« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Duplicative Programs Cost More than GOP Cuts

Republicans can use GAO report to cut more spending and inhibit the Democrat money laundering operation.

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  March 1st, 2011 at 04:27 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Yesterday, we dinged Senator Coburn for his involvement in the ‘Gang of Six’.  Today, we commend him for initiating a GAO report which exposes the contempt in which the statists view taxpayers.

Conservatives have always known that the promulgation of government programs was not conceived from some genuine conviction of Keynesian economics, or a professed concern for the recipients.  Most government programs serve the function of a circuitous campaign financing operation for the Democrat Party.  Taxpayer funds are expended indiscriminately for redistribution programs that create dependency and are administered by special interest groups.  The dependency constituents are to reciprocate the taxpayer-funded favor by voting for Democrats, while the special interest groups are to recompense with campaign donations.

The best illustration of the malevolence fueling the expansion of government is the appalling degree of waste and duplication that is perpetuated by the advocates of big government.  It is one thing to credulously believe in the virtues of unconstitutional and inefficacious programs.  It is downright criminal to compound them with duplicative programs with no regard for the consequences.  In other words, one ethanol program might demonstrate economic illiteracy; multiple ethanol programs exemplify Democrat payoffs to special interests.

Earlier today, Senator Coburn announced that the GAO report he commissioned a year ago has identified 34 major areas of wasteful spending, totaling at least $100-$200 billion. You can read the full 345 page report here and the 15 page summary of wasteful agencies and programs here.

Senator Coburn came out swinging in today’s press release and warns that this report is just a glimpse of more to come:

“This report also shows we could save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year without cutting services. And, in many cases, smart consolidations will improve service. GAO has identified a mother lode of government waste and duplication that should keep Congress busy for the rest of the year, Dr. Coburn said”

GAO did not provide a specific estimate of the cost of duplication in its report but Dr. Coburn estimated it to be at least $100 billion. Moreover, GAO only examined a fraction of the federal budget and only a handful of missions of varying scope. Dr. Coburn expects future reports will identify even greater overlap, duplication, and mismanagement. (emphasis added)

Here are some key findings of the report which focused primarily on duplicative programs within the Department of Defense, Agriculture, and HUD:

  • There are 18 domestic food assistance programs administered by 3 executive departments costing $62.5 billion.  Little is known about 11 of the programs because “they have not been well studied”.
  • 20 programs for the homeless are overseen by 7 agencies costing $2.9 billion.  Fragmentation has resulted in the collection of data with “limited usefulness”.
  • 8 agencies administer 80 transportation programs for the “transportation disadvantaged”.  Does anyone believe that these programs would be canceled if Obama implemented his rail plans?
  • There are 47 job training and employment programs, half of which had no performance review since 2004.  Yes, back when unemployment was under 5%.
  • 82 “teacher quality” programs cost $4 billion annually.
  • 56 “financial literacy” programs are administered by 20 agencies.  There is no cost analysis because the agencies won’t document it.  I guess members of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers have not attended these programs.
  • 15 agencies administer 30 food safety programs.  One can only imagine the chaotic scene within the USDA once last year’s egregious FDA food takeover bill is implemented.
  • 80 economic development programs are administered by 4 departments which cost taxpayers $6.5 billion.
  • Over 20 agencies oversee 5 programs that are charged with “reducing the reliance on petroleum fuel for the federal government’s vehicle fleet”.  The cost?  “Undetermined”.
  • Five departments within the Department of Transportation account for 100 different programs that fund things like highways, rail projects and safety programs costing $58 billion in 2010.

These are just a few of the most egregious findings from the GAO report.  It is quite obvious that if the full scope of the federal budget were scrutinized, we would find hundreds of billions more in duplicity and waste.

Last month, some members of the GOP leadership referred to efforts by conservative members to cut spending across the board as lazy.  They asserted that there were no specific cuts that were identified to augment the $61 billion in cuts proposed in the original budget bill.  Well, Senator Coburn has another $100 billion (if not more) in targeted cuts for them to include in the final CR.  You can’t find more prudent targeted cuts than duplicative programs identified by Congress’s bi-partisan oversight arm.  And besides, do you really want to pump in another $100 billion annually to the Democrat’s money laundering scheme?

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.inthisdimension.com inthisdimension

    Far be it for me to say that ANYTHING the Dems do is not “duplicitous” or full of “duplicity” in intent and execution, but perhaps the author meant “duplicative”?

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

      It looks like my play on words fell flat. I was calling the duplicative programs duplicitous. However, I edited it for clarity. Thanks for feedback.

  • Common_Cents

    never, never talk about this. They will tell you that every govt dollar is well spent, rationalized and important.

    Today, during Bernanks testimony it was characterized that cutting govt is dangerous to the GDP/economy and not increasing the debt ceiling(increasing your credit card limit) will be CHAOS.

    The takeaway then is every dollar going to govt is the best use of that borrowed dollar amongst other alternatives which we know is hogwash.

  • carolina
    • grammy1

      So wonderfully descriptive.

  • http://spendenforcer.com/ vortigernpendragon

    If the duplicate programs get eliminated quickly, then maybe they are serious about cutting. If not, then nothing has changed. My guess is they will still be here this time next year.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkTQErQWko

  • lylian

    2012 is close- any ideas out there?

    • audax

      ["This" being the mucking up of the recent comments sidebar with a too-long title. It's rude, and it interferes with other people's enjoyment of the site. THIS IS THE ONLY WARNING THAT I WILL GIVE. - Moe Lane]

      • gekster

        Please, start taking your meds again. ;)

      • Mary Beth
      • redpenny

        GEEZ Louise—are you ill? Need someone to call 911 for you—-

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        Specifically, this one:

        http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/03/01/duplicative-programs-cost-more-than-gop-cuts/#comment-1161

        Thank you in advance.

  • nick2000

    I don’t really have the stomach to read the entire report right now, but the only thing we cold possibly save is overhead. It is indeed proof of the incredible size of the government that such overlap exists. It is administrative overlap, and, like in any corporation merger, it can benefit from, well, being merged back under a single department (there will be a lot of fights for exactly which department will “survive”). However, saying that this would result in the saving of the entire cost of each duplicate department is erroneous. After all, (for example) if you have 10 departments distributing food to homeless people, it does not mean that homeless people eat 10 times the food that they should but that it most likely covers 10 times as many homeless people as one department did. It might even be possible to achieve hardly any cost savings because we may actually need all these employees to meet the objectives.

    So, yes, it is rather stupid to have many departments do the same thing and it most likely wasting some money. The question remains however whether what they do (for example, feeding the poor) should be cut at all. These are 2 important discussions but they are separate discussions.

    • runner12

      The government is spending billions of dollars on duplicate programs, most of which are ineffective and are only in place for political purposes. This is a fairly straightforward point.

      As stated in the diary, eleven out of the eighteen food programs have not been studied for effectiveness. This is not compassion for the poor, it is false charity. The same could be said for the programs involving the homeless.

      Also, when companies downsize, they always save money and become more effective, not less effective.

      • nick2000

        Companies who downsize may be more efficient (but maybe not more effective). There is a difference between killing the duplicate programs and killing duplicate departments.
        You can bring all the funding under one department, thus getting more efficiency out of it. It does not reduce the cost 10 fold UNLESS you decide to kill the other programs. That is my point.

        Ineffective programs need to be revised. Inefficient programs, if useful, need only be streamlined. People are dreaming about all these cost savings but while there are certainly some savings, there are also some things that have a legitimate purpose.

        Otherwise, we could push the logic to stupid conclusions and say, for example, that the Navy does not need the Marine Corps because the Army can provide field soldiers as needed. They do not need to have their own pilots or airplanes either because the Air Force can provide them…
        While this could make sense on some level I suppose, it is ridiculous on other levels.

        • nick2000

          Sorry but Coburn is full of it when he says “This report also shows we could save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year without cutting services.”
          However, he is right when he says “And, in many cases, smart consolidations will improve service.?

          The only way to save hundreds of billions of dollars from this every year would be, based on the list given, to cut many DOD programs (or services)… (not make them more efficient but completely cut them). unless he wants to cut the tax breaks (in short, increase taxes) since they amount to $1 trillion.

          I am all for making government more efficient but this is not the monster some people think it is. Visit any large international corporation and you would be surprised at the amount of waste.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      It’s clear you’re only here to shovel Dem talking points, so beat it.

      • Raven

        He was doing it in a decent, respectful way.

        And I seriously doubt that’s what he was doing at all. Mostly because he’s right.
        IF any of those programs are worthy of keeping, we’re not going to see as much in savings as it appears at first blush.
        We’ll certainly save on administration costs by consolidating those programs, but will we save the full budgets of those duplications? Maybe. Maybe not.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
    • cam1

      you ought to be running in some democrat primary. Good luck in 2012.

  • macbookben

    …that would appear to inform the development and implementation of the joint strike fighter (F-35). Interchangeable parts, similar maintenance, weaponry. The major differences are the characteristics of each branch’s vehicle (vertical take-off for marines, tail-hook capability for navy, etc.). Although it remains to be seen whether this turns out to be an effective project, there’s obviously some economizing on duplication going on here-likely its biggest selling point.

    Now take your four military branches. What if we made THEIR parts, I mean, personnel, interchangeable? At the very least, one could argue for a reduction in the number of top-level brass to streamline upper management. I suggest this despite all the reverence I have for our military branches and the history of their great contributions to our nation, but top-heavy management structures and duplication of administrative responsibilities are the first to get axed in corporate M&A’s, making a leaner, meaner, more profitable enterprise.

    • Raven

      To come up with arguments for Extreme cuts in the top brass. O-5 and up and E-7 and up.
      And then there are all those wasted, wasteful and completely unnecessary civilian contractors.

      No need to make personnel “interchangeable” to argue for deep cuts in DoD personnel. No need at all…

  • edwyrd

    with twigs!
    dick morros’ new book, “revolt” highlights “targeted shutdown” (read selective shutdown, a post by GC devine) as a stratagy to keep the dems on the defense and beat back obamas agenda.
    targeted cuts in “duplicative programs” could be the “twigs” we need to get the “selective shutdown” forest fire burning.

    anybody got a match!!

  • edwyrd

    whacy laptop! its DICK MORRIS’ new book not morros

  • lostinabluestate

    one wonders how much aid a person can actually receive if they play the game right?

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

      met people who said that it is not worthwhile for them to find a job because they would be ineligible to receive some of the handouts.

  • drfredc

    One solution to all the gubermint programs that politicians are never willing to kill outright is to create a simple political process to convert them into NGOs. Then if X percent of the budget is NGOs, then allow taxpayers the option to direct X * 2 percent of their tax payment directly to one or more of any NGOs — and that would be the limit of the NGOs funding from the gubermint. This would be a full tax credit, not tax deduction.

    The NGOs could of course market themselves to the public at large to promote more (tax deductible) contributions to their cause, much as PBS currently does.

    If an NGO doesn’t get enough to support it’s activity, (FTSOA say that’s 50% of it’s budget), then it’s done — the 50% goes back to the general fund, or perhaps to another NGO… Whatever works…

    Politicians are whimps when it comes to

  • carlsbadd

    This is a small step in the right direction, if you listen to Regan’s “time for choosing ” speech in 1964 this is EXACTLY what he talked about, The government needs to tell us what the score is.

    president Obama campaigned on going through the budget “line by line” and getting rid of programs that did not work , draw your own conclusions here

    This is something that needs to be a rallying point and kept in the fore front
    Get Martin Gross on the case as well.

    • davesinsanantonio

      were just convenient lies to help him get elected, and have no influence whatsoever on reality. My conclusion is that he is one of those sociopaths who would rather lie than tell the truth (if he has any understanding of what the truth really is), As a minimum it is easier for him to come up with a spur-of-the-moment lie than it is to do any research, or to wait for his people to do any research, into the truth. Just make it up convincingly, and the voters won’t notice the difference.
      If anyone believes a word he says, they deserve what they get!

  • Pingback: mehr...