Abolishment of Commerce D...

Robert Ostrea raostrea at IX.NETCOM.COM
Wed Jul 5 16:06:46 MDT 1995


Dennis writes:
 
 
>Unless I missed the original thread the bottom line is that this does
>not justify the existance of the entire Commerce Dept. Republicans in
>congress have not said they will carte blunche eliminate everything.
 
You are correct that it does not justify the existence of the
Department as a whole, and I wouldn't be completely against that.  My
argument is to maintain the international trade functions of the
Department (6% of Commerce Budget).  I would prefer that the ITA be
moved to the Trade Representatives Office, rather than State because
the people at State are politicians, not businessmen!
 
 
 Assuming
>what you say is true then this function could be moved to some other
department
>that is not targeted for elimination (perhaps State Dept.). I get
concerned
>when I hear people say, why eliminate this program or that because it
is only
>a few million dollars.
 
That is just one of my many arguments, and it is valid.  The whole
point of budget cutting is to target those agencies whose budgets are
overly LARGE and to trim them down.  This is being done with Commerce
(20% cut) and that's fine.
 
 
Thats what it takes to add up to billions. Every
>Federal program MUST be something the Federal government SHOULD be
involved
>in (international trade may be one) and that program had better
generate
>a return for the taxpayer's dollar. Otherwise eliminate it.
 
 
I couldn't agree with you more, Dennis.  That's why Commerce needs to
be saved - it DOES generate a return for the taxpayer's dollar.
 
 
------------------
Robert A. Ostrea, Jr.
San Francisco/Los Angeles
RAOstrea at ix.netcom.com



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list