Jun
24
White House Unveils Government Reform Plan
“This effort, along with the recent executive orders on federal unions, are the biggest pieces so far of our plan to drain the swamp. The federal government is bloated, opaque, bureaucratic, and inefficient…. By the direction of @POTUS, we released a plan to make government more effective, efficient and accountable to better serve the American people.” — Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Did you realize that various aspects of the production and distribution of a roast beef sandwich are regulated by different federal agencies?
Did you know that the FDA regulates cheese pizza but the USDA regulates pepperoni pizza?
Did you know there are 45 different federal job-training programs that report to multiple different agencies? (Mitt Romney talked about this in his 2012 campaign.)
Were you aware that more than 20 federal agencies spend a combined $250 million a year for education programs on financial literacy?
Some things just don’t make sense in the way the federal government functions. (No kiddin’, right?) So, in April 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the OMB to come up with a reorganizational plan to eliminate duplication within federal agencies. The OMB worked closely with the Heritage Foundation, solicited ideas and input from agency leaders, and heard from 100,000 regular citizens. (Notably, they did not consult with Congress, fearing a stultifying effect from the “legacy infrastructure” that is congressional committees.) The result is the just-released, 132-page plan. Here are a few of the proposed changes, which I gleaned primarily from The Daily Signal, The Blaze, and The Washington Post:
o “Since the Labor Department and the Education Department both are responsible for learning and skills for Americans, the Trump administration wants to create a single Department of Education and the Workforce.” Margaret Weichert, OMB’s deputy director for management, notes that this would be similar to what most other developed nations that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have. “There would be four new sub-agencies, focused on K-12, Higher Education/Workforce Development, Enforcement, and Research/Evaluation/Administration.”
“We welcome the administration’s focus on education and workforce issues together, and as we continue our oversight over the Department of Education and the Department of Labor, we look forward to working with the administration on the proposal and how the new department could function to best serve American students, workers, job creators, and families.” — Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Note: The abovementioned 45 job-training programs would be consolidated into 16.
o “[M]erge the food component of the Food and Drug Administration, now part of the Department of Health and Human Services, into a Department of Agriculture entity to be known as the Food Safety Agency.”
o “The Department of Health and Human Services would also be reformed into the Department of Health and Public Welfare and would consolidate numerous social safety net programs such as nutrition assistance and other welfare initiatives.” This would would “better capture the nature of its programs,” explained Weichert.
o “[Move] programs providing rural housing loan guarantees and rental assistance out of the Agriculture Department and into the Department of Housing and Urban Development, locating all federal housing programs in a single Cabinet department.”
o “[Move] a small division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to Interior.”
o “[Shift] responsibility for employee background checks from a downsized Office of Personnel Management to the Defense Department.”
o “[P]rivatize some government functions, including air traffic control and the U.S. Postal Service, which is struggling financially in the Internet age.”
o “The Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program would absorb portions of hazardous site cleanup programs run by Interior and Agriculture.”
o “[T]he Energy Department, which was threatened with severe cuts to its programs in back-to-back White House budget proposals, would combine several applied-energy programs into a single new office. The administration also floated having that department, along with the independent Tennessee Valley Authority, sell some federally controlled electricity transmission assets in the South and West to private operators.”
o “Some Army Corps of Engineers functions would move to the Transportation and Interior departments.”
o “[S]hift responsibility for harbor channels and inland waterways from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the Department of Transportation — and, in some cases, out of federal control altogether. If approved, that could affect major U.S. ports from New York to Los Angeles, and numerous locales between…. [T]he administration’s blueprint suggests major federal waterways could be shifted to new ownership. It is unclear whether ownership might flow to states, localities or private firms, and a Transportation Department official provided no immediate clarification.”
Some of the smaller changes can be handled by the Executive branch, via executive actions and through the budget process. But, the majority of the proposed reforms will need to go through Congress, where they could encounter… problems.
Not surprisingly, there is opposition to such reform, mostly from the political Left. For example, union leaders are squawking about federal jobs being lost, either altogether or shifted over to the private sector. (The plan doesn’t address how many jobs may be affected.) President of the Communications Workers of America, Chris Shelton, also warns of concentrating more power in the hands of large corporations. The American Federation of Government Employees doesn’t like it, either. Its president, J. David Cox, Sr., claims the plan is simply “a scheme to eliminate essential programs and public-service jobs, reward or punish political appointees depending on their allegiance to the White House, and privatize government programs to reward political donors.” (I’m pretty sure their real concern is loss of personal power and union dues, though.)
Paul Bledsoe, a former Energy Department consultant under Obama, warns of “a backdoor attempt to cut energy innovation funding”. Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA) accuses the administration of trying to stealthily cut safety-net programs, while DNC Chairman and former labor secretary Tom Perez sees an unfair effort to purge agency employees. But, according to the WaPo article,
“Weichert was adamant that ‘the objective of this exercise… was not to cut jobs.’ She noted that the federal workforce is aging, with 60 percent of its employees eligible to retire in the next 10 years. Meanwhile, she said, many corners of government — particularly in cybersecurity and other information technology specialties — need qualified workers. She suggested that the administration wants to modernize the workforce through ‘retraining, reskilling and redeploying’ employees.”
There is skepticism from others, as well. After all, similar attempts at government reform have been made with limited success (often due to “intense political opposition”) over the past 40 years, from Carter through Obama. Some of the currently proposed actions have been attempted before, either in whole or in part, and failed. Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan research group, also observes:
“No one can reasonably dispute that our government needs reform, but structural reorganizations are rarely the most effective way to improve service to our citizens.”
Stier continues:
“For the administration’s reorganization plans to succeed, the president and members of his administration must articulate a government-wide vision for reform, the rationale for each proposal, and how the administration will implement changes and measure progress. The White House also must get congressional buy-in and bipartisan support, make substantial, upfront investments, and plan for sustained attention over many years.”
Clearly, the reform proposal in question is not comprehensive, so there are arguably more areas of government that still need to be addressed in regards to efficiency, accountability, proper authority, etc. But, I am glad to see the Trump administration moving forward at least in these areas. (He has also been reducing federal regulation, but that’s a subject for another day.) Stier is right, though. It’s gonna require a lot of public and congressional backing, as well as long-term dedication and investment. From what I read of them, I see the proposed reforms as sensible and very positive, and I hope the President gets sufficient support to implement the plan. (At least, most of it.) As they say, it’s a start….
