Chapter 2, Part 1 - Executive Office of the President of the United States-
Day 5 of reading and sharing my notes on Project 2025 (the long title is Mandate for Leadership 2024: The Conservative Promise, in case you're searching for it). Here’s my approach and why I’m doing this.
All right, we're 76 pages into my PDF. Today is Chapter 2 of the first section (Taking the Reins of Government), "Executive Office of the President of the United States" by Russ Vought.
According to his bio in the document, Vought is the founder and president of the Center for Renewing America. He was Trump's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, "where he oversaw the implementation of the presidential budget, key policies on deregulation, and a landmark effort to eliminate critical race theory and other radical ideologies in executive agencies." He was policy director for the House Republican Conference, executive director of the Republican Study Committee, and legislative assistant to Sen. Phil Gramm. He has a B.A. from Wheaton College and a J.D. from George Washington University Law School.
SUMMARY
Vought opens by saying that the Constitution says the executive power shall be vested in the president, but that today the federal bureaucracy "all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences--or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly 'woke' faction of the country."
He says Congress delegates its lawmaking power to the bureaucracies because of the "pervasive notion of expert 'independence,' and that these people aren't held accountable. The agencies are too big and "increasingly weaponized against the public and a President who is elected by the people and empowered by the Constitution to govern."
He says the president. should "end or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will and ... use the bureaucratic machine to send power away from Washington and back to America's families, faith communities, local governments, and states."
MY OPINION
While the language is aggressive (he actually uses that word earlier), this isn't surprising. It's the common big government vs. small government argument among conservatives and liberals/progressives.
SUMMARY
Vought moves to a description of the various agencies and offers recommendations. I won't detail the functions of them because it would take too long here, but it's a nerdy deep-dive similar to yesterday.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget - Vought argues that the director should be involved in all policy formulation. "A common memory of those who intend to evade OMB review is to argue that where 'resources' are not being discussed, OMB's participation is optional. This ignores ... the reality that it has the only statutory tools in the White House that are powerful enough to override implementing agencies' bureaucracies." He says OMB should follow an 1870 law that apportions funding in installments to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse and to make sure that funds are being used consistently with the president's agenda.
TINY OPINION
He gets into an area I don't have any background on, but the emphasis seems significant. Some of you who understand the inner workings of government better than I do may get it more.
SUMMARY, STILL ON THE OMB SECTION
He says the Trump Administration put funding oversight into the hands of the program associate directors rather than the deputy associate directors, a decision the Biden Administration reversed. "No Director should be chosen who is unwilling to restore apportionment decision-making to the PADs' personal review, who is not aggressive in wielding the tool on behalf of the President's agenda, or who is unable to defend the power against attacks from Congress." Later in the section, he explains that the PADs (program associate directors) are political appointees, while the DADs (deputy associate directors) are career professionals. So that's the difference.
MY OPINION
I thought conservatives generally believed that the president is supposed to execute the laws that Congress enacts. This section seems intent on the using the office of the presidency to enact the president's wishes. (I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong, just that it's a philosophical distinction, and one I find surprising.)
SUMMARY, STILL ON THE OMB SECTION
"In addition, many key considerations involved in enacting a President's agenda hinge on existing legal authorities. The Director must ensure the appointment of a General Counsel who is respected yet creative and fearless in his or her ability to challenge legal precedents that serve to protect the status quo."
Vought says the OMB director should create a proposal that address the country's $31 trillion debt.
MY OPINION
"Though some mistakenly regard it as a mere paper-pushing exercise, the President's budget is in fact a powerful mechanism for setting and enforcing public policy at federal agencies."
I mean, of course it is. I think this line is really interesting, and I suspect it must be aimed at someone particular, because I can't imagine any serious person in high levels of government thinking a budget is "a mere paper-pushing exercise."
SUMMARY, STILL ON THE OMB SECTION
He argues for more PADs so there can be more oversight. He says the president should reintroduce the concept of "pay-as-you-go." "This simple procedural requirement imposes budget neutrality on the discretionary choices of federal agencies ..."
Vought again promotes political appointees rather than career professionals setting the agenda, this time on the management side of the OMB.
**-He says the Office of Federal Procurement Policy "should be engaged early and often in OMB's effort to drive policy, including ... by suing government contracts to push back against woke policies in corporate America."
MY OPINION
Why should federal contractors get to tell corporations what sorts of policies they can have, unless those policies are so egregious that the federal government shouldn't be doing business with them?
SUMMARY, STILL ON THE OMB SECTION
Vought actually says Biden's Made In America Office should "be continued and further strengthened." He gives the Trump Administration credit for the "example and work."
He argues for better funding for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs because it "often leads to fewer regulatory burdens, more regulatory benefits, and better coordination of regulatory policy" and to help agencies do cost-benefit analysis from the beginning of their rule making process.
He says the next president should reinstate Trump's executive orders on the regulatory process "so that state regulatory and fiscal operations are not commandeered by the federal government through so-called cooperative federalism programs."
He argues for strengthening implementation of the Information Quality Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Privacy Act.
He says the president needs to work with Congress to pass "significant regulatory policy and process reforms, which could go a long way toward reining in the administrative state," as well as to enact Midnight Rules relief, which would allow him to quickly undo "the final rule makings of the Biden Administration."
That's all for today. I'll be back Monday and continue this chapter. The next section is on the National Security Council.
Have a good weekend!