Matt Yglesias

29 Responses to “White House Office of Urban Policy”

1. Jimm Says:
   November 11th, 2008 at 1:58 am

   I agree. We need to dramatically ramp up our urban focus, not only on liveability but also related transportation, energy and infrastructure concerns. Housing deserves its own focus, especially right now, whether urban, suburban or rural.

2. Sifu Tweety Says:
   November 11th, 2008 at 2:36 am

   Or, more optimally, you need to rethink the way your cabinet-level offices are organized. Combine HUD and the secretary of transportation into one executive office of urban policy? Bold thinking, Sifu!

   Totally applying on change.gov.

3. jonas Says:
   November 11th, 2008 at 2:52 am

   Well, an office of urban policy would be a welcome change from the current administration, which basically turned the White House into one gigantic Office of Rural Texan Jackasses.

4. Kolohe Says:
   November 11th, 2008 at 3:11 am

   since obviously much housing isn’t in urban areas

   Yes, but most housing is in fact mostly in urban areas. Like around 80% (or 60% if you use a stricter definition urban as ‘greater than 200K’ per that table, which I would agree with). So as far as truth in advertising, ‘HUD’ is at least 80% right, which is close enough for government work, as it were.

   And since most people live in cities, just about every policy is going to effect cities more than the rest.

   In short, with some fifteen cabinet positions and some half-dozen other cabinet level agencies (as well as dozens of other independent agencies), plenty (if not all) government policies spread across more than one directorate. And they need to be coordinated by the Dude Who Lives in the House with the Pillars. That’s only the way they’ve been doing it since 1789.

   That it’s some sort of great insight that the White House needs to coordinate across cabinet departments demonstrates how much the current administration’s incompetence has lowered the bar for Presidential standards.

5. brooksfoe Says:
   November 11th, 2008 at 3:22 am

   And when life gives you cabinet department organizational schemes that don’t really make sense, you need to make lemonade a White House office to coordinate across agencies. – MY

   I think the quote you’re grasping after here is Lenin to a representative of the Petersburg Soviet in mid-1918: “Fool! When someone hands you power, take it!”

   I say that in the best possible sense, obviously; it’s a broadly applicable and not particularly Communist political insight.

6. brooksfoe Says:
   November 11th, 2008 at 3:33 am

   one gigantic Office of Rural Texan Jackasses.

   Technically the ORTJ was folded into DHS via EXORD, but the new POTUS can revoke that. There’s some sentiment for merging it with DOI’s BJAES (Bureau of Jackalopes, Aliens and Elvis Sightings).

7. James Robertson Says:
   November 11th, 2008 at 6:25 am

   When you find that you need a new group “to coordinate across agencies”, then you have too many agencies. This is just as true in the defense/intelligence sector as it is in the sector you’re looking at. I rather suspect that we would do a lot better by dismantling HUD and starting over – and by the same token, we should dismantle all the intelligence agencies and start over there as well.

8. Cranky Observer Says:
   November 11th, 2008 at 7:40 am

   And in a spirit of bipartisanship, this office will be headed by none other than….. Mixmaster.

   Cranky

9. Jarrett Says:
   November 11th, 2008 at 7:53 am

   It’s a great idea. Of course, in the music biz, “urban” means rap and hip-hop. So for a broad, inclusive gesture, I’d suggest the new OUP be led by a classical-music enthusiast.

10. Just Dropping By Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 8:03 am

    But I thought real Americans didn’t live in cities?

11. Ted Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 8:31 am

    Let’s see, what could Matt be thinking of? What’s the most important aspect of urban policy not directly related to housing . . . ?

    People get ready,
    There’s a train a-coming
    You don’t need no baggage
    You just get on board
    All you need is faith
    To hear the diesels humming
    Don’t need no ticket
    You just thank the Lord!

    Hallelujah!

12. Ed Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 8:48 am

    I recall that much of the complexity of the federal executive branch comes from a 1938 law that FDR sought that gave him broad authority to create various agencies, but not to change cabinet departments. The result was a plethora of agencies, many of which do things that cabinet departments should do. Since presidents have learned to rely on these independent agencies, the White House tasks, and task forces, the departments, whose functions are defined by federal law, have been left as grab-bags of miscelleneous functions that may or may not be related to the name of the department.

    This structure functioned fine for awhile, but the federal debt is large enough that a reorganization to try to get some efficiency is overdue. There were alot of schemes to do exactly this in the 1970s, but they were shot down in Congress. I’m all for reviving them, but someone should look at what went wrong with the 1970s attempts to reorganize the executive branch.

13. ajay Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Serious question from a foreigner: why doesn’t he just reorganise the Department of Housing and Urban Development? Is there some factor that makes reorganising a US cabinet much more difficult than reorganising one in another country? Surely it’s his cabinet – he picks the secretaries.

14. flo Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 10:30 am

    Sounds a but librul to me…….

    Perhaps make it Housing and Urban Reform.. HUR and turn it over to Queen Latifah.

15. Daniel Strauss Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 10:39 am

    In all seriousness, who would be a good head?

16. roac Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 10:54 am

    It is true that not all housing is urban. But rural housing is the domain of Department of Agriculture, which has its own roster of public funding programs, more or less paralleling HUD’s.

    Both agencies are about equally screwed up. And always have been. But any attempt to fix things by some Grand Reorganization is guaranteed to result in making them worse.

17. Matt Stevens Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    ajay: In a parliamentary regime, your bills (to reorganize state agencies or whatever) are more or less guaranteed to pass, because their failure would bring down the government. In the US this isn’t the case, and individual legislators have a lot more say in the process.

18. Manu Fernandez Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 6:28 am

    I´ve been following Obama´s ideas and proposals for urban policy these months. I do not really know the institucional role this Office will have but I can see it as a good platform to stablish a multi-level dialogue from Federal administration and local-metropolitan levels. Let´s keep track on the final responsible for the office.

19. Renala Says:
    November 19th, 2008 at 1:06 am

    1) Sounds like a great way to nationalize Chicago style politics
    2) Sounds like a great way to nationalize mayoral offices. Imagine how tight Washington will be able to turn local political thumbscrews when even more projects run through the Fed. Establish programs based on Fed money and you are held slave to the party that keeps the juice flowing
    3) Rewards for those that brought Obama into office.
    4) …”will be tasked with advocating for cities and targeting programs in a “logical and systematic way,”. So now there won’t have to be any more barganing and deal making to get crap programs
    5) Another funnel for suburban and rural tax dollars to glide right into billion dollar projects that are underfunded and won’t accomplish a damn thing,

20. File shredders Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 1:01 am

    The formax-shredders models are safer and more convenient than using an outside shredding service, these models provide security for an entire floor or facility. Bound ledgers, ring binders, stacks of printouts, storage media such as tapes and CD’s- even entire wastebasket contents can be fed into these powerful Destroyit shredders. Every model has a 10-year warranty on cutting heads and 1-year limited warranty on mechanical parts.

21. zyban Says:
    March 13th, 2009 at 5:03 am

    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

22. xanax Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 9:31 am

    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
    xanax

23. wholesale jewelry Says:
    March 18th, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    Great site~i will visit it frequently

    wholesale jewelry

24. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 7:28 am

    tramadol
    I want to say – thank you for this!

25. Paper Shredders Says:
    March 25th, 2009 at 1:57 am

    Good tips you put out there about Fellowes-shredder products and brands. Thanks! Now that I got to know more about, I am now joining the great global competition. Wish me luck!

26. File Shredders Says:
    March 27th, 2009 at 4:00 am

    The formax shredders are safer to use than the outside shredding service. They have a warranty of ten years. They protect the confidentiality of the document.

27. Paper Shredders for Sale Says:
    April 1st, 2009 at 2:49 am

    Hi, I enjoyed reading your post. Paper Shredders have really brought some kind safety to all in the companies and homes. I’ll be waiting for new shredder updates.

28. cheap viagra Says:
    April 8th, 2009 at 3:48 am

    I want to say – thank you for this!
    viagra

29. mark Says:
    April 16th, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    Excellent site, It was pleasant to me.
    viagra