests of many industries and may be biased in their advice in favor those industrial goals. Also that there is a valid reason in eliminating outdated or ineffective committees.

So here we go again with people jumping the gun and assuming the worst without seeing exactly what this action "reducing government bloat" may actually accomplish. I for one support reducing government bloat.

IMO, just another example of biased report "framing" designed to create typical knee-jerk moral outrage from the Left. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... From the citation:

Trump's latest government overhaul aims to cut advisory panels by one-third - WFMZ

So, he has not eliminated ALL advisory committees, just issued an EO seeking to eliminate one-third by September.

Moreover, experts from both sides see several problems with advisory boards, including the fact many are "stacked" with advisors who represent the special interests of many industries and may be biased in their advice in favor those industries goals. That there is a valid reason in eliminating outdated or ineffective committees.

So here we go again with people jumping the gun and assuming the worst without seeing exactly what this action "reducing government bloat" may actually accomplish. I for one support reducing government bloat.

IMO, just more biased report framing designed to create typical knee-jerk moral outrage from the Left. :coffeepap:

So who decides which ones go?
 
The agencies themselves. Didn't you read the article or my quote from it? :unsure13:

This will take power and input away from the front lines of people actually dealing with the issues and put it centrally in the hands of bureaucrats in DC.
 
when you have both the skin and the IQ of an orange, experts become useless.
 
This will take power and input away from the front lines of people actually dealing with the issues and put it centrally in the hands of bureaucrats in DC.

Untrue, as most (if not all) Agencies have requirements, written by Congress into the law which created the Agency in the first place, to hold hearings about issues within their purview at the request of concerned parties.
 
Untrue, as most (if not all) Agencies have requirements, written by Congress into the law which created the Agency in the first place, to hold hearings about issues within their purview at the request of concerned parties.

So what? Now there is no agencies left to call on. So you are left with the DC bureaucrats making the decisions for you.
 
So what? Now there is no agencies left to call on. So you are left with the DC bureaucrats making the decisions for you.

False dilemma

The Agency ALWAYS makes the decision. An advisory board merely reviews an issue at the Agencies request, and gives a recommendation. Frequently there are differences of opinion, so a report might be issued indicating a Majority and any Minority positions. However, these are only recommendations and do not have any force. The Agency still makes the final decision.

Meanwhile "NOW" each Agency has been instructed to reduce it's advisory panels by 1/3, NOT completely. That still leave 2/3's of such advisory boards available to offer advice, as well as the actual Agency itself.
 
Last edited:
The embracing of ignorance as governments guidling light is so very typical of Trump and his infamous "gut". It is just the latest norm Trump has decided to discard to boost his own standing and his own power.

Every American should demand his removal ASAP before even more damage is done to our nation. He is doing the direct opposite of making the nation great again.
Sing this song to the speaker of the house. She is the one person who can begin the process of forcefully removing him and she is refusing to do it for political reasons.

Where is the lefts open criticism of her for not doing her job?

She is robbing all of you of credability by making your complaint look like nothing but political theater. She appears to be afraid to have a national conversation about his actions in an offical setting.

Why are people like yourself not demanding she is removed from her position for dereliction of her duties?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
This will take power and input away from the front lines of people actually dealing with the issues and put it centrally in the hands of bureaucrats in DC.
Thats where it should be.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
One of the hallmarks of the Trump era is a deep mistrust of professional experience and expertise. President Trump has claimed that he knows more about the military than the generals, and more about science than scientifists. He spends more time concerned with the opinions and recommendations of Fox News pundits over wasting time with formal briefings from the CIA, FBI, or the Pentagon.

So true to form, he has now asked that funding for advisory committees be slashed. This system up in the 1970s so that the government had an ability to reach out to experts in various fields, outside of Washington, for advice and recommendation on all sorts of issues.

Ironically, this is going to put more power in the hands of Washington Derek Kratz, and cut them off from people out in the real world who have experience and expertise in the areas for which were they have to make decisions.

But it seems this was done because it’s going to sound good on the campaign trail. “I have cut Government bureaucracy by 1/3!” :roll:

Drain the swamp, baby!
 
Sing this song to the speaker of the house. She is the one person who can begin the process of forcefully removing him and she is refusing to do it for political reasons.

Where is the lefts open criticism of her for not doing her job?

She is robbing all of you of credability by making your complaint look like nothing but political theater. She appears to be afraid to have a national conversation about his actions in an offical setting.

Why are people like yourself not demanding she is removed from her position for dereliction of her duties?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Why would she ask a rigged and fixed jury to deliver justice?
 
Is there any defending this latest act of stupidity from Trump? All national leaders rely extensively on expert advice and opinion otherwise how could they possibly function? I suspect those being terminated are the one's whose advice Trump least respects or listens to. Still, as long as he knows what's best America is in safe hands.
46EC6561-C1C8-411C-BCED-CAA3BC2CA5A1.jpg
Keep joking, mate. Pretty soon you might have this guy running your country.:mrgreen:
1AB4C9D7-FD8E-4220-9F6E-8A30C19D09C3.jpg
 
Why would she ask a rigged and fixed jury to deliver justice?
As i said she is robbing the credability from your accusations if you dont believe enough in it to acctually formally kake the accusation. It comes across as exagerated fictional political theater.

Speaking for myself and i suspect many other people, i would like them to lay out the case and give me the opprotunity to weigh out the evidence for myself.

I dont believe any of them are honest enough that we sjould accept their word on blind faith.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
One of the hallmarks of the Trump era is a deep mistrust of professional experience and expertise. President Trump has claimed that he knows more about the military than the generals, and more about science than scientifists. He spends more time concerned with the opinions and recommendations of Fox News pundits over wasting time with formal briefings from the CIA, FBI, or the Pentagon.

So true to form, he has now asked that funding for advisory committees be slashed. This system up in the 1970s so that the government had an ability to reach out to experts in various fields, outside of Washington, for advice and recommendation on all sorts of issues.

Ironically, this is going to put more power in the hands of Washington Derek Kratz, and cut them off from people out in the real world who have experience and expertise in the areas for which were they have to make decisions.

But it seems this was done because it’s going to sound good on the campaign trail. “I have cut Government bureaucracy by 1/3!” :roll:

Trump has already stated who he trusts and who he doesn't.

Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit

Why would he need American experts when he already has Putin? After all, Trump does want another four years, and Putin is the man to make that happen, just like in 2016

Mueller Exposes Putin's Hold Over Trump
 
Last edited:
As i said she is robbing the credability from your accusations if you dont believe enough in it to acctually formally kake the accusation. It comes across as exagerated fictional political theater.

Speaking for myself and i suspect many other people, i would like them to lay out the case and give me the opprotunity to weigh out the evidence for myself.

I dont believe any of them are honest enough that we sjould accept their word on blind faith.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

There is no point to sending any charges to a rigged jury. The Senate is the lack of credibility.
 
...and re-fill it with 'only the best people'. They don't stay very long I've noticed, but seem to end up in jail.

I don't see him replacing these "advisors" with new advisors. Do you?
 
Back
Top Bottom