Trump's Executive Order to rearrange the executive branch

[kpitcher]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/13/presidential-executive-order-comprehensive-plan-reorganizing-executive




Presidential Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR REORGANIZING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch by directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies (as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code), components of agencies, and agency programs.

Sec. 2. Proposed Plan to Improve the Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Accountability of Federal Agencies, Including, as Appropriate, to Eliminate or Reorganize Unnecessary or Redundant Federal Agencies. (a) Within 180 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall submit to the Director a proposed plan to reorganize the agency, if appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of that agency.

(b) The Director shall publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to suggest improvements in the organization and functioning of the executive branch and shall consider the suggestions when formulating the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) Within 180 days after the closing date for the submission of suggestions pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the Director shall submit to the President a proposed plan to reorganize the executive branch in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of agencies. The proposed plan shall include, as appropriate, recommendations to eliminate unnecessary agencies, components of agencies, and agency programs, and to merge functions. The proposed plan shall include recommendations for any legislation or administrative measures necessary to achieve the proposed reorganization.

(d) In developing the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section, the Director shall consider, in addition to any other relevant factors:

(i) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the Federal Government or would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise;

(ii) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are redundant, including with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iii) whether certain administrative capabilities necessary for operating an agency, a component, or a program are redundant with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iv) whether the costs of continuing to operate an agency, a component, or a program are justified by the public benefits it provides; and

(v) the costs of shutting down or merging agencies, components, or programs, including the costs of addressing the equities of affected agency staff.

(e) In developing the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section, the Director shall consult with the head of each agency and, consistent with applicable law, with persons or entities outside the Federal Government with relevant expertise in organizational structure and management.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 13, 2017.

[fisharmor]

Wait, he wants a review of whether a department's function is appropriate... but isn't calling into question its legal authority?
How do other people define appropriate? Cause I don't understand this.

[UWDude]

Wait, he wants a review of whether a department's function is appropriate... but isn't calling into question its legal authority?
How do other people define appropriate? Cause I don't understand this.

You have 180 days to figure it out, and then offer suggestions.

NPR and National endowment for the arts and humanities are already looking at the spending guillotine. Very popular suggestions to defund them.
Im tired for paying for propaganda.
Should also axe department of education money too, to slow down the Industrial Victim College Complex. Sick of colleges and high schools teaching a bunch of globalist garbage. Can't believe my tax dollars have to pay for indoctrination of hatred of myself, the evil white male. (At least I'm not Christian, they are even further ahead on the sluice floor).

So yeah, everybody here are experts at cutting government waste. Money to mouth time.

[merkelstan]

It's nice, but a bit like telling your cows to turn themselves into hamburger for you.

[PatriotOne]

It's nice, but a bit like telling your cows to turn themselves into hamburger for you.

lol. True. I've been through a large government mandated budget cut before while working in the contracting dept for a major gov contractor. Every department will justify their existence and make a huge fuss for awhile. But in the end they will find a way to make the cuts because they will have no choice.

[PatriotOne]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/13/presidential-executive-order-comprehensive-plan-reorganizing-executive

Truly a beautiful thing.

[timosman]

Truly a beautiful thing.

I suspect we won't hear from the usual suspects on this thread.:cool:

[shakey1]

very innaresting... hopefully some of these make the cut list.

http://wariscrime.com/new/top-10-most-useless-u-s-government-parasite-agencies/

[tod evans]

How about cutting all of them and then after a year see which ones are missed?

[otherone]

It's nice, but a bit like telling your cows to turn themselves into hamburger for you.

Or expecting the deck chairs on the Titanic to reorganize themselves.

[CaptUSA]

Purpose. This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch...

Damn. The last thing I want is an effective and efficient branch of government! The one thing we can all count on is that no matter how big government gets, it will be largely ineffective in what it wants to do. Mussolini, it is said, operated an "efficient" government.


(Seriously, though... I doubt the US government will ever be efficient. Cutting pieces of it should always be encouraged.)

[Wooden Indian]

Good deal, Trump. I like it... could have gone farther and been more aggressive by having an outside body do the audits and decide the function and legality of each agency, but it's better than nothing.

Dig it.

[The Northbreather]

Me likey

(i) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the Federal Government or would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise;

[Origanalist]

I suspect we won't hear from the usual suspects on this thread.:cool:

Well, here's to hoping it accomplishes something. I'm for anything that shrinks leviathan.

[phill4paul]

I suspect we won't hear from the usual suspects on this thread.:cool:

Am I a "usual suspect?" I have no problem with this. On the face it seems like a good start. I suppose we will see in a year from now how it pans out.

What I'd like to see, since this is only an Executive action, is for some liberty representative, to use the information and create a Congressional bill that would keep future President from over riding the new directives.

[helmuth_hubener]

Best. Executive. Order. Ever.

[Jan2017]

How many suggestions will we get here on RPF over these next 180 days . . . (?)

Trump signs executive order aiming to trim government costs

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/trump009a_zpskgwamqdq.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/trump009a_zpskgwamqdq.jpg.html)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday aiming to find where within federal agencies the U.S. government can trim costs.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/13/trump-to-sign-executive-order-aiming-to-see-where-money-is-being-wasted-in-government-spicer-says.html

[helmuth_hubener]

It's nice, but a bit like telling your cows to turn themselves into hamburger for you.
Yeah, but the "cow" this order makes into the Head Cow is Mick Mulvaney. Head of the Shutdown Caucus (best caucus name ever). Endorser of Rand Paul for President. Been fighting spending tooth and nail his entire time in politics (including even on the state level!). His record is fighting spending is as good, almost, as Ron Paul's. From Wikipedia:

According to the New York Times, Mulvaney took "a hard line on spending during President Obama’s term, vowing not to raise the nation’s debt limit and embracing the term 'Shutdown Caucus' because of his willingness to shut the government down instead." In 2015, Mulvaney voted against a government-funding resolution, which would have prevented a government shutdown.

Voted against the Ryan budget(s), of course. Voted against everything. Just votes against spending. This guy is really, truly against spending.

So...... again:

Best. Executive. Order. Ever.

Shut it All Down, Mick!

One day to go.........

[kpitcher]

It'll be interesting if Secretary Perry suggests he be put out of a job by closing his entire department.

[fisharmor]

You have 180 days to figure it out, and then offer suggestions.

Ok so I couldn't copypaste easily on my phone to make the point I was trying to make.


(i) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the Federal Government

What does "appropriate" mean in this case? When someone asks "is it appropriate" what I hear is "should this be".
If the federal government should not be doing something, then it follows that the central question is actually whether the action in question is legally authorized. Except:


Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency

If they aren't calling into question the legal authority of the department, then what the hell is the point in questioning whether it's appropriate for it to do this function?

[CPUd]

It'll be interesting if Secretary Perry suggests he be put out of a job by closing his entire department.

No, he's already been given "the tour"

[helmuth_hubener]

fisharmor, I think the whole Section 3 is just legal-speak covering their bases, assuring the world that they're not doing any of those items listed which, presumably, have each been established by some court precedent in the past that executive orders cannot do.

[undergroundrr]

In sentiment, this is trump's best move yet. Yet I'm dubious about the executive branch voting to shrink itself.

Other than the deadline, it has no benchmarks or hard numbers. I would have liked to see something like "reduce outlays by 50% or greater."

Best case, Mulvaney goes into full libertarian "cut it if it's unconstitutional" mode. It's going to be disheartening if he comes back and says "we found ways to save the American people $500 million." Heck, the botched Jan. 29 botched Yemen raid cost $250M. That would fund the NEA for a year and a half.

Sec. 2 (d) (i) is encouraging to read. But if trump believed even a little bit in liberty, he would state clearly that, other than defense, pretty close to everything the Executive Branch does "would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise."

[pcosmar]

Me likey

(i) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the Federal Government or would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise;

I am liking it in concept.

Believing it will be seriously implemented,,, not so much.

but I'll be watching.

[TheCount]

I'm going to withhold judgement until I see the plan.

[Zippyjuan]

This is from November: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-22/trump-can-t-shut-federal-agencies-but-he-can-turn-them-off


Trump Can't Shut Federal Agencies. But He Can Turn Them Off.

Many Republicans hope, and many Democrats fear, that Donald Trump’s administration will close or shrink a variety of federal agencies and offices. Both the hope and the fear are justified -- even without a supermajority in the Senate, there’s a lot Republicans can do to restrict the actions of the executive branch.

Let’s start with what Trump can’t do: Acting on his own, could he disband an agency or department -- say, the Department of Energy? Absolutely not. He would need Congress for that, and almost certainly 60 votes (and it’s not going to get close to that). But his administration could work to cut staff, if only by refusing to fill vacancies, and it could certainly work with Congress to reduce appropriations.

Far more important, Trump could do a lot to reduce agency activity.

On the campaign train, Trump said that he would issue a moratorium on new “financial regulations.” That would certainly shrink the activity of many agencies, including the Department of Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But without going to Congress, does a president really have the authority to impose a moratorium?

Insofar as we are speaking of executive agencies -- defined as those headed by people the president can fire whenever he likes -- the answer is mostly yes. The Department of Treasury falls in this category (as do most federal agencies). Under a controversial court of appeals ruling (which may be overturned), so does the CFPB.

Through a presidential memorandum or an informal communication (perhaps via incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus or the new administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs), the administration could grind the rule-making activity of such agencies to a near-halt. It could do the same for the many executive agencies not involved in financial regulation, such as the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Agriculture.

Word to the wise: There’s a website where you will be able to see whether that’s happening. Reginfo.gov offers a public accounting of the number of regulations under review at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. At any given time, the number usually ranges from 80 to 140. If the number drops below 50, something major is afoot. If it is below 25, we have something very close to a moratorium. If there’s very little from the EPA and HHS (usually the federal government’s principal regulators), we can infer that they’ve been told to stop.

But for any such slowdown, the new administration will face two serious obstacles. The first consists of legislative mandates. Some laws, including those in the financial and environmental areas, require agencies to issue rules by specified dates. No president can lawfully ignore legal deadlines, and a court is likely to insist that he comply with them.

The second obstacle is that most financial regulators, including the SEC and the Federal Reserve, count as “independent” agencies, which means that their heads do not serve at the president’s pleasure. (The Federal Communications Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Trade Commission are also independent.) By tradition, presidents have been reluctant to meddle in policy making by such agencies -- though the Supreme Court has yet to say whether they have the legal authority to do so.

If the Trump administration wants to control the independent agencies without violating tradition, the easiest path is simple: Ensure that new appointees to such agencies (including their chairmen) share his views about regulation. The boldest path would be to assert the right to exercise ongoing supervision over their decisions -- which would raise some difficult legal questions.

Of course, issuing new rules is only one thing that agencies do. They also bring enforcement proceedings. For example, the Department of Justice enforces civil rights and antitrust laws, the EPA enforces environmental laws, and the Food and Drug Administration enforces food safety laws. Agencies promote their missions, and extend their reach, by moving aggressively against those who violate existing requirements (including those imposed by prior administrations). Conversely, they can reduce their presence by eliminating their enforcement activity in particular areas or even in general.

If the new administration and Congress significantly cut an agency’s budget, the agency would have no choice but to curtail enforcement. And if the president or the new agency head gives a clear signal (for example, that civil rights actions should not be brought against the police), that signal would also reorient enforcement policy.

Most of the time, enforcement activity is relatively routine and not monitored by the White House. But in terms of broad policy directions on large issues -- such as civil rights and antitrust -- the White House is in charge and gives a sense of its preferences. Agencies are entirely aware of that, and they generally follow the boss.

[fisharmor]

I've often said that the president could conceivably just pay people to go away.
Go to the SEC, or DEA, or whoever, and say there are new job openings to existing employees, which will result in a 60% pay cut... but the only thing required of the job is not to hold any other federal employment.
Literally, go home and don't come back, and we'll pay you 40% of your current salary. Open to anyone who wants to apply.

Year 1 should see at least a 10-15% savings just in salaries... in year 2 there would be a drastic reduction in office space, saving even more money.

From a liberty standpoint, the biggest problem with these departments isn't that they employ people, it's that they DO things. And with fewer people they do fewer things.

[helmuth_hubener]

Absolutely not. He would need Congress for that, and almost certainly 60 votes (and it’s not going to get close to that). Ha, ha, ha, ha! Thanks for that, Juan, underlined and everything for us so we wouldn't miss your point. On the lam hiding from ICE, or posting from Mexico?

As a matter of fact, nothing is going to need 60 votes anymore, because the fillibuster is going to be eliminated. It is. I hereby predict it. It's the only thing that makes sense. You Democrats have overplayed your hand, and by deciding you are going to fillibuster everything because you're crazy and think everyone not a Dem is a Nazi... well, you lose. Steam-roller.

And there will be nothing you can do about it. Sad. :toady:

[seapilot]

Why not turn it into a reality TV series. Each week have three Departments compete. They have 2 weeks to cut their current budget by 50% the ones that do not get eliminated. The winners get put into the next tier until until there is only one department left.

[fisharmor]

Why not turn it into a reality TV series. Each week have three Departments compete. They have 2 weeks to cut their current budget by 50% the ones that do not get eliminated. The winners get put into the next tier until until there is only one department left.

I have a better idea.

https://www.mygladiators.com/images/title-pic.jpg

[eleganz]

I never thought in my life that the executive branch could get downsized like this, can't wait to see the follow through but if Trump's actions are any indication, its gonna happen, like 7th floor.

[dude58677]

Why not turn it into a reality TV series. Each week have three Departments compete. They have 2 weeks to cut their current budget by 50% the ones that do not get eliminated. The winners get put into the next tier until until there is only one department left.

Excellent idea! Post that on his Facebook page or send him a private message on Facebook.

[oyarde]

I suspect we won't hear from the usual suspects on this thread.:cool:

Everyone could at least be on board with cutting spending .

[Ender]

I suspect we won't hear from the usual suspects on this thread.:cool:

Like this thread that most the board ignored?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508448-Race-For-Raqqa-Major-US-Escalation-In-Syria&p=6432725#post6432725