So -- assuming they're going to say the same thing again </sarcasm>
-- let's pay for this by eliminating the cabinet-level Departments of Education and Energy (at least).
How 'bout it, Dubya (and Bushies)? Are you game? Either you're with us, or you're against us.
Better go put your re-org boots on kids, this is going to be a rough one.
And is Tom Ridge the man to head it up?
My vote is for Rudi Guilani.
I have some reservations, but my support is with President Bush. After all, America is at war and if we want to win, all American's have to support the Commander In Chief.
Tonight on at RadioFR! June 6, 2002
YO!
ANNA AND MERCURIA
DO THE "REYNOLDS (W)RAP"
(Well, you knew it had to happen sometime...!)
WITH SPECIAL GUEST
DAVID PALMQUIST
"THE KING OF CONSPIRACY"
On further thought, the department will be dangerously close to a domestic military, IMHO, with a "navy", and "army". Someone will realize they don't have an "air force" and that will be on the table soon.
I saw elswhere the department is slated to have 17,000 employees and a budget of $37 billion. I expect both numbers to rise.
This should not be rammed through unexamined. Thank God for our system of checks and balances.
Health and Human Services would of course need to transition some of its chem./bio defense effort, but the lions share of the current efforts in chem./bio defense is conducted within the Defense Department. HHS is more concerned with natural occurring issues and DoD is exclusively concerned with weapons of mass destruction (chem./bio/nuclear). I wonder what the impact on DoD will be?
Did anyone say "bioweapons test center"?
The changes here will be much more complicated than most of the others. In the other cases, existing agencies or sub-agencies are being moved in-toto into the new department. In these cases, we will be dividing up people who work sometimes in adjoining offices, and always in the same buildings, as people who will stay with the NIH and the CDC. Probably they will move people around within complexes, putting all of those going to the new department in one or more buildings, then moving those buildings into the new department.
In all, it was an excellent move both in appearance and substance. A solid structural change to the government that hopefully will have lasting positive effects with the downstream potential for smaller, cost-effective government while protecting our citizenry and borders. It fits my definition of 'conservative' and 'constitutional' and was very "Reaganesque" as Regan_man put it on another thread.
As with corporate M&A and reorg's, this will be difficult and time consuming to implement, but if Bush et al bear down on it, it is achievable and worth doing. I would like to see him set a goal of having the management structure in place by 2004 (congress willing), and the human and physical infrastructure chnages completed by 2008 (assuming he is relected).
If Bush keeps this up, he'll make a believer out of me.