Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, there are plenty of departments that the president can order reductions in staff. There are also areas where the president can order reductions in spending.
Federal government jobs and state and municipal jobs are for that matter, mostly middle class jobs.
I suspect this is not lost on most of Congress, regardless of the sound bites that come out of the mouths of individual candidates.
For example, entire areas of the country would be destroyed if Fed made drastic cuts in spending. Let's not forget that the people elect Senators and Reps to bring home more than their fair share of the federal bacon.
Last edited by middle-aged mom; 06-24-2014 at 01:07 PM..
Presidents have no authority to decrease the size of government.
That authority rests solely with Congress.
Doesn't anyone remember all of the stupid idiot Ron Paul supporters who thought he was going to eliminate the Department of Education? Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so "hungry for honey," that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the "protector of the people" rises to supreme power. -- Plato
Yeah, go ahead and give presidents the dictatorial power to abolish cabinet positions and federal agencies with the stroke of a pen.
What you'll get is the Department of Education abolished and replaced with the Department of Re-Education.
If you want any hope of shrinking government, then you'll need to start electing 3rd Party Candidates to the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The relationship between Stupidity and Democracy is inversely proportional....as the level of Stupidity increases, the amount of Democracy decreases....
Mircea
Exactly.
Nothing quite as funny as right-wing nuts who can't go a week without whining about how "Obama is a King!" voting to elect somebody who, if he could, would run rough-shod over the Constitution and separation of powers to set himself up as a dictator... but it would be "for the people," of course, and "patriotic," so I guess that makes it okay.
Federal government jobs and state and municipal jobs are for that matter, mostly middle class jobs.
I suspect this is not lost on most of Congress, regardless of the sound bites that come out of the mouths of individual candidates.
For example, entire areas of the country would be destroyed if Fed made drastic cuts in spending. Let's not forget that the people elect Senators and Reps to bring home more than their fair share of the federal bacon.
Should cancer not be cured due to the loss of jobs in the health care industry that are cancer-centric?
If we had the ability to end all wars, would we worry about the loss of jobs to soldiers and arms manufacturers?
Forget all other issues and your own personal likes and dislikes. This is an "all talk and no action" vs "actual action" question.
Of all of the potential 2016 candidate names for President, which candidate once in office, and in your opinion, is most likely to really decrease the size of the federal government, by actually eliminating some federal government agencies and decreasing the size of others by at least 25 percent once in the White House?
None will reduce the size of government. The largest government programs are by far the most popular with the American people. In fact, it had been true for a very long time that the four or five largest federal programs combined with paying interest on the national debt make up 75-80% of the federal budget.
The only thing that might happen is that conservatives who overwhelmingly identify with older white Americans and feel hostility towards other Americans might seek to hurt younger and more racially diverse Americans by cutting their future social security and Medicare benefits.
It does appear that the number of federal employees has dropped a significant amount since the 60's and has remained at a relatively stagnant number over the last 20 years. (Since our population is increasing, that should correlate to a reduction in the percentage of federal workers).
The strongest contenders currently appear to be Rand, Jeb*, Cruz, Carson, and Walker. Of those five, I'd say the most likely one to reduce the size and power of government would be Cruz; his agenda is in that camp, he has the will to implement it, and he is not intimidated in the least by the establishment or special interests. The latter component gives him a leg up over Rand, who is more easily intimidated into going along to get along. Carson doesn't seem to have as fiery of a tack as Cruz; in part because of his lack of political experience and a voting record, we don't know for sure whether he'll be more effective or not. Walker is a garden-variety conservative; although he has teeth in his agenda, he doesn't do anything that is controversial within the Republican party, which in practice means doing next to nothing to reduce government. Jeb would likely actively work to increase the size and power of government like his brother, and he himself as Governor of Florida and post-Governorship.
A President just by him/herself can't implement a whole agenda, but there is the power of discretion in using powers delegated by Congress (c.f. the wars and Obamacare), the power of the veto, and the influence of the office which can be used to organize and mobilize mass movements. Prowess in these three areas is what you should look at after you consider the initial agenda, because that's how the executive branch can effect change.
*I don't think Jeb has much of a chance, but he does have the support of establishment cronies and the media, which will vault him into being considered "top tier".
I think if Iraq stays in the news for any length of time, Jeb Bush will not run for President.
Yes, there are plenty of departments that the president can order reductions in staff. There are also areas where the president can order reductions in spending.
Yes, the President has a say-so in the budgets put forth by each Department.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
