December 13, 2003
GORE YOUR OWN OX:
Bush Economic Aide Says Government Lacks Vision (Jonathan Weisman, December 13, 2003, Washington Post)
A senior member of President Bush's economic team told manufacturers this summer that it is difficult for the balkanized federal government to develop vision on any policy issue and that, in particular, the Commerce Department has scant political or financial authority to influence government policy on behalf of the nation's ailing manufacturers.The comments by Deputy Commerce Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, revealed in a transcript of a day-long manufacturing symposium in June, offer a rare dose of candor about the way Washington works and the limits of the government's power. They also surfaced just as the administration is trying to boost the visibility of its manufacturing policies, and as Bodman awaits Senate confirmation to assume the No. 2 post at the Treasury Department.
Responding to a comment on the government's vision for manufacturing, Bodman told the gathering, "I will tell you, it is very hard for this government to have a vision on anything. We are totally stove-piped, and we live within these compartments. This is not by way of a complaint. This is not by way of an excuse. It is by way of a fact.
"Congress likes it this way, and making organizational changes in the federal government is, as many of you know, a massive undertaking, a several-year job. It is not a several-month job. It is a several-year job, and so you don't do it very often, because it's certainly not worth it," he said.
Getting rid of Commerce, which in the general scheme of things is seen as a Republican cabinet department, would be an excellent first step towards trimming the Executive branch down to a more manageable size. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 13, 2003 9:38 AM
Although I think Agriculture should be the first one to get the boot, Commerce would be politically the best way to start.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at December 13, 2003 11:26 AMEnery, Labor, Transportation, CIA, EPA...
Posted by: oj at December 13, 2003 11:45 AMThe optimist in me has me thinking that Bush and co. are thinking about how useless some departments are but don't think they have the political capital/energy to deal with the problem (2nd term perhaps). Bodman sounds right - it took 9-11 to create Homeland Security and look at all the political infighting and foot dragging that created.
I've often believed that Commerce should be eliminated, with what few necessary functions (i.e. economic statistics) be transferred to other departments. Another idea is to merge Commerce, Agriculture, and Labor into a Department of Employment and significantly downsize it in the process.
AWW:
I like your idea. But, for truth in labelling, it would have to be called the Department of [our] Employment.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at December 13, 2003 1:10 PMAll;
One of our water cooler games is to discuss what a proper set of cabinet positions would be. The concensus is five: War, Treasury, State, Interior, Justice. Everything else should be eliminated or move into one of those departments.
Perhaps President Bush should consider that. Like the base closing idea, it might not be possible to get rid of just one cabinet position. As we code slingers say, if you're stuck enlarge the problem.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at December 13, 2003 6:17 PMoj,
> Enery, Labor, Transportation, CIA, EPA...
Sure is hard to know where to stop, isn't it?
Posted by: Kirk Parker at December 14, 2003 4:48 AMaog:
The gibernatorial candidate I worked for used to cite one of the great business gurus--I forget whether it was Demming or whoever--to the effect that no one can manage more than six departments of anything effectively.
Posted by: OJ at December 14, 2003 11:16 AM