Previous post
Next post
Obama’s created a brand-new position: Chief Performance Officer. HOPE AND CHANGE!!
Pressing his bid for a fresh burst of government spending, President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday announced he was creating a position — a “chief performance officer” — to kill off dubious government programs and ensure that taxpayer money was not wasted.
So, in order to kill off dubious and unnecessary government programs, and keep taxpayer money from being wasted, we’re going to create a new government position which will cost taxpayers yet another bloated salary for a position this country has never before seemed to find necessary?
Right….
To assuage fears that his stimulus plan would only drive the nation deeper into debt, Obama promised a rigorous commitment to rein in costs by setting up the performance office.
It will be led by Killefer, a partner at the management consulting firm McKinsey and Co. and a former Treasury Department official in the Clinton administration.
Hey, another Clintonista! What a shocker!! How hopey and changey!
Of course, one could say that the responsibilities Obama is giving to Killefer are responsibilities that are normally given to the President. But hey, maybe he can create enough new positions that he can just kick it all day in the Oval Office and not do a damned thing! Hope and change!!
Hat Tip: Patterico
Cassy, this is unbelievable. Is Obama trying to make the US more like an European country, with lots of government offices and positions with resounding names (Secretary for Equality, Secretary for the Environment, …), which do nothing and cost us a lot of money? Do stop him! Where will I move once living in Europe becomes unbearable?
Shannon says: Nothing wrong with having a position dedicated to the task – if it is effective. But its effectiveness derives from the effectiveness given to the President by Congress so this is a waste unless Congress decides to do what the President wants in getting rid of pork which is when the pigs will fly.
Ron S. says: Cassy:
The creation of the position and the delegation of the power is probably unconstitutional. There is no line item veto. The creation of that department is either a cabinet level position or an administrative agency. An administrative agency must be established by an enabling statute and only the legislative branch can pass one of those. An excecutinve order can neither create the office nor delegate the power.
There have been attempts at controlling waste for years. Every president has fought that battle. There was a pretty good idea floated around a while back, one that if Obama is serious he should jump on while there might be enough political capital to spend during what remaines of any “honeymoon” period he has got left (having not even taken office yet, mind you). It was called a ‘Line Item Veto’. It’s pretty effective in the places it exists. Then whatever makes it out of the process the President can rightfully take the blame for…
One thing about ‘Pork’ though, what is pork to one is the reason Mr. Smith got sent to Washington to another. In the area of the country in which I live the only thing we will ever see from Washington DC can well be referred to as ‘Pork’. We are too small an area to have any clout otherwise.
Ima Nonymous says: Big Al, the fallacy of your argument is that Mr. Smith did not in fact get sent to DC to bring home the bacon to your district. Congress does not exist to divvy up a pie and make sure that each district gets its “fair share.” Their job is to do what is best for the country as a whole (you know, the “general welfare”). Your Congressman does not represent your district in Congress, he represents you (at least he is supposed to, as envisioned by the Founders). There is a huge difference between the two.
It would take a Constitutional Amendment to institute the Line Item Veto, and it really wouldn’t be all that effective. Congress could merely use the Constitutional power to override a presidential veto on individual line items that he struck. I say kick ’em all out and start over with a new batch – no previous legicrats or relatives need apply.
Hmmm. I don’t think there would be any change to the Constitutional provisions necessary, for the CPO to simply make recommendations subject to the approval of Congress.
#4 has it right. Clinton tried this, it was Al Gore’s job for the first two years (when one would’ve expected him to be warning us about the planet dying…but I guess that’s a whole different topic). “Reinventing Government,” remember that? The trouble is, that Congressman from another district or that Senator from another state, is wasting money — but YOUR guys are doing such a swell job. I hope Obama performs to smashing success here. But the odds say no. The job description here is, a President who isn’t afraid to tick people off. And that isn’t Obama. His specialty isn’t ticking people off and getting away with it, his specialty is ticking people off and then changing the subject by starting national dialogues that never actually lead anywhere. Wrong fit.
Ima Nonymous, I don’t have much of an arguement with you on that, other than the way our representation was designed was to insure fairness amongst the states and so everyone would, in fact, have fair representation. And that never stopped anyone from running on the bring home the bacon agenda. See, a project of say dredging a harbor in the Northeast would get a good reception, for it would effect a lot of districts and would have a lot of interested parties. Here in the south, take my state, Louisiana for example, a harbor being dredged might not drum up the same excitment (even though it might just facilitate the northeasts heating oil or gas getting to them from here). When a person goes up for re-election which of those projects would be more important to the voters of the district? People are inherently greedy, and they don’t often play fair. Dealmaking, while not in the job description, is a big part of the job. Otherwise, our vote would be rendered ineffective.
Sure, Congress could override a line item veto. But,how many veto’s do you remember getting overridden… Where Line Item Vetos exist they are said to be the most effictive weapon against waste (pork).
Not everyone in Washington needs to be kicked out of office, just the vast majority. Me, I got all kind of ideas on how to run the government, from multi year appropriations to bi-annual sessions. There are lots of things one could do to put power back into the hands of We the People. Trouble is you have to fight the powers that be to get anything done.
spike says: i’m thinking that the obamessiah(pbuh) is practicing conservation by recycling…clinton officials and carter policies
Ron S. says: Morgan et al:
There is no such thing for the federal government as a line item veto. Congress passed a line item veto bill in 1996 known as the line item veto act of 1996. The law was challenged as unconstitutional by 6 senators on the grounds the president did not have the authority to veto parts of duly passed legislation under the presentment clause of the constitution. That case was dismissed by the US Supreme Court because the senators lacked standng to bring the suit. In late 1997 the City of New York and several organizations brought 2 suits against President Clinton for line item vetoing certain provisions favorable to them. The Federal District court hearing the case put the two cases together and struck down the line item veto as unconstitutional. President Clinton using a special appeal procedure had the US Supreme Court hear the case. The Court affirmed the lower courts ruling that the line item veto was unconstititional by a 6-3 margin A Wikipedia article says “In a majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that because the Act allowed the President to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of duly enacted statutes by using line-item cancellations, it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution,[3] which outlines a specific practice for enacting a statute. The Court construed the silence of the Constitution on the subject of such unilateral Presidential action as equivalent to “an express prohibition”, agreeing with historical material that supported the conclusion that statutes may only be enacted “in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure”,[4] and that a bill must be approved or rejected by the President in its entirety.” Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S 417 (1998).
Given the court’s reasoning, the creation of an office to exercise a power already held to violate the constitution would be a no-no. For additional info on the case, I would recommend reading the Wikipedia article
J David says: Killefer = Sacrificial lamb
10 Comments