If the U.S. Treasury had a dollar for every time a politician called for a smarter, more efficient government, the national debt could probably be at least cut in half. Lawmakers know their constituents are hungry for a more streamlined government that is more productive and costs taxpayers less. But do lawmakers understand what their constituents really want?

It doesn’t appear so.

In remarks he made in January, President Obama announced a plan to fold several agencies into the Department of Commerce. He argued his plan “should receive bipartisan support” because “making our government more responsive and strategic and leaner shouldn’t be a partisan issue.” It must have been a surprise, then, when the proposal was not met with bipartisan support, or even partisan rhetoric, but instead with bipartisan dissent.

Why the opposition? Lawmakers oppose the part of the plan that would move the office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) under the Department of Commerce. Right now, the USTR currently exists within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and is housed across the street from the White House.

In a joint statement, Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus (D-MT) and House Ways and Means Committee chair Dave Camp (R-MI), whose committees oversee USTR, opposed the move.

They are right to do so.

After serving as former Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, I know how critical this agency is to the U.S. economy and how vital it is to promoting job creation. I also know that it is a very small,nimble organization (it has 240 total employees) that has a narrow purpose and fulfills it well. It is not what Americans imagine when they hear the word “bureaucracy.”

Moving USTR under Commerce would take this small, streamlined agency and put it within a larger – and therefore less efficient – agency. Sen. Baucus and Rep. Camp argued this same point, noting USTR is “one of the most efficient agencies” and “is a model of how government can and should work.” The Department of Commerce, on the other hand, could easily be referred to the Department of Miscellaneous. It oversees everything from the National Weather Service to the release of certain economic statistics.

In other words, it is exactly what Americans imagine when they hear the word “bureaucracy.”

Which is why Baucus and Camp also argued making USTR “just another corner of a new bureaucratic behemoth would hurt American exports and hinder American job creation.” Furthermore, this proposal amounts to a deprioritization of America’s trade agenda because it diminishes the role of this agency and its ability to negotiate on behalf of the U.S. and the President.

History is a guide here. The U.S. Trade Representative’s office wasn’t always an independent agency. Before joining the EOP, USTR was housed within the State Department. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy madeUSTR independent. Kennedy’s move was a signal to world leaders that the administration was serious about expanding and improving U.S. trade.

President Kennedy also recognized that, under State, USTR was under the influence of a different agenda. On the surface it may appear the Department of Commerce’s purpose is more in line; there is a distinct difference between promoting trade (Commerce’s mission) and between negotiating and implementing the policies that facilitate it (USTR’s mission).

President Obama should be applauded for exploring ways to streamline and smarten up the federal bureaucracy. But all efforts to do so are not necessarily worthy, and this is one of them.

Instead of putting an already-efficient, vital agency under a much larger bureaucratic one, President Obama should start with the General Accountability Office’s list of duplicative government programs and eliminate those.  Duplicative programs, including 82 for teacher quality, 47 for job training and employment and 56 aimed at helping Americans better understand their finances, cost taxpayers between $100 to $200 billion.

When Americans think of Washington’s bureaucracy, they think of the massive, bureaucratic government agencies dotting Pennsylvania Avenue. Eliminating and consolidating individual programs would allow these agencies to get rid of some of the bulk. And this is ultimately what Americans really want.

BA