TOPICS
TOPICS
Bush pledges to eliminate 140 poor-performing programs
In his annual State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Bush pledged to trim the federal budget by reducing or eliminating more than 140 federal programs he said are not essential or are performing poorly.
Bush said non-defense spending needs to be cut, and asked Congress to approve a slimmed-down budget plan he will release next week. That budget will save $14 billion dollars and cut the deficit in half by 2009, he said.
The president did not specify which programs he wanted to cut. He repeatedly praised the work of Defense and Homeland Security agencies.
"The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us," Bush said. "Fortunately, this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives to protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks."
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle as well as Cabinet members and other attendees responded to that assertion with one of many standing ovations.
In the speech, Bush focused attention on border security.
"Our nation needs orderly and secure borders," Bush said. "To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection." To this end, the president backed a guest worker program that gives temporary jobs to non-citizens and which he said would reduce "smuggling and crime at the border."
Bush also pledged to expand the federal role in energy research. He proposed a 22 percent increase in clean energy research at the Energy Department, focusing on zero-emission coal power plants, solar and wind technologies and nuclear energy.
"America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Bush said.
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said he looked forward to hearing specifics on the president's plan to fix security at the border.
"We're going to have to put more people there, but we're going to have to put more technology there as well," Davis said. "I don't think there's any bad news there for federal employees."
Fellow Government Reform Committee member Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said the president's speech lacked specific attention to issues of federal management.
"The president frankly didn't talk in detail about government reform," Van Hollen said, adding that he had hoped the speech would address "lobbying scandals and the system that allows corruption to flourish."
In the Democratic response to President Bush's speech, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine highlighted management issues. "Our federal government should serve the American people," he said. "But that mission is frustrated by this administration's poor choices and bad management."
"In Virginia -- and other states -- we're moving ahead by focusing on service, competent management and results," Kaine added. "It's all about bringing people together to find common-sense solutions to our common problems."
COMMENTS
- I've got a few suggestions. How about DHS, ICE, FEMA, FAMS, etc.? They are currently in such turmoil and confusion that it would be better to go back to the drawing board and begin again, rather than continue in this manner! GovExec.com reader Posted February 21, 2006 4:38 PM
- Taxpayer, As much as you bash the military and their benefits, you better do some research on the auto workers. Their benefits are not just good, they are some of the best in the world. And not only in working conditions, but retirement and medical. And they don’t get shot at or move every 2-3 years. Ted Posted February 13, 2006 8:18 AM
- Tom, Sorry you got the impression that I was blaming Bush for the GM and Ford problems. I was blaming Congress! The problems of Ford and GM are due to high costs of production based on high levels of benefits gained by the unions in a time when Congress "protected" the US market from foreign competition. In the 1970s those protections were reduced, so in came Honda, Toyota and Nissan (Datsun). These imports killed our domestic producers because they had allowed their workers to get really good benefits. Honda, Toyota and Nissan do not do that! Therefore, the Japanese can "out produce" us because Congress allowed the rules to change before our domestic manufacturers (all not just cars) could work with the unions and adjust their cost structures in the United States. Note that GMs biggest investment is plants in China. Similarly, the subsidy on sugar prices in the United States is driving candy manufacturers out of the country and into China, Mexico and Canada. Tom, you need to get beyond what the press puts into its headlines and look at what is happening. The problem is not the unions or the manufacturers -- it is Congress and its constant changing of the rules. The same thing is happening with retirement funds. They want to reduce Social Security that everyone has planned on and as you reach 50 or 55 cannot adjust when the Congress does stupid things. Look at what they have done to the IRAs over time (they really screwed that one up.) Our problem is "professional" politicians, not manufacturers or unions. We need to get term limits and eliminate "professional" politician (most seem to be laywers that never leaned to think). Taxpayer Posted February 8, 2006 7:34 AM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco
Annotated State of the Union Address
Presented by National Journal's Policy Council, which provides users with instant access to thousands of position papers, expert contacts and other policy-related content from a diverse group of organizations.









