Commentary: Congress's Backward Budgeting

Some in Congress are treating a recently released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on duplicative federal programs as a recipe book for budget cutting. However, GAO's recommendations for fixes are more nuanced, and the report ultimately underscores the value of implementing effective program measurement tools and carefully calibrating federal spending to ensure that national priorities are addressed.

According to GAO's report, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars and Enhance Revenue, addressing the issues raised would save billions of taxpayer dollars. The report served as the basis for a hearing by the House Oversight Committee to attack "wasteful" spending, and an amendment introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) would use the report to rush program-ending legislation through Congress (see related article in this week's Watcher). Cornyn proposed the amendment during debate over an unrelated small business bill.

Although the backdrop for the report is the federal budget deficit and the need to find opportunities to improve the nation's fiscal situation, the report's recommendations should be seen as only a small part of the deficit picture. Defunding or completely ending some of the identified programs, while wholly compatible with good governance, would negligibly address our short- and long-term budget challenges.

The executive branch has already laid out its plans to address these issues. In his fiscal year 2012 budget request, President Obama identified 211 programs that his administration believes should be targeted for termination or reduction because they are wasteful or redundant. Should his proposal be adopted, it would yield $33 billion in savings. However, that $33 billion represents less than one percent of all federal spending and about two percent of the projected federal budget deficit.

To maximize taxpayer value, Congress and the president should be thinking about what's needed, what's not, and how best to identify programs as such. Our tax dollars support the programs and agencies that, when fully funded, reduce the chances that people will be sickened by contaminated food; ensure that cribs won't collapse and cause serious injury or death; make sure cars stop when drivers apply the brakes; sanction employers who cheat their employees out of earned pay; prevent oil spills; keep planes from falling out of the sky; and stop terrorist attacks.

While it's true that some federal programs attempt to address identical needs, eliminating any of them must be done with great care. If two programs exist that deliver the same services, eliminating one means expanding the other to ensure that the level of service provided to each population of need is maintained. The cost savings should be seen in the reduction of overhead and not in the wholesale dissolution of the operations of a duplicative program.

Nor should it be the case that two programs with seemingly overlapping missions be merged into a single program. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) both administer programs aimed at addressing homelessness. One HHS program targets people with mental health and substance abuse issues, while another is designed for homeless youths. HUD administers programs to assist homeless veterans, people with HIV/AIDS, and people with disabilities. The type of services that would help each of these communities varies, but the GAO report does not address this issue. Instead, the report highlights the problems that this apparent overlap causes for providers and beneficiaries both. In discussing homelessness programs, GAO notes that "[program] fragmentation can create difficulties for people in accessing services as well as administrative burdens for providers who must navigate various application requirements, selection criteria, and reporting requirements." This is an indication of need for better coordination among agencies and leaves open the question of whether there would be any gain – financial or otherwise – from ending or combining some of these programs.

The degree to which federal program missions overlap or are duplicative can be explained by two related phenomena. First, Congress, the executive branch, and the public have no way to trace federal spending from cradle to grave, from agency request to congressional approval to program execution. In short, there is no comprehensive map of federal spending. Instead, information is scattered across federal agency websites, the Library of Congress's THOMAS legislation database, the White House website, and various other sources. It is no wonder that Congress would create duplicate programs, as authorizing committees simply cannot query "homelessness" to obtain a list of the efforts currently being carried out by the executive branch.

Second, it is clear that Congress and the executive branch lack the tools necessary to perform effective program evaluation that could be applied to informing funding decisions. In the section discussing programs intended to address homelessness, the GAO's report notes that:

Fragmentation of programs across federal agencies has also resulted in differing methods for collecting data on those experiencing homelessness. In part because of the lack of comprehensive data collection requirements, the data have limited usefulness. Complete and accurate data are essential for understanding and meeting the needs of those who are experiencing homelessness and to prevent homelessness from occurring.

Federal agencies should have access to relevant, high-quality program data when submitting their budget requests to Congress. Congress should also have access to the same data to help guide its funding deliberations. Outside stakeholders – those who are affected by program funding, involved in service delivery, and concerned taxpayers – should also have access to the same information so they can participate in the process. Without relevant facts to answer the crucial questions on program effectiveness, Congress, program managers, and outside stakeholders have limited ability get more value from every dollar spent.

Unfortunately, spending decisions are too often driven by a desire to give the appearance of addressing "the deficit problem." Rather than starting with the budget deficit, Congress and the president should be primarily concerned with the jobs deficit, the public protections deficit, the social safety net deficit, the infrastructure deficit, and the economic investment deficit. Congress and the administration should first consider whether the needs of the nation are currently being met, rationally assess the programs that are designed to meet those needs, and then allocate funding based on which programs most effectively meet those needs. Once this baseline level of necessary services is established, Congress and the president should design a system to fairly collect revenues to fully fund these programs.

Doing the opposite, that is, setting deficit targets and cutting spending to meet those targets, is just a backward method of budgeting that simply doesn't get the job done in a way that benefits the nation.

back to Blog