Thread: Time to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic ONE MORE TIME!

In addition to a five-year discretionary spending freeze, President Obama on Tuesday night announced a reorganization effort to consolidate duplicative federal programs and reduce government waste.

Government hasn't undergone a major restructuring in decades, leaving agencies with overlapping responsibilities, the president said during his State of the Union address. Efforts to cut waste haven't gone far enough, and administration officials in the coming months will develop a proposal to merge and reorganize the federal government, he said.

"There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there's my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they're in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked," said Obama.

The president also highlighted the role of technology in streamlining government. "We have made great strides over the last two years in using technology and getting rid of waste," he said. "Veterans can now download their electronic medical records with a click of the mouse. We're selling acres of federal office space that hasn't been used in years, and we will cut through red tape to get rid of more. But we need to think bigger."
Obama pledges massive overhaul of government (1/25/11) -- GovExec.com

I'll start by conceding that tall the cutters, reorganizers, and abolishers have good intentions. They have a dream of a government that is somehow "less" than it is now. Smaller, more efficient, less costly, and better at what it does. This was the premise behind the consolidation of agencies that has resulted in the biggest management quagmire of all: The Department of Homeland Security.

How, you may ask (I give you permission, honest I do) can such good intentions yield such bad results? It's very simple: (1) There are no goals and no applicable metrics for this task. (2) The end result is politically driven, rather than functionally driven. (3) The people, typically, assigned to restructure government don't understand government and so they try to build it around a retail services, manufacturing, or other buzzword of the month model. The net result is greater confusion, less efficiency, higher costs, a greatly demoralized and confused workforce, and alienation of the taxpayers. Every model suggested so far, including the abolish everything not in the Constitution model, contains within it these fundamental flaws. NONE of these approaches will satisfy the majority of taxpayers. NONE of these approaches will fix the problem. This isn't to say we should do nothing, but a different approach needs to be tried...because the old ones haven't worked yet.

"How, you may ask (I give you permission, honest I do) can such good intentions yield such bad results? It's very simple: (1) There are no goals and no applicable metrics for this task. (2) The end result is politically driven, rather than functionally driven. (3) The people, typically, assigned to restructure government don't understand government and so they try to build it around a retail services, manufacturing, or other buzzword of the month model. The net result is greater confusion, less efficiency, higher costs, a greatly demoralized and confused workforce, and alienation of the taxpayers. Every model suggested so far, including the abolish everything not in the Constitution model, contains within it these fundamental flaws. NONE of these approaches will satisfy the majority of taxpayers. NONE of these approaches will fix the problem. This isn't to say we should do nothing, but a different approach needs to be tried...because the old ones haven't worked yet."

Wow!

I'm not near as pessimistic about reorganizing the federal government in an effective way as you obviously are. Just imagine how much money we can save if we combine the overlapping functions of many congressional committees and executive departments into one single executive department.

However, given your stated pessimism, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. From my point of view, a very wise Chinese proverb comes into play here: "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but one step."

There is a very good way to reorganize the government and that way is to use the model that has been adopted for U.S. base closings. First, we appoint a special committee that includes some of the finest minds in the country. Second, we allow this committee to call witnesses, hold hearings and prepare a final report. Finally, this report is submitted to Congress with no amendments allowed by the members. The Congress must then vote on the committee’s recommendations in an “up” or “down” vote.

If the new bill passes, it is signed by the President and becomes law. If it does not, it goes back to the committee for more work.

After several iterations and some give and take on both sides, the committee will finally get it right!

Originally Posted by James Cessna

"How, you may ask (I give you permission, honest I do) can such good intentions yield such bad results? It's very simple: (1) There are no goals and no applicable metrics for this task. (2) The end result is politically driven, rather than functionally driven. (3) The people, typically, assigned to restructure government don't understand government and so they try to build it around a retail services, manufacturing, or other buzzword of the month model. The net result is greater confusion, less efficiency, higher costs, a greatly demoralized and confused workforce, and alienation of the taxpayers. Every model suggested so far, including the abolish everything not in the Constitution model, contains within it these fundamental flaws. NONE of these approaches will satisfy the majority of taxpayers. NONE of these approaches will fix the problem. This isn't to say we should do nothing, but a different approach needs to be tried...because the old ones haven't worked yet."

Wow!

I'm not near as pessimistic about reorganizing the federal government in an effective way as you obviously are. Just imagine how much money we can save if we combine the overlapping functions of many congressional committees and executive departments into one single executive department.

However, given your stated pessimism, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. From my point of view, a very wise Chinese proverb comes into play here: "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but one step."

There is a very good way to reorganize the government and that way is to use the model that has been adopted for U.S. base closings. First, we appoint a special committee that includes some of the finest minds in the country. Second, we allow this committee to call witnesses, hold hearings and prepare a final report. Finally, this report is submitted to Congress with no amendments allowed by the members. The Congress must then vote on the committee’s recommendations in an “up” or “down” vote.

If the new bill passes, it is signed by the President and becomes law. If it does not, it goes back to the committee for more work.

After several iterations and some give and take on both sides, the committee will finally get it right!

Been there, done that, got both the tee-shirt and the social disease.

The BRAC model is based in POLITICS. The re-alignment of bases was a function of money and political influence, and not of utility to the respective services.

The BRAC model is a good example of how NOT to realign agency functions.

Perhaps the first thing that needs to be done ISN'T to convene another panel of overpaid, bloviating, idiots? Perhaps the thing that needs to be done, first, is to understand what is meant by "better government" in practical terms. Perhaps the thing that needs to be done is to take money and politics out of the equation and develop realistic metrics for governance? Perhaps we should find out what is really wrong with the patient, and how sick the patient really is, BEFORE we propose amputation?

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

Cutbacks always hurt somebody. BRAC worked. True, not as good as advertised, but nothing does in a bureaucracy. The time is ripe for some Federal reorganization. It's what everybody says they want but nobody wants to take on alone because it is going to hurt a lot of people. Not just the "government union employees" the RWNJs love to bitch about.

As with BRAC, there will be fallout. Close a base and it isn't just the military and civilian workers on base who are affected, but all the dry cleaners, bars and 7-11s in the area. When those start shutting down, along with restaurants and other establishments, the town itself begins to die. Cutting down Federal agencies will cause the same problem. In some cases local government will take over, but in most cases it will just be a vacuum which means increased unemployment. If one party pushes it and another doesn't, then it means finger-pointing and problems at election time. If it is done like BRAC, where both parties agree to ground rules and abide by them, then it becomes less problematic for both sides.

The time is right for both sides to make this change. It won't be as good or efficient as some would like, but it will happen and it will be productive.

And once again I'm not advocating doing nothing. I simply don't see the point in performing yet another round of costly and ill advised reorganizations which will have to be redone in eighteen months to three years. That was the net effect of the FORM analysis way back under Clinton, it was the net result of the Bush initiatives, and that's the result I foresee here unless we change HOW we get where we need to go. We also need to define what we mean by "government" because any restructuring that doesn't include the contractors supplementing the FTE will just be window dressing.

Originally Posted by Divine Wind

"Democracy is messy".

It's a move in the right direction.

No, it's just a way to piss away more money pretending to do something while failing to establish what REALLY needs to be done.
Reorganizations aren't free.

Let me put it to you in a different context: Do you know why government IT contracts fail so often? FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY DEFINE WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE DONE.
Same principle applies here. Define your terms and practical measurements THEN develop the plan. Why y'all insist on doing it ass backwards (again) is beyond me.