Occasions for those in house we dd that courtesy to check that our various mobile devices have been silent or turned off as we to begin and those watching online youre welcome to send questions or comments at anytime. Simply emailing speaker at heritage. Org. Discussion this. Orning is doctor mullhausen frequently before ongress on the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs and hes been featured publications and frequently appears on National Television as well. His book do federal social programs work, reviews rigorous studies that almost unanimously find that they fail social problems they were designed to address. As adjunct es professor where he teaches evaluation and tatistical methods to graduate institutes. Please join me. David . Thank you. Good morning. Heritage e to the foundation. Online, of you welcome to, todays event. Federal ing the government and what needs to be done and how to do it. There are panelists of in of rience with the workings the federal government. Leading our discussion is rachael. She is our Research Fellow and conomics and budget and entitlements in the thomas Row Institute for economic policy. Leading Heritage Foundation blueprint for project the n subject for todays event. Efore joining she was a senior economists on the staff of the joint Economic Committee for congress. Donald divine. Donald is senior scholar at the for american studies in. C. He served as president reagans Civil Service director during the president s first term in office. Time the Washington Post labeled him reagans swift ward of the Civil Service. Bureaucratic accesses and reducing billions in spending. Management of the burocracy a guide to reforming and control was published and purchased online. This is my personal copy and i reading it. Ard to last is robert shae. In grant a principal 30 nton Public Sector with years of Public Service leads and is unication team member of the performance ransportation team and was appointed to statutory evidence based policy making committee. Dear my near and heart. Reviously he was associate director at the office of management and budget. Led president bushs Performance Improvement ministered the ad Program Assessment grading tool. Served asning, Robert Council to the Senate Committee on government affairs. Ill now turn this event to you. Thank you and its my pleasure to be here today. Ive had the opportunity to work on the production of all of our reform. T for for reorganization we begin with balance and for lueprint for reform and new sticks and now administration and this one. Blueprint for balance was first spelled out over 100 ifferent recommendations that lead to ten trillion less in federal spending and balancing 7 years. T within so what weve gotten here is a recommendations that we include in our blueprint of theance are also part blueprint reorganization but we pecified the pathways that you can achieve these reforms and noted whether or not the or ident that is authority what needs to be done whether congress or change in Authority Needs to be taking place to implement the recommendations here. Presented with 4 trillion in annual spending. Debt and n in public 22 different cabinet level agencies of federal government in need of a government wide reorganization. Knows few bounds both fiscally and administratively. We need the government to focus on core constitutional responsibilities. Need a government that is looking out for the interest instead of select groups and we need one thats ble to provide Efferent Services with accountability metric as attached those. Blueprint for reorganization the first one analysis of on federal Department Agencies we recommendations and in a moment ill give you examples of those but first i that not clarify everything thats in here is omething that the executive department has the authority to take on and do immediately. Probably most , of them require buy in from congress. Edition is pathways to reform and cross cutting specifies what executives can do and what changes can be to to clear the pathway reform and what things well need and we look at cross cutting issues. Document looks at the agencies but in the second one e have reforms such as modernizing the federal government. Changes to personnel policy that span across all agents. Roughly 110 recommendations here ill start with some of those for departments hole and functions. Such as the federal Housing Administration and the Financing Agency as well as the Consumer Financial protection bureau. We eliminate and propose to core ate theres often functions we hold there and transfer them to a more department or agency. There are also some functions nonfederal that should instead be transferred to such and local government as Fire Protection and low cost housing. State and local governments have better knowledge of their own local communities and theyre appropriately designed to service the needs. And s also certain offices departments that we recommend v. A. Nating for example the has 42 different offices. Specifically 4 related to health and these hings just create a bureaucratic nightmare for veterans seeking integrated ervice and one shop to go to all needs as apposed to 42 different offices theyre going having to nsible for take documentations from one to nother and coordinating services. Without shutting down entire recommend also closing physical offices such as the department of education 24 regional and field offices is. When these are first established there was a need for them and we have internet and technology that we have today but department of education and departments have these services. These offices throughout the long ernesto e no day. We also recommend functions agencies for example the four ment of justice has separate Criminal Divisions and located across these but also have their criminal group all could those into the Criminal Division have them not have to scattered across. In certain cases programs lack efficient is because theyre housed in the wrong agency so we recommend things like moving. Food and Nutrition Services that as well fair program from of Agriculture Program into the health and uman Services Department with other welfare or student aid programs taking them out of the department of education and in treasury as treasury that is information they have to determine who is ones le and theyre the distributing funds. Cuts e dont recommend overall to defense spending theres room to optimize and put the highest priorities first within the defense department. Suggest le we access ing infrastructure and we dont of defense partment should be spending money on Prostate Cancer research or on obama era initiatives for energy and environment. Now too many of the federal overnments Program Benefit a select few instead of looking broadly across allamericans so we recommend eliminating the programs such as the corporation for national and services. Corporation for public broadcasting and the national and ation of the Arts Humanities and export and import Minority Business Development agency and loan ment of energy programs. About ncy is not just eliminating moving programs around but making sure the its job is doing through oversight and accountability. Thats why we recommend making subject to meaningful review and not giving exemptions such as the irs and making them all subject reviews. Ame we also recommend within the office of management and budget. And then we do have places where theres plenty of accountability as the v. A. We identified 31 different ccountability and Program Management programs there and yet theyre scattered again so those programs into one place within the v. A. You better serve veterans as taxpayers and then inally because personnel has such a tremendous impact and the accountability of the federal we recommend a broad package to reward productivity essentially let federal managers do their jobs. Bring federal sector nt in line with so the government is in a better obtain to retract and the bright nest the workforce. Now don . Alright. My name is donald divine. Serious part of the program. I am the comic side. Want to say is, i of much recommend both these books. The cross cutting one is just super. Best things i ever looked at about government management. Im an academic by background. But in some crazy way after the 980 election, president Ronald Reagan called me up and said don said, a job for you and i what is it . And he said head of the office of Personnel Management . O pm. My son used to call it opium and funny job for conservative n like me and he said i had a good sense of humor. Do . You want me to i want you to cut back 100,000 and i want mployees you to reduce their bloated them work d make harder. Can make a like i lot of friends in that job. ll just remember what harry truman said about you want a tough job in washington, you washington when youre doing a tough job, buy a dog. I bought two of them to be on the safe side and the crazy do it. S we did nobody thought this was possible cut and reform government. Produce 100,000 nondefense employees and i try conservative no ones know that but we did . Benefits even my admitted i saved 6 billion dollars in todays dollars. 60 billion and we did make them work harder too. E went through performance appraisal and merit pay. It was a miracle. It happened. Introduction by called me reagans terrible Civil Servant that was things they cest said about me. , what lled me thes are a call getting rid of people and we were not that clever did the first ones and at christmas, not a good terms of this in Public Relations. New york times did a big rass n me, calling me a rassputen rassputen. The grin. In the pinstripe suit way we did that and nobody you know, introduced myself. Professor but nobody cared about that. Did knowknow is that i Ronald Reagan and what a guy he. S or was alright. Now what did i learn in this . The book that was mentioned. Nothing has changed very much. Hats a book i wrote almost 40 room ago and a by in this right now went to my publisher nd said this is still pretty much all true. Why dont you republish it . For that n blackwell and most of the reforms we did were gone. Most of them were gone in the republicanstration a administration i might say and government today simply doesnt dont take it from a ibertarian conservative and lets take it from paul light. Professor of Public Relations on serious reviews. Ome of them with congressional backgrounding. Government doesnt work anymore. Itsnt faithfully execute laws. Thats a basic fact. It cant. Average i think its he is a little high on this that there are 60 levels between the secretary and doing he policy something on the street. Impossible to run such an organization unless you have the great ement and social scientists and another ill recommend calls have cracy is they dont one in government. Thats the problem. You n the private sector can have 60 levels. Heres almost no private company that does that anymore and they did it back in the 30s we still run our government like in the 1930s but you can levels and you look and say is that division not . Ng a profit or it is . You keep it. Of it not, you get rid and the government you go down the 60 levels and they are means you spend more money on it. Thing in the Public Sector is different than the sector. How did we get this thing . Revolutionary st in the history is Woodrow Wilson we have to do is bring all power together in the and we can run everything with the experts in the whole country. Went to, he wrote a ph. D. And i went had to read it when i to graduate school saying how to administration he went over to prussia and said hey prussia works. High . It works because all power and red in the government when the chancellor says we do it, we do it and he came back wrote a book saying problem with American Government power rather ides than bringing power together to do good. Prussia it has a requirement system and got an system. Nal got a welfare state. We have none of that in america. Especially at the National Level right. T all mes back and convinces the intellectuals that the problem is dividing it an and bringing it together. The american Political Science changes on and he intellectual opinion in america from saying that divided power good. Is or g it together divideing is bad and bringing it together is good. Unfortunately every president since then except my reagan bought into that theory. Thats why paul is right. We cant run it. Ltimately we can only decentralize it back the way the founders created it. As Ronald Reagan said, the success of america is federalism. Contributions to the. Istory of freedom ive got a solution too. Relying on all these office ions having anagement and budget is having a big thing to go and reorganize have a simple solution. The first book i mentioned is pathways cutting thing i guess its called. He other one, divides up the agencies and the departments this and each one do that and that and i got a simple answer. Dont go with the commission. Just send these out to the agencies. Alright . Them to do it. Or if you dont like it have a it. D reason why you dont do these are serious ecommendations that david and rachael and robert have given a lot of thought. Put this through the robertprocess of omb and is a big exception here. Them. E he fought if you just turn it over to the careerists there this will go on year, two years or come halfwayhe end with some done thing. And itll never happen. Is go back anddo reinvent cabinet government. What we need. Turn it over to the agents. Thats their job. You guys did it and thats the solution and thats what i have say. Yeah . I wonder if i can ed it the and just alks associate myself with a couple of but lets in my panelist but wont. Im going to associate myself it. H most of talk to me late fair you want me to pick out what i disagree with much. E its not i mean its certainly true that he mission of the government have proliferated to the extent the government couldnt possibly it to do all we ask and we ask it to do with a lot restrictions on management of contracts y, systems that make it almost impossible get a job done so if you find someone whos getting something government, that is a true talent. Its also true thats a your boss said, the only thing we close to eternally life on earth is a Government Program so place its very or eliminaterepeal a program. Rachaels work document documents these evaluated i wouldnt though say the logical conclusion is to be inate everything to effective it is true that when subjected to rigorous evaluation methodologies we find programs not having their intended impact so theres an enormous room for improvement. Until the 80s had the authority to reorganize i think its and reempower the administrations with that authority. It use its so hard to do otherwise. Leastow, the congress, at from the oversight committees are pretty supportive of this authority where you trip p is in the authorizing committees and the appropriations committees because those are the ones that jurisdiction ower, money assigned with the specific agencies are programs jurisdiction. What tends to drive reorganizations of government are crisis and of course the that is nt example of the establishment of the department of Homeland Security. Theres been along discussion if strengthened if we consolidated the programs securing the r homeland . After t was fought until 9 11. Youll recall immediately after 9 11 we established the ransportation Security Administration because we thought contract workers could airplanes. Ely secure commercial travel, but fairly there after we created department of Homeland Security entities ll of these together and while its true attacks on sts american soil have been rare then, im not sure we can measurably say our security has strengthened because of the chaos of the department of security. Its been an enormous struggle expensive to combine these into a cohesive well honed organization. The big issue of course in president the authority to do Something Like that is trust. Would need to trust an xecutive to use that authority responsibly and weve nod had that kind of trusting a long time. In congress in the 90s passed a aw called the government performance and results and. That was my first job to ever implementation of that act oon after it was enacted because no one really gave a damn about it so i was low man poll and got that responsibility but theres folks intuitive we need to drive Government Agency programs to think more about outcomes. Too easy to come to work with just yourself producing inputs or outputs. Orking hard and doing activity presumably towards an outcome but if you dont measure if having an impact on that never e outcome youll know whether or not what youre doing is having a positive esult so government has struggled before then but certainly since then identifying theyre tryingat accomplish and finding a way to measure that over time. Lot of the evaluations are getting insight into whether or not were a