Darrell Issa: It’s time to reengineer government

An insightful piece on The New York Times.com discussing Representative Darrell Issa’s plan to eliminate fraud and waste in the federal government as well as eliminating duplicative agencies, sub-agencies, and programs. I’ve heard all this before and won’t believe it until I see it.

If I take the Republican of California’s word for it, then he is on the right track, particularly when it comes to eliminating duplicative agencies and programs. He needs to solidify his framework for identifying areas to cut, however, unless he wants his attempts to degenerate into the witch hunts of the Clinton years.

Specifically, Issa needs to use the market failure standard for weaning out loser programs. In short, if these programs and agencies do not promote commerce or aid in reallocating national resources so that we increase our national output, they should be flat out eliminated.

One of the reasons that the Founding Fathers pursued a perfect union amongst the states was to increase commercial activity. We have gotten away from that and the bogus agencies we keep alive are indicative of that.

About Alton Drew

Alton Drew brings a straight forward and insightful brand of political market intelligence. Alton Drew graduated from the Florida State University with a Bachelor of Science in economics and political science (1984); a Master of Public Administration (1993); and a Juris Doctor (1999). You can also follow Alton Drew on Twitter @altondrew.
This entry was posted in Budget, Economy, Political Economy, Republicans, taxes and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Darrell Issa: It’s time to reengineer government

  1. Kenneth J. Ciszewski says:

    There needs to be more than just a “market standard” where increasing commercial activity or reallocating resources to increase our national output are the only reasons to have government agencies, if I read Mr. Drew’s intent correctly. This sounds like a call for laissez-faire capitalism at all times.

    Some programs and agencies are regulatory/protective in nature, such as OSHA. I know, OSHA is one of the most hated agencies. Admittedly, it is sometimes too rigidly bureaucratic in its enforcement of safety regulations. On the other hand, if business would police itself relative to safety, we wouldn’t need an OSHA.

    A similar argument can be made for other regulatory agencies, like those that try to regulate the financial industry. Again, if business hadn’t almost destroyed the world economy by lying, cheating, and stealing (read “greed”), we wouldn’t need that regulation either.

    As long as the powerful try to take advantage of others by manipulating and taking undue advantage, we will need at least some government agencies/regulation that does not increase commercial activity or reallocate resources to increase our national output.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s