Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
President Obama is Beating the GOPers at their own game..Reducing Gov't (Original Post) opihimoimoi Jan 2012 OP
Obama plays chess oh08dem Jan 2012 #1
He's taking away their issues EC Jan 2012 #2
If their issues were popular, why'd they lose in 2006 and 2008? leftstreet Jan 2012 #5
They didn't lose in 2008 izquierdista Jan 2012 #21
They don't need to be popular. EC Jan 2012 #25
cool. he should close down the Drug Czar's palace RainDog Jan 2012 #3
Wait. So now drowning gvt in a bathtub is good? leftstreet Jan 2012 #4
Yea, that's what Obama said. JoePhilly Jan 2012 #37
Not reducing government - reducing bureacracy - big difference. grantcart Jan 2012 #6
+1... redundant functions are rampant in the Fed Govt. DCBob Jan 2012 #17
I agree Shankapotomus Jan 2012 #26
That's bad policy. If the politics made up for it then cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #7
True -- he is pulling the Clinton maneuver Samantha Jan 2012 #8
The Man is Pono....he is on it.... opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #9
Good Move By the President indykatie1955 Jan 2012 #10
Question: How Many More Government Workers Will Be Laid Off ? WillyT Jan 2012 #11
It was bound to happen Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #12
The man cannot do anything right w/o the Whiners nit pickin opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #14
You are definitely becoming one of my new faves here. Number23 Jan 2012 #45
Supposedly, the set up is to shut down the positions as people retire or move on. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #13
According to Rachel Maddow's reporting . . . markpkessinger Jan 2012 #15
Its a GAIN...less makes for efficiency and streamlined...perfect opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #16
That is NOTHING joeglow3 Jan 2012 #24
How big is government compared to previous years? LiberalFighter Jan 2012 #18
This article has some info on that savalez Jan 2012 #30
"84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under...." pnorman Jan 2012 #35
The 84% increase under Republicans are just the federal employees LiberalFighter Jan 2012 #39
It's more RW crap from a "Dem" president. Apparently RW is the new "progressive". Edweird Jan 2012 #19
The Sparkle Pony Ride starts at noon. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #32
Smart move by the President.. politically and practically. DCBob Jan 2012 #20
What a President we got>>>Priceless...full of wisdom...so Pono... opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #22
He is awesome at out-Republicaning the Republicans. Karmadillo Jan 2012 #23
Obama MinervaX Jan 2012 #27
That's one way to silence them Shankapotomus Jan 2012 #28
The GOPers are too easy these daze....their BS not selling in a tough crowd opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #29
Hahaha!! Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #31
LOL...its nice to know people knows Rooks from knights opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #36
The msm never attacks Republican hypocrisy. savalez Jan 2012 #33
Poor GOPers OutFoxed again.....Wheres Boner these daze? opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #38
Yay. Now the public thinks shrinking government is an unmitigated good. dawg Jan 2012 #34
Some would call this "caving in". hughee99 Jan 2012 #40
me think its better than to let them GOPers to do it and claim credit opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #42
There's only "credit" to be had if you're doing something that SHOULD be done. hughee99 Jan 2012 #43
Me also thinks the move is a good one,,,therefore,,,the Pres gets a ROOK opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #44
"Obama plays chess...just got a free ROOK" His own rook. /nt Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #41

EC

(12,287 posts)
2. He's taking away their issues
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:56 AM
Jan 2012

one at a time and loudly. First cutting taxes, now smaller government..

 

izquierdista

(11,689 posts)
21. They didn't lose in 2008
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:33 AM
Jan 2012

They got someone to carry out 99% of their policies AND someone to blame it on when those policies don't work.

EC

(12,287 posts)
25. They don't need to be popular.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:10 PM
Jan 2012

They need to be IRRELEVANT. I know I'm tired of hearing the repubs and tps screaming about smaller government, taxes, deficit, yada, yada, yada...I'm glad he's taking these issues out of the mix.

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
3. cool. he should close down the Drug Czar's palace
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:19 AM
Jan 2012

aka The Office of National Drug Control Policy

This is a govt. expansion program started by Ronald Raygun and resulted in govt waste and failure. It is a propaganda arm of the govt., and really has no useful function other than to provide some beltway insider a big salary and title.

Health and Human Services can handle the issue of drug abuse harm reduction. The FDA and DEA can handle their jobs - honestly, this is just bureaucratic pork.

via wiki - As of 2011, the ONDCP is requesting funding for 98 full time employees, 64 (65.31%) of whom would be paid at either GS-15, GS-14, or SES pay grades, or more than $105,211.00 yearly, being adjusted for Washington, D.C. cost of living expenses.[7]

I will not, of course, hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

In addition, Obama should instruct the DEA to assume cannabis has been decriminalized and move law enforcement to illegal meth and heroin production and distribution, with the goal of providing ways for addicts to move under the purview of HHS.

more wiki

In September 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that salaries and expenses at ONDCP be reduced from $26.6 million in fiscal 2006 to $11.5 million in fiscal 2007, to "more closely reflect actual performance." Committee members said they would request funding for a study of ONDCP by the National Academy of Public Administration. They also ordered a Government Accountability Office study on the distribution of grants. Plus, they directed the Director to provide quarterly updates on travel expenditures, staffing levels and plans for future hirings.[11]

By law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form) of illicit drugs.[12] According to the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998"[13] the director of the ONDCP

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that -- 1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and 2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

The Government Accountability Office has found that this law authorizes the ONDCP to disseminate misleading information (lie) in order to oppose legalization[14]

Since when do American citizens need an office of anti-drug propaganda? Since when do we need to spend millions of dollar for their failed attempts - their work has, apparently, resulted in MORE cannabis use, not less. I'd say that demonstrates a HUGE FAILURE b/c Americans don't want the govt. to spend taxpayer dollars lying to them and they say... fuck you, in response.

They have PAID for writers to put propaganda in TV shows...wtf?

And their anti-marijuana commercials, from studies, indicated that they made females more likely to use marijuana. Two diff. studies indicated failure. Yet the office continues to lie.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/09/a_white_house_drug_deal_gone_bad.html

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
37. Yea, that's what Obama said.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 07:48 PM
Jan 2012

Geeze ... I used to think that progressive were smarter and understood complex issues, and were more nuanced, than the Tea Party.

Maybe not.

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
26. I agree
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:58 PM
Jan 2012

Killing is definately redundant in this world. Who needs another institution to get THAT done!

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
7. That's bad policy. If the politics made up for it then
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:30 AM
Jan 2012

I'd see the point, but the political upside (if any) is not enough to justify moving the national center further right. (For many elections to come)

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
8. True -- he is pulling the Clinton maneuver
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:33 AM
Jan 2012

In the 90s, Clinton realized which Republican pushes were going to go through with or without his support. So he purloined them, taking credit, and infuriating the Republicans. It is a joy to see Obama doing this as well (for the most part).

Sam

indykatie1955

(63 posts)
10. Good Move By the President
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:09 AM
Jan 2012

Consolidation of functions and use of attrition as a primary way to reduce excess jobs. This way he controls the approach which may not be perfect but is sure to be infinitely better than it would play out with republicans driving the process.

Summer Hathaway

(2,770 posts)
12. It was bound to happen
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:38 AM
Jan 2012

the inevitable response:

If Obama did it, it must have a down side - a down side which must be proclaimed loudly and clearly, lest someone somewhere give him credit for something.

Had he announced a plan to hire more government workers, we'd be hearing about where the money was coming from to pay them.

Had he announced keeping gov't workers at the current number, he'd be accused of upholding the 'status quo' that everyone kvetches about.

With some folks, the man can't win. Whatever he does, it's wrong. Thank God DU is not representative of the real world, nor its inhabitants.

TheKentuckian

(25,011 posts)
13. Supposedly, the set up is to shut down the positions as people retire or move on.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:41 AM
Jan 2012

Of course there may well be some firings that aren't replaced too but the gist is attrition, not that I think much of the whole direction.

markpkessinger

(8,392 posts)
15. According to Rachel Maddow's reporting . . .
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 04:39 AM
Jan 2012

. . . none. There will be a reduction of 1,000 workers over a ten-year period, to take place by attrition, not by lay-offs.

 

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)
24. That is NOTHING
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 11:44 AM
Jan 2012

We have over 2,650,000 Federal employees. Normal efficiencies should result in more than a 1,000 reduction. Now, I agree it needs to be through attrition, but we need more than 100 a year.

LiberalFighter

(50,740 posts)
18. How big is government compared to previous years?
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:37 AM
Jan 2012

I consider big government to be a myth until the numbers are produced for each year and there is a showing of big government. And if the increase is proportional to the population it serves then it still is not big government.

savalez

(3,517 posts)
30. This article has some info on that
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:12 PM
Jan 2012

I read it yesterday and was happy to see at least some statistics:

Historically speaking, “Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.” George W. Bush managed to both reduce the number of federal employees while at the same time growing the size of the government. He did this with an explosion of privatization. George W. Bush outsourced every government function that he could get his hands on. Bush more than doubled the amount that the federal government spent on private contracts. W. didn’t reduce the size of the federal government. He cooked the books. The end result was the Republicans love of big government had been outsourced, not diminished.


http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-21st-century-government

pnorman

(8,155 posts)
35. "84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under...."
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 06:07 PM
Jan 2012

I never knew that! Thanks!

LiberalFighter

(50,740 posts)
39. The 84% increase under Republicans are just the federal employees
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 02:51 PM
Jan 2012

Not including increase in private contractors. Right?

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
19. It's more RW crap from a "Dem" president. Apparently RW is the new "progressive".
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:43 AM
Jan 2012

At least according to some here....

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
20. Smart move by the President.. politically and practically.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:47 AM
Jan 2012

What he is proposing makes sense and puts the GOPers on the hot seat. Plus it takes away a major talking point. I suspect we will be hearing more and more ideas like this as we campaign season heats up.

from Boston Globe:

-snip-
"Right now, we have a 21st century economy, but we've still got a government organized for the 20th century," Obama said. "Over the years, the needs of Americans have changed, but our government has not. In fact, it's gotten even more complex. And that has to change."

On government reorganization, Obama wants a guarantee from Congress that he could get a vote within 90 days on any idea to consolidate federal agencies, provided it saves money and cuts the government. His first order of business would be to merge six major trade and commerce agencies into one -- eliminating, among others, the Commerce Department.
-snip-
The proposal is in part a challenge to congressional Republicans since it embraces the traditional GOP goal of smaller government, and Obama called on Congress to back him.
-snip-
Obama is also promising new tax incentives for businesses that bring jobs to the U.S. instead of shipping them overseas, and he wants to eliminate tax breaks for companies that outsource.

more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2012/01/14/obama_promotes_insourcing_government_reorg/

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
28. That's one way to silence them
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:05 PM
Jan 2012

Give your opponents what the want and when it fails or is unpopular what else can they say?

savalez

(3,517 posts)
33. The msm never attacks Republican hypocrisy.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:17 PM
Jan 2012

So someone's got to.

The strategic gamesmanship here isn’t centered around a question of presidential power. Obama’s remarks today were a stealth attack on Republican hypocrisy. If Republicans refuse to grant the president the power that he requested, this will become another campaign issue for Obama. If Republicans do grant him the authority to reorganize his branch, President Obama gets to campaign on streamlining the federal government for small business. It’s a win-win for Obama, and all lose situation for the GOP.


http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-21st-century-government

dawg

(10,620 posts)
34. Yay. Now the public thinks shrinking government is an unmitigated good.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:20 PM
Jan 2012

The Republicans want to shrink it. Obama wants to shrink it.

Yay. We're all in agreement now.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
40. Some would call this "caving in".
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 03:07 PM
Jan 2012

Apparently I missed the part where giving your opponent some of what they want without getting anything in return from them was "brilliant chess strategy".

Yes, a chessmaster indeed!

opihimoimoi

(52,426 posts)
42. me think its better than to let them GOPers to do it and claim credit
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 04:47 PM
Jan 2012

Obama cut them off at the "Pass" once more...he gets the credit

and not the GOPers

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
43. There's only "credit" to be had if you're doing something that SHOULD be done.
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 05:26 PM
Jan 2012

With Obama claiming "credit" for things the GOP have been demanding for years makes it look like the GOP was right all along.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»President Obama is Beatin...