Reply With Quote
About ing time. No wonder congress critters from both sides have been knashing their teeth.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR REORGANIZING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
By the authority vested in me as President by the Cons ution 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 le 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 en ies 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 en ies, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 13, 2017.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...zing-executive
About ing time. No wonder congress critters from both sides have been knashing their teeth.
Sounds good to me. That bloated gravy train needs to go on a diet. Why again are there 17? intelligence departments?
And why does every branch of the service have airplanes?
Air Force, ok.
Please explain the rest. It may give us some insight into redundancy.
The military is way over-bloated and wasteful. My dh comes home almost every night with head-shaking stories from SouthCom - do they care about our taxpayer $s - more likely, their "turf" and how their department looks. IMO, all levels of government need to go on a diet. They all should be subject to the same health care, the same budget (don't spend more than you take in), the same retirement, etc as the rest of us - that'll make them more cognizant of the laws they pass.
Well it wouldn't sense for the Navy to have aircraft carriers and no planes. It wouldn't make sense for the Army/Marines to not have any cargo/transport planes.
Is there a specific plane that you think the other services should be required to be completely dependent on the Air Force for?
not sure if trolling or not
speaking of military planes I'd like Trump to keep A10 Warthog alive
USbrrraaaaaap USbrrrraaaaaap USbrrrrraaaaaaapp
Let's see what this looks like in 180 days. Looks good on paper, but you can count me on the skeptics crowd.
Can you give a good reason for a massive increase in military spending?
we only spend more than the next 8 countries combined. gotta get that number up to at least 20
Reagan really tore apart the administrative state too or at least drastically reduced the budget of some departments iirc. If Dems get back in with the Senate and Congress they can just build it back up if they want
Last edited by AaronY; 03-14-2017 at 09:51 PM.
Would you consider a 10% raise in salary massive?
Last edited by pgardn; 03-15-2017 at 12:25 AM.
Oh yes. They all need fighters and bombers. How dare the Airforce land a plane on our Navy carrier. Let them get their own transport planes to carry, planes.
Get outta town. Otherwise they might have to, cooperate and integrate. Oh no. Can't have that. It's better to have 3 armies or more, and 3 air forces. And three navy's.
. We would not need any coorperation. They are separate militaries. Seriously? This is redundancy because of the inability to integrate. Or just flat out staking out a claim for government money.
" . That's an army frequency, that's not our Airforce helicopter" what? It's a Coast Guard helicopter? I thought it was a marine copter.
This is a naval base, get your army ass out of here. Go get your own base and boats. Fckn carry your own troops, we got other things to do.
So because a division exits it makes perfect sense snake? You can't have an Airforce plane on a Naval ship. They don't speak the same language. Some things exist because that's how they started. There is no creativity in communication and coorperation. Is that how you run a businesss?
Dinosaur.
Are you drunk?
Yes, the max my company gives is 6% yearly based on merit unless you get hired in another department. I just asked because I know you're not a dip like mavsfan1000
If I made 6x more than the next best paid co-worker I would consider a 10% raise massive.
I think we spend way too much on the military to begin with, but I also don't consider a 10% increase massive.
Sure.
Whatever.
We need 4 or 5 separate militaries each with their own built in Army, Air Force, Navy.
I gotcha.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
