Letter to Barack Obama, President of the United States - Redundant and Overlapping Government Programs and Agencies

Letter

Following the release of a 345-page GAO report citing hundreds of redundant and overlapping programs and agencies across the federal government, Rep. Rich Nugent (R-FL-05) lead 29 colleagues in sending the following letter to the President:

Mr. President,

As you know, the Government Accountability Office issued a 345-page report this week citing the billions of dollars in taxpayer money that could be saved by consolidating and eliminating the scores of federal programs in which, "unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exist." As the head of the executive branch, these programs fall under your direct authority.

Several weeks ago, the House of Representatives responded to the people's call for lower spending and passed a bill to cut more than $100 billion from your Fiscal Year 2011 budget request. Despite the fact that this legislation would only reduce this year's deficit by about six percent, you threatened to veto it.

In your statement of administration policy, you seemed to suggest that our proposal would cut programs that your administration simply could not live without. This veto threat was in stark contrast to your State of the Union address and numerous interviews and speeches you have given in which you cited your willingness and desire to reduce the deficit.

It goes without saying that reducing the deficit is a bipartisan issue. Members from both parties, in fact, talk a great deal about the need to address our national debt. Yet, it seems, whenever anybody offers specific suggestions about which programs we could do without, there is an overwhelming amount of opposition from your administration.

Given this latest report from the GAO, which confirms what we intuitively know already, we ask that you provide a specific list of which of these programs you would be willing to terminate.

Among them, here are some places we could start: 82 potentially duplicative federal programs to improve teacher quality, 56 to help individuals understand their finances, 20 to help the homeless, 80 for economic development, 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation, and a full 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws and 24 agencies dealing with information technology.

The reaction in the past when Congress tries to eliminate some of these programs was that we don't care about teachers (or whomever the duplicative program assists). We would submit to you that given the fact that we are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar we spend on these programs, perhaps we could agree to care enough about these issues, as well as the deficit, to make the government's response more efficient and effective.

Many of us have served in previous positions in which we had to manage our budgets. We have faced falling revenues and higher costs and consequently have had to find ways to do more with less. Frankly, it seems that in every area of human endeavor apart from the federal government, people are asked to make tough choices and they succeed in doing so. Businesses large and small routinely cut back on their budgets and find ways to continue delivering service and value at a reduced cost. This is a necessary and healthy part of any organization's continued existence, and it is certainly necessary and healthy for one that is hemorrhaging over a trillion dollars per year and one that faces tens of trillions in future unfunded liabilities.

Mr. President, the culture of spending in Washington must change. No longer can we measure our commitment to certain ideals in how much money we blindly throw at them. Rather, we must measure our commitment in how much we are willing to sacrifice to ensure their continued success and existence over the long run.

As the House and Senate continue to debate a spending resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year, we ask that you take a strong leadership role in identifying $100 billion in duplicative, ineffective, and needless programs under your supervision that the federal government can do without.

Sincerely,

Rich Nugent
Member of Congress

Source