• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama's Trade Agency Consolidation Proposal: Hope and Caution

    Clearly, the impact of President Obama’s proposal to consolidate parts of six trade agencies is tiny in comparison to the government’s $3.5 trillion in spending or its trillion-dollar-plus deficits. But if—and that is a big if, depending upon not-yet-available details—it represents a genuine step toward smaller, less costly, and more effective government, it would be a welcome small change from the direction of the past three years.

    The proposal would reportedly combine some of the functions of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Small Business Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency, and certain trade functions of the Commerce Department into a single government entity. The White House says the move would save $3 billion over 10 years—barely a rounding error in Washington. The White House also says it would trim 1,000 people—again, a blip in the 2.1-million-person federal workforce, but not negligible.

    Nevertheless, Congress and the public should keep a sharp eye on the proposal, as government reorganizations have a way of starting out as plans to reduce costs and cut the size of the federal workforce and end up adding to both spending and head count.

    Beyond that, it is difficult to know how much this particular consolidation might ease regulatory burdens in international trade. The President talked the talk in his statement:

    “We’d have one department where entrepreneurs can go from the day they come up with an idea and need a patent, to the day they start building a product and need financing for a warehouse, to the day they’re ready to export and need help breaking into new markets overseas.”

    On its face, this sounds positive—streamlining, reducing duplication and complexity, and improving service. As long as implementation of the President’s proposal does not become womb-to-tomb government regulation of trade or entrepreneurship, it may prove a useful step in facilitating competition by U.S. business in markets abroad.

    The President’s request that Congress restore statutory authority for plans to reorganize government agencies—an authority Presidents had for many years but expired in 1984—is good in concept. Such legislation should give to a President broad authority to propose changes, including abolishment of agencies, and should ensure that a presidential proposal receives a timely up-or-down vote in Congress. Above all, the process must provide that the President’s plan takes effect when the Congress approves it by joint resolution, rather than having the plan automatically take effect unless Congress disapproves it by joint resolution.

    The latter automatic approach would cede too much authority to the executive branch, as whatever plan the President came up with to change government would take effect automatically as long as the President retained the support of the one-third of one house of Congress necessary to sustain a presidential veto of a joint resolution of disapproval. Significant changes in the organization and functioning of the federal government should have the support of a majority of both houses of Congress.

    That President Obama wants to cut the size and cost and increase the efficiency of at least a small piece of the federal government is a cause for hope. Caution is warranted, however, in considering the President’s proposal, as the devil is always in the details.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Obama's Trade Agency Consolidation Proposal: Hope and Caution

    1. Stirling says:

      I don't buy the hype on this consolidation being a good thing. If you look at everything this administration has decided to cut it's those departments that actually help private sector businesses and promote capitalism.. Now if the president came out and said the EPA has to be downsized, then all of us could have something to praise him about.

    2. Jeff, Illinois says:

      Yeah, there's just got to be a way to spin his action as demonic! There couldn't possibly be something he's doing that's positive or shows competency. We wouldn't want to give this president an ounce of support or the benefit of the doubt in any real substantive way. There must be some radical liberal agenda at foot here!

    3. Pragmatic says:

      Heaven forbid Heritage would right an article claiming that the Obama administration made a good first step in beginning (or even contemplating) streamlining government and making it more efficient. Granted you acknowledge that this could be a good thing, why fill this article with so many other phrases to make it look sinister or like it is underhanded? Can't you at least help lead this country back down a course of moderation and civil discourse?

      • Pragmatic says:

        Upon further inspection of my post – i can't believe I wrote "right" instead of "write". I further forfeit my comment upon such sloppy proofreading :)

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.