AHQ/AHC: Combine USG departments

Somebody remarked "Diplomacy is your first line of defense". So, WI the DoD & DoState were combined? What would it be called? What sort of limits would it have (if any)?

A second idea, originally proposed by LBJ (IIRC): combine DoCommerce, Labor, & Education. What might it be called? (I'm thinking Human Resources, but that's a bit to '90s.:rolleyes: ) Could it also include HUD?

Would this save USG money? (I'm thinking both fewer officials/bureaucrats/Secretaries, & less duplication of programs.) Would it make the country any better off?

Thoughts on when it could be done? (Just elect a PotUS who thinks it's a good idea?) Or if it can be?:eek:

Arguments against doing it?

(Do I have too much time on my hands?:openedeyewink: )
 
I'm not well versed in about this whole which POTUS would do that thing, but in regards to names:

First Idea:
This was the hardest - the result isn't good.

"Department of Affairs"

But, hey, Secretary of Affairs sounds good, no?

Second Idea:

"Department of Welfare"

Don't know if it would help. In regards to arguments against that, maybe it'd expand the bureaucracy too much or it's just too much functions under one department. It might be pretty confusing. Although I don't know much about US politics and department merging, I'm willing to say on a hunch that it's probably not likely that that could happen.
 
just too much functions under one department.
Might be. In both cases, my theory is, the main goals are the same (or alike) for the named departments being combined, & that would avoid cross-purposes & duplicated efforts. I may well be overestimating the difficulties managing very large organizations.:eek:
 

SsgtC

Banned
You could combine Commerce and Labor. They've been seperate agencies since 1913, but were a single Department before that. You could also fold Homeland Security into Defense fairly easily (spinning the TSA and the various Law Enforcement arms to Justice; ICE, CBP, INS, etc to Interior and USSS can either go back to Treasury or Justice). HHS, HUD and Education could be folded together. That might make it easier to create an integrated Urban Renewal program to get people out of the projects, get them decent healthcare and good educations. Veterans Affairs could be rolled into Defense as well. If you really want to push it, Agriculture could be made part of Interior as well.

Specifically combining State and Defense though would be a bad idea. Then any diplomatic negotiation automatically escalates to a military one
 
You could combine Commerce and Labor. They've been seperate agencies since 1913, but were a single Department before that. You could also fold Homeland Security into Defense fairly easily (spinning the TSA and the various Law Enforcement arms to Justice; ICE, CBP, INS, etc to Interior and USSS can either go back to Treasury or Justice). HHS, HUD and Education could be folded together. That might make it easier to create an integrated Urban Renewal program to get people out of the projects, get them decent healthcare and good educations. Veterans Affairs could be rolled into Defense as well. If you really want to push it, Agriculture could be made part of Interior as well.
I like a lot of that. USSS in DoTreasury makes most sense to me, ditto USDA in Ag. VA I'd put in with Labor, I think: deal with people all in one place; DoD does make a certain amount of sense, tho, so I could be persuaded.

HUD/HHS under DHR makes sense, provided they're created separate in the first place; it would depend on when this consolidation happens.

I'd turn over all criminal enforcement efforts to DoJ, I think, including SEC & IRS; the regulatory enforcement (non-criminal) could stay where they are, with IRS & SEC (probably) under Treasury (if not already). TSA, I'd simply disband as nothing but theatre.:rolleyes: Let the FBI do it, & look at how the Israelis handle it.

INS & Customs, Interior seems best; many of their activities aren't strictly LEA-related; splitting criminal & border patrol seems to contradict my aims, but I could be persuaded there, too.

I'd also be inclined to combine all the intelligence agencies & operations under one roof, which OTL CIA was supposed to do, but actually didn't...:rolleyes:
Specifically combining State and Defense though would be a bad idea. Then any diplomatic negotiation automatically escalates to a military one
I'm not seeing "automatic". More likely, perhaps, but if the goal is to guard the country...
 
Somebody remarked "Diplomacy is your first line of defense". So, WI the DoD & DoState were combined? What would it be called? What sort of limits would it have (if any)?

I think if DoD and State were combined, the Department to emerge out of it would be called the Department of National Security.

One would think there’s a strong chance of potential conflict with the Nationals Security Advisor, though. Someone who has the ear of the President and someone who controls diplomacy and the weaponry on behalf of the President are bound to clash.
 
In terms of name for a merged State and Defence, you could do something as simple as Department of the Exterior. In terms of plausability, I'm a little unsure - isn't DoD already the largest federal department already in terms of both budget and size?

For others, Nixon had some very specific plans which you can read about here: https://www.nytimes.com/1971/03/26/...structured-under-nixons-proposed-cabinet.html which essentially involved merging Transport with HUD; Commerce with Labor; Interior and Agriculture; and keeping Health, Education and Welfare as a single department. Seems plausible enough that you could get that off of the ground.

Beyond that, it feels like more a case of preventing things from being split off into new departments - post 9/11 have DoJ restructured into a Department of Home Affairs so borders, doemstic security and law enforcement are all kept in one department, as is typical for many other Western countries. Keep Veterans Affairs within the DoD. Keep Energy in Interior (or if you get Nixon's plans passed split between Community Development and Natural Resources.
 
In terms of name for a merged State and Defence, you could do something as simple as Department of the Exterior. In terms of plausability, I'm a little unsure - isn't DoD already the largest federal department already in terms of both budget and size?
I'm not solely concerned with economies of scale. Just with reducing duplication.
For others, Nixon had some very specific plans which you can read about here: https://www.nytimes.com/1971/03/26/...structured-under-nixons-proposed-cabinet.html which essentially involved merging Transport with HUD; Commerce with Labor; Interior and Agriculture; and keeping Health, Education and Welfare as a single department. Seems plausible enough that you could get that off of the ground.
Thx for the link.

Merging DoT & HUD?:confounded: And leaving HEW separate?:confounded:
Beyond that, it feels like more a case of preventing things from being split off into new departments - post 9/11 have DoJ restructured into a Department of Home Affairs so borders, doemstic security and law enforcement are all kept in one department, as is typical for many other Western countries. Keep Veterans Affairs within the DoD. Keep Energy in Interior (or if you get Nixon's plans passed split between Community Development and Natural Resources.
I imagined DoJ having a "super FBI" including IRS & SEC enforcement, ATF, just about everything you could name.

I also pictured a Department of Intelligence, rather than just an agency clearinghouse, so the Intel Advisor is now a Secretary.

As for the rest, I'll have to read the article & let you know.;)

One other thing: I'd be inclined to break up FAA, one branch for regulation, one for enforcement. Would you put them in the same place? Or leave enforcement to NTSB or somebody?
 
Last edited:
I'm not solely concerned with economies of scale. Just with reducing duplication.

Thx for the link.

Merging DoT & HUD?:confounded: And leaving HEW separate?:confounded:
\
I imagined DoJ having a "super FBI" including IRS & SEC enforcement, ATF, just about everything you could name.

I also pictured a Department of Intelligence, rather than just an agency clearinghouse, so the Intel Advisor is now a Secretary.

As for the rest, I'll have to read the article & let you know.;)

One other thing: I'd be inclined to break up FAA, one branch for regulation, one for enforcement. Would you put them in the same place? Or leave enforcement to NTSB or somebody?
I’m not sure I would regard the IRS or SEC as law enforcement in the way the FBI is; IRS is primarily an administrative outfit (otherwise the Social Security Administration could also be folded in under the same logic). And the SEC is a regulator. However there is room for a lot of consolidation of agencies, not just departments. Merge the SEC with a bunch of other things for a single financial regulator. Merge customs functions from BCP, ICE etc with IRS for a single tax agency.

And federal law enforcement could do with a lot in particular; seems like just about every other department and agency has its own
police force. Just abolish/combine a lot of them into the Federal Protective service.

I suspect there might be a limit to how much you can consolidate with a single Department of Intelligence - defence is to drag in the same department as the military, and it’s going to miss all the homeland security stuff anyway. But like law enforcement, heck of a lot of room for consolidation at the agency level. Merge the current 17 down to 5, modelled after the UK set up, which all then report into a Department rather than exist entirely independently:
  • Joint Intelligence Organisation
  • Security/Domestic Intelligence Service
  • CIA
  • NSA (incorporating all SIGINT)
  • Defence Intelligence Service
For FAA, would probably keep it separate from NTSB. NTSB’s remit is larger than just civil air travel, and from what I recall FAA directly runs/supervises air traffic control so a merger means they’d be responsible for investigating themselves.
 
I’m not sure I would regard the IRS or SEC as law enforcement in the way the FBI is; IRS is primarily an administrative outfit (otherwise the Social Security Administration could also be folded in under the same logic). And the SEC is a regulator.
I'm thinking strictly of criminal cases, not civil enforcement(s). (Unless that's already a Bureau duty.)
However there is room for a lot of consolidation of agencies, not just departments. Merge the SEC with a bunch of other things for a single financial regulator. Merge customs functions from BCP, ICE etc with IRS for a single tax agency.
That makes a lot of sense, & it's one I'd never thought of.:cool: Thx.
And federal law enforcement could do with a lot in particular; seems like just about every other department and agency has its own
police force. Just abolish/combine a lot of them into the Federal Protective service.
Agreed. In particular, USSS would seem better under DoJ (or FBI); I'd happily combine.
I suspect there might be a limit to how much you can consolidate with a single Department of Intelligence - defence is to drag in the same department as the military, and it’s going to miss all the homeland security stuff anyway. But like law enforcement, heck of a lot of room for consolidation at the agency level. Merge the current 17 down to 5, modelled after the UK set up, which all then report into a Department rather than exist entirely independently:
  • Joint Intelligence Organisation
  • Security/Domestic Intelligence Service
  • CIA
  • NSA (incorporating all SIGINT)
  • Defence Intelligence Service
That works for me. To be clear, I wouldn't take over the likes of G-2 from AFUS branches, but State's intel outfit, or maybe *OP-20-G or *Hypo, depending on when the change happens; I'm less sure taking over all of ONI or SIS makes sense, given they may be clearinghouses for "fleeted up" intel, but I'd want them out of the business of breaking into embassies & such.:eek: (Leave that to the DoI's Covert Ops outfit.)
For FAA, would probably keep it separate from NTSB. NTSB’s remit is larger than just civil air travel, and from what I recall FAA directly runs/supervises air traffic control so a merger means they’d be responsible for investigating themselves.
Here's the thing. As it stands, FAA both promotes air travel & regulates airlines, & that leads to a conflict of interest whenever NTSB calls for changes to improve safety. Breaking FAA so the promotion stays in one branch & regulation another, wherever either ends up, means there's no more conflict, & air travel is safer in the long run.

Come to that, it might also regulate commercial space travel, & get NASA out of the way.:rolleyes: (Let them deal with exploration by probe, & leave manned flight to a national aerospace agency: National Manned Space Flight Agency {nimsfa?:openedeyewink:})
 
I’m not sure I would regard the IRS or SEC as law enforcement in the way the FBI is; IRS is primarily an administrative outfit...
True, they do however have their Criminal Investigation division.


... but State's intel outfit...
I'd be wary of splitting off the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, they only have a couple of hundred people and act purely as analysts. Going from memory when I last read about them a number of years back during the whole Iraq debacle—which they got the most right, or least wrong—they generally skew older, have a more academic bent, combined with being just a consumer leading to a certain amount of scepticism/contrariness, and benefit from borrowing diplomats to work as analysts for periods. Which is a long way of saying if you hive them off and put them in with one super-agency it risks destroying what made them effective in the first place.
 
Different proposals have been put forward over time. Some mergers could be reversions to former departments, like Commerce & Labor, or Health, Education & Welfare, but these are not the only ones, and none seem particularly likely.

The Obama administration talked about ending the Department of Commerce. I think its surviving agencies would have been shifted to other departments.

The Trump administration wants to merge Labor and Education. One argument supporters of the plan have pointed out is that the combined department would be in sync with oversight committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I like aspects of these ideas and others, but none are particularly likely in my opinion.
 
I'd be wary of splitting off the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, they only have a couple of hundred people and act purely as analysts. Going from memory when I last read about them a number of years back during the whole Iraq debacle—which they got the most right, or least wrong—they generally skew older, have a more academic bent, combined with being just a consumer leading to a certain amount of scepticism/contrariness, and benefit from borrowing diplomats to work as analysts for periods. Which is a long way of saying if you hive them off and put them in with one super-agency it risks destroying what made them effective in the first place.
I wouldn't want to reduce effectiveness.:eek: I've seen it described as intel, not analysis, & that'd I'd happily leave alone; if possible, I'd increase the number of analysts, there & in any DoIntel, since there aren't near enough now. (Recall the problem before Pearl Harbor, too...)
 
Merge the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Education into a single department. Merge HUD and HHS into a single Department.
 
Merge the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Education into a single department. Merge HUD and HHS into a single Department.
Why not all of them in a single department? Deal with everything to do with business & labor, from health & occupational safety to housing, under one roof?
 
Top