President Trump Aims to Slash Number of Federal Advisory Committees

longknife

Diamond Member
Sep 21, 2012
42,221
13,088
2,250
Sin City
image


An awesome move! More campaign promises kept.

Trump signed an executive order Friday that directs every federal agency to evaluate the need for all of its advisory committees created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. And it gives agency heads until September to terminate at least one-third of current committees created by agency heads.

Federal advisory committees are typically made up of private citizens who offer advice and assistance to the executive branch.

The White House did not immediately provide any justification for the order. But it appears to assume that many of the committees are redundant or have been convened to address issues that are now obsolete. It says that committees will be eliminated if their “stated objectives” have been accomplished, if the “subject matter or work of the committee has become obsolete,” if their “primary functions have been assumed by another entity” and if the agency determines “the cost of operation is excessive in relation to the benefits to the Federal Government.”

snip

The U.S. General Services Administration, which helps oversee FACA implementation, says there are approximately 1,000 federal advisory committees and 50 federal agencies with FACA programs in effect at any given time. The order seeks to cap the total number of committees at 350, and will bar agencies from establishing new committees without waivers until the number drops.

More @ President Trump Aims to Slash Number of Federal Advisory Committees
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?

Those committees tend to have facts, and write long reports to back up their findings. Two of the things Trump hates most. He would rather see how Fox and Friends feels about all those issues, and go from there.
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
/——-/ What caught my eye was “obsolete committees.” I’m assuming there is cost associated with these committees and it sounds like a huge waste. Slash them.
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
/——-/ What caught my eye was “obsolete committees.” I’m assuming there is cost associated with these committees and it sounds like a huge waste. Slash them.

I agree if they are obsolete they need to go.
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
/——-/ What caught my eye was “obsolete committees.” I’m assuming there is cost associated with these committees and it sounds like a huge waste. Slash them.

Depends on who defines obsolete. Anything Trump doesn't like will be called obsolete.
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
/——-/ What caught my eye was “obsolete committees.” I’m assuming there is cost associated with these committees and it sounds like a huge waste. Slash them.

Depends on who defines obsolete. Anything Trump doesn't like will be called obsolete.
/—-/ The article linked in the post used the term. Geeeze, you think there is zero waste and fraud in Washington?
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
/——-/ What caught my eye was “obsolete committees.” I’m assuming there is cost associated with these committees and it sounds like a huge waste. Slash them.

Depends on who defines obsolete. Anything Trump doesn't like will be called obsolete.
/—-/ The article linked in the post used the term. Geeeze, you think there is zero waste and fraud in Washington?

Of course there is fraud I just think the biggest fraudster of all shouldn't be the one to decide what qualifies as such.
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
/——-/ What caught my eye was “obsolete committees.” I’m assuming there is cost associated with these committees and it sounds like a huge waste. Slash them.

Depends on who defines obsolete. Anything Trump doesn't like will be called obsolete.
/—-/ The article linked in the post used the term. Geeeze, you think there is zero waste and fraud in Washington?

The problem is that the "cut at least 1/3" assumes that at least 1/3 are obsolete.

These "broad stroke" cuts rarely work out well.

I know a few people that work for an agency within the USDA. During Trump's "hiring freeze" they went from about 1050 people to around 900. This seems good, except what happened was what they lost were all of the lower GS people and now their salary expense is higher than it was with more people as those that stayed have gotten promotions over that time. So now you have GS-11s and 12s doing the work that GS 5s and 7s used to do.
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
/——-/ What caught my eye was “obsolete committees.” I’m assuming there is cost associated with these committees and it sounds like a huge waste. Slash them.

Depends on who defines obsolete. Anything Trump doesn't like will be called obsolete.
/—-/ The article linked in the post used the term. Geeeze, you think there is zero waste and fraud in Washington?

Of course there is fraud I just think the biggest fraudster of all shouldn't be the one to decide what qualifies as such.

I doubt Trump will have any say in it. Do you really think the GSA will bring the list to Trump for final approval?
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
Besides being a cost cutting measure, there will be less red tape to go thru.
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
If could be honest you would have seen where the article clearly says "evaluate the need for all of its advisory committees" meaning some, not all. lol.
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
If could be honest you would have seen where the article clearly says "evaluate the need for all of its advisory committees" meaning some, not all. lol.

:itsok:
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
Besides being a cost cutting measure, there will be less red tape to go thru.

do advisory committee members get paid?
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
Besides being a cost cutting measure, there will be less red tape to go thru.

do advisory committee members get paid?
One way or another.
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
It's government waste.
 
What makes this a good move? I understood and fully supported his moving of two USDA agencies out of DC.

This one I am not as sure about. Where is the harm in receiving advice from civilian experts? Is less influence over the governmental process by us private citizens a good thing?
It's government waste.

In what way? Should we the people not have some form of input into what comes out of our Fed Govt agencies?
 

Forum List

Back
Top