Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2025
|
by AMAC, Robert B. Charles
|
3 Comments
|
A serious thought. In the 1960s, efficiency experts tried to merge two departments, Labor and Commerce – originally one department from 1903 to 1913. Labor, of course, is part of commerce. Democrats in Congress nixed the idea, despite logic. Time now, to try again.
Starting as the “Bureau of Labor Statistics” in 1884 – within the Interior Department – the modern Labor Department moved – under Theodore Roosevelt – into the “Department of Commerce and Labor” in 1903. There was logic to that move, commerce tied to labor.
Logic notwithstanding, on his last day in office, weak Republican President “William Howard Taft” decided in 1913 to give Labor its own department. The idea was to placate unions, which had grown dramatically in power between the Civil War and what was soon WWI (1914-1918).
The unions of that day represented radical socialism, a full-on rejection of capitalism. Perhaps not a surprise, America saw the rise of “Industrial Workers of the World” and other radical groups. In Russia, Communist Bolsheviks took over, beginning a 70-year reign of terror.
But in the US, the idea was to separate commerce and labor, one department pushing business, the other mediating for unions. Half appeasement, the new department seemed … good politics.
For a time it was, but over the next eight years Democrat Wilson joined WWI, pushed more government, and resegregated the Civil Service (after Republican Theodore Roosvelt has desegregated it). Self-proclaimed “friend of unions,” Wilson was no friend of minorities who wanted the American Dream. Still, Wilson thought a “Labor Department” was good politics.
History is odd and often hard to explain. In the mid-1960s, Democrat Lyndon Johnson took an opposite view. Perhaps looking for money to fund Vietnam and his Great Society, maybe quietly hostile to union power, Johnson reversed course, urging a merger of Labor and Commerce.
Ultimately, Johnson’s idea failed, defeated by an overwhelmingly Democrat Congress, but the idea was not without merit. Unlike most Departments, Labor and Commerce are simply constituency promotors and, since they often chafe, two constituencies got two departments.
In practice, Labor is a business regulator, slowing free markets, entrepreneurship, and growth, while Commerce advances free markets. The two departments are, in effect, permanent lobbyists for their respective, often opposite and feuding constituencies.
Labor today has 31 bureaus, agencies, and offices, each promoting labor-related interests, from “mine safety” to a “women’s bureau” through regulation. Obama’s Secretary of Labor claimed: “Boiled down to its essence … Labor is the Department of Opportunity.”
Commerce meantime is asked, by statute, “to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity for all communities.” Other responsibilities include managing sensitive technologies (with Defense), promoting exports, census, statistics, patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
In short, while the overall objective of both departments is a healthy, safe, strong economy, one that advances “opportunities” for all – workers and employers – they are at perpetual odds.
Who pays for that perpetual little war? Taxpayers. Last year, Labor cost taxpayers $31 billion, nine billion for bureaucrats who hired $22 billion in contractors. Commerce was $60 billion.
Consolidation is not always the right answer, but in this instance – where both departments aim to improve economic wellbeing, security, and growth, greater harmony, efficiency, and cost savings might be achieved under one roof, ending taxpayer funded advocacy. A serious thought.
Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, attorney, and naval intelligence officer (USNR). He wrote “Narcotics and Terrorism” (2003), “Eagles and Evergreens” (2018), and is National Spokesman for AMAC. Robert Charles has also just released an uplifting new book, “Cherish America: Stories of Courage, Character, and Kindness” (Tower Publishing, 2024).
Read the full article here
