PDA

View Full Version : Massive Government Waste Exposed. GAO Report.



Sev
03-01-2011, 07:00 PM
<span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #006600">Lets see the democrats defend this.

Cut baby!!! Cut!!!
</span>
</span>
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/01/gao-report-government-waste-spell-o-u-t-r-g-e/

<span style="color: #000000">GAO Report and Government Waste -- Can You Spell O-U-T-R-A-G-E?
By John Lott
Published March 01, 2011
| FoxNews.com

We are used to hearing about fraud and government programs that fail to accomplish their goals. It now appears that yet another category might be important: duplication. Hundreds of major government programs have been discovered to duplicate what other government programs are doing. If we are to believe a new Government Accountability Office report, consolidation of programs could easily save up to $200 billion over the next decade.
Call it "press release government." For politicians, the best way to be seen as being actively involved and to viewed as caring about a problem is to set up a new government program and then claim credit for it. <span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>It doesn't seem to matter if there are already 17 other programs that help people get nutritious food or 79 other programs to provide transportation for the disadvantaged, adding another program shows that the politician really cares. It is the equivalent of building on another living room to a house when there are already several of them.</span> </span>
Creating new additional government programs spread across different government agencies also means that additional congressional committees can try claiming oversight. Government housing programs are spread across every place from the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Interior, Department of Labor, Federal Housing Finance Board, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Thus, when there is a housing problem, congressmen and Senators from a range of different committees can claim legitimate reasons to run before the television cameras and hold committee hearings.
These duplications create needless administrative duplication and thus higher costs. The GAO report notes: "administrative costs . . . account for approximately a tenth to more than a quarter of total costs among the largest of these programs." Administrative costs can be much higher for smaller programs. In addition, the duplication requires the same problems be studied over and over again each of the different departments, with administrative staff making decisions that might contradict those of other agencies.
<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Even worse, the plethora of programs means that few programs are evaluated to check whether they are doing the job they were created to do. Page after page of the GAO study has statements such as: "Only five of the 47 job training and employment programs GAO surveyed had an impact study completed since 2004 to evaluate whether outcomes (i.e., such as program participants actually securing a job) resulted from the program and not another cause. About half the programs had no performance review since 2004. As a result, GAO finds ―little is known about the effectiveness of most programs." Or, for domestic food assistance programs, the GAO writes: "Little is known about the effectiveness of [11 of the 18 programs] because they have not been well studied." </span></span>
Part of the problem is that once a program is adopted, it is there forever, and expenditures are assumed to continue along certain trends. An alternative approach is what is called Zero Based Budgeting, where each year spending for the coming year is evaluated from scratch. Rather than looking at each program in isolation, Congress could focus on the problems that they want addressed.
With the federal government projected to run a $1.65 trillion deficit this year and spending a projected $3.82 trillion, the debate in Washington has ranged from House Republicans wanting a tiny $61 billion cut in spending to Democrats and the Obama administration calling such cuts ”extreme" and that they will cuts "undermine and damage our capacity to create jobs and expand the economy."
Getting rid of bureaucratic duplication is waste that should be hard to defend for anyone other than politicians who want to protect their turf. Even eliminating the most obvious duplicative programs won't really dent the trillion plus deficits during the Obama administration, but if they can't cut this, they won't be able to cut anything.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/0.../#ixzz1FOeW1p3g (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/03/01/gao-report-government-waste-spell-o-u-t-r-g-e/#ixzz1FOeW1p3g)</span>

Sev
03-01-2011, 07:01 PM
Hundreds of duplicate agencies!!!

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=73039811-667b-4620-811a-69f7690e2360

Soflasnapper
03-02-2011, 02:16 AM
This sounds like a waste that ought to be eliminated and streamlined.

But $20 billion a year savings, or considerably less in real terms, is south of 2% of the annual deficit.

Qtec
03-02-2011, 03:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Besides chest-thumping fourth-quarter earnings, Goldman Sachs also announced its bonus pool on Thursday. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>At $16.2 billion, the total is 20 percent lower than the firm's 2007 level</span> but still amounts to an average of just under $500,000 per employee. </div></div>

They are all for cutting the deficit except...........

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>House thwarts Dem bid to kill oil tax breaks</span>
By Ben Geman and Mike Lillis - 03/01/11 04:59 PM ET

House Democrats on Tuesday used debate on a short-term spending package to force a largely symbolic vote on ending tax breaks for major oil companies like Exxon and Shell.

The "motion to recommit" failed on a mostly party-line vote, but it will provide Democrats a hook to accuse Republicans of catering to “Big Oil” at a time of rising gasoline prices. Motions to recommit are a procedural mechanism that allow the minority party a chance to alter bills.

The underlying two-week spending package passed the House easily.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who sponsored the oil tax proposal, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>wondered why taxpayers should be asked "to fork over" billions of dollars in subsidies to some of the most profitable companies on the planet — particularly as funding for law enforcement, medical research and education is on the chopping block.

<u>"Let's put a stop to this welfare program for big oil,"</u></span> Keating said on the House floor.
</span>
But House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) slammed the Democrats' proposal, arguing it would single out one industry "and increase their cost of doing business."

"This misguided policy can only lead to higher energy prices, continued reliance on foreign oil and economic hardship that hampers job creation," Rogers said </div></div>


Hypocrites.


You can't raise taxes in a recession <u>but you can cut wages for the working class.</u>



Q

LWW
03-02-2011, 04:49 AM
One more time ... the issue is we spend too much, not that we tax too little.

LWW

LWW
03-02-2011, 04:50 AM
It's a start however.

The real savings comes when non essential personnel are cut ... when actual management skills are used and internal waste is cut ... when programs are judged on an annual basis and inefficient ones are cut.

LWW

Qtec
03-02-2011, 06:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> One more time ... the issue is we spend too much, not that we tax too little.

LWW</div></div>





No.

The fact is the Govt needs to fund things that aid the country. They do that through taxation. When you need to raise money, like for a war or a Nat Emergency, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>you raise taxes</span>.................not in the Bizzaro TP/RW/Conservative world of course.

Q

The rich have to pay their fair share.

pooltchr
03-02-2011, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No.

The fact is the Govt needs to fund things that aid the country. </div></div>

No, the fact is the government does NOT need to fund mulitple duplicate, non-effective programs, in a time when we don't have money to waste on this nonsense.

Steve

pooltchr
03-02-2011, 07:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This sounds like a waste that ought to be eliminated and streamlined.

But $20 billion a year savings, or considerably less in real terms, is south of 2% of the annual deficit. </div></div>

This is the same mentality you tried to use on oil production...it's not enough, so don't bother!

You know if this is what the GAO found, that it's only the tip of the iceberg.

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon, you're talking about real money!

Steve

Sev
03-02-2011, 07:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This sounds like a waste that ought to be eliminated and streamlined.

But $20 billion a year savings, or considerably less in real terms, is south of 2% of the annual deficit. </div></div>

Anything that cuts the size of the government and puts the parasites out on the streets and off the tax payers dole is a good thing.

The savings will most likely be larger than they project one the multiplicity of government programs is removed.

Sev
03-02-2011, 07:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This sounds like a waste that ought to be eliminated and streamlined.

But $20 billion a year savings, or considerably less in real terms, is south of 2% of the annual deficit. </div></div>

This is the same mentality you tried to use on oil production...it's not enough, so don't bother!

You know if this is what the GAO found, that it's only the tip of the iceberg.

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon, you're talking about real money!

Steve </div></div>

There is another investigation being performed and should reveal even more.
This will put the democrats and libs on the ropes and will be tough for them to argue against.

This will also put Obama in a tough position to. How is he going to defend the waste? He wants cuts but he doesnt want cuts???

This is going to be a great show to watch.

Sev
03-02-2011, 07:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> One more time ... the issue is we spend too much, not that we tax too little.

LWW</div></div>





No.

The fact is the Govt needs to fund things that aid the country. They do that through taxation. When you need to raise money, like for a war or a Nat Emergency, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>you raise taxes</span>.................not in the Bizzaro TP/RW/Conservative world of course.

Q

The rich have to pay their fair share. </div></div>

The government needs to stay out of the country so that people can fend for themselves rather than rely on the government tit.

The country would be in far better shape if the states didnt have their hands in the pockets of the federal government and the federal government did not force unfunded mandates on them.

Not to worry though. The entire ball of wax is about to experience a meltdown.

Soflasnapper
03-02-2011, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This sounds like a waste that ought to be eliminated and streamlined.

But $20 billion a year savings, or considerably less in real terms, is south of 2% of the annual deficit. </div></div>

This is the same mentality you tried to use on oil production...it's not enough, so don't bother!

You know if this is what the GAO found, that it's only the tip of the iceberg.

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon, you're talking about real money!

Steve </div></div>

Only if your glass prescription is out of date, LOL!

What did I ACTUALLY SAY, only a few posts up?

This sounds like a waste that ought to be eliminated and streamlined.

Hmmm, 'ought to be eliminated and streamlined' = we shouldn't bother?

I call out mindreading fail!

No, my point isn't don't do it. I SAID do it.

My point is that this is no magic bullet, and however much we ought to do it, it leaves more than 98% of the problem yet to face, and that is obviously the case.

pooltchr
03-02-2011, 03:38 PM
I'm willing to bet that anyone with a reasonable business education and the time and access could find many many more instances of similar waste.

But nobody in power really wants to look that closely.

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-02-2011, 04:46 PM
The GAO is both interested and does a great job.

Now, how about duplicative subsidy programs run out of the tax preference/tax expenditure side?

Do we really think there are NONE on that side?

pooltchr
03-02-2011, 04:54 PM
You won't find me defending <u>any</u> subsity programs. I'm a free market supporter.

Steve

LWW
03-02-2011, 05:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The GAO is both interested and does a great job.</div></div>

That's funny.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-04-2011, 07:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The GAO is both interested and does a great job.</div></div>

That's funny.

LWW </div></div>

Funny that you think a true statement is funny.

If the government actually FOLLOWED the GAO Inspectors General report findings and recommended course of action, the country would have saved a huge amount of money and delivered services far more efficiently.

Unfortunately, nobody needs to obey the GAO, so all their sensible suggestions are mainly ignored.

LWW
03-05-2011, 06:39 AM
No, funny that you actually believe what you said.

LWW

Sev
03-05-2011, 08:07 AM
This report is going to be fuel on the fire.

The more programs they cut the more federal employee's will be fired. That compounds the tax payers savings as both wages and benefit packages will cease to exist along with the federal employee's.

LWW
03-08-2011, 05:49 AM
What must be done must be done.

LWW