Does the Government NEED so MANY agencies to run it's programs and doesn't that lead to less accountability?

Question

Consolidating duplicative programs will save money and improve government service. In addi­tion to those programs that should be eliminated completely, Congress should consolidate the fol­lowing sets of programs:

342 economic development programs;
130 programs serving the disabled;
130 programs serving at-risk youth;
90 early childhood development programs;
75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
50 homeless assistance programs;
45 federal agencies conducting federal crimi­nal investigations;
40 separate employment and training pro­grams;
28 rural development programs;
27 teen pregnancy programs;
26 small, extraneous K–12 school grant pro­grams;
23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
19 programs fighting substance abuse;
17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
17 trade agencies monitoring 400 interna­tional trade agreements;
12 food safety agencies;
11 principal statistics agencies; and
Four overlapping land management agencies.[20]

Answer 1

I lived in a city when they consolidated with the county. The tax savings and the improved efficiency was noticeable to all of us. The problem would be trying to get D.C. to do this. They have isolated themselves from any major reform. The lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats are inner married. They socialize with each other. They get each other's kids jobs. In essence they have built a fence around D.C. Can't build a fence on the border, but they've done a good job of building a huge wall between them and a country they supposedly represent.

Answer 2

What is amazing to me is that not a single one of those programs is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government aside from safe water and food(public health), international trade, and federal crimi­nal investigations

There, I just got rid of 1012 of them. The rest can be consolidated into 3 - Office of International Trade (under the State Department), Department of Public Health, and Homeland Security.

If you are truely concerned about this, you'll be voting the same way I am next year, for the only republican I've felt good about in 20 years - Dr. No -Ron Paul.

He is the only one who has addressed this issue.

Answer 3

On this side of the Atlantic, the NHS and fire service. Both could be better funded, but achieve marvels on too little investment. Our police service is considered the most efficient in Europe. Our armed forces seem to do pretty well, even though they are being used to support a rotten, foreign cause, and much of their equipment should be retired to a museum. And our railways, bus services, gas, water and electricity, telecommunications and post office did a superb job UNTIL they were deliberately run down by Thatcher's criminals before being stolen from the British people and privatised at knockdown prices.

Answer 4

How many of these agencies' programs are based on a Constitutionally enumerated duty or power? Almost none. By the 10th Amendment, the government has neither the authority to levy taxes or spend the peoples' money on such programs.

They are, quite simply, unConstitutional, IMO.

Answer 5

Maybe we could create an agency that would create a special bipartisan commission that would appoint a panel to study that issue to preliminarily determine its viability and cost effectiveness. The panel could then report back to the commission that would study the issue, make findings and then report back to the agency. That agency in turn could report to the congressional committee responsible for oversight of that committee. The congressional committe could then issue a report to the full congress and, at that point, a full feasibility study could be commissioned.

Answer 6

SURE

I loved how they blamed 911 on us saying we have No Homeland Security.

No one in Government stepped up and said, We have one job. And only one job protecting America and Americans. Sorry but we were to fat and lazy to read the Flight School report from a ...Woman.

Nope they Blamed us and said you won't let us have the money to get cell phones... so firemen can call each other... We need a new agency.... We are all to busy eating lunch at Strados with the Lobbyist, to do the job you hired us for.

Go Team Corruption Go

Answer 7

you dont want to help disabled, help at risk kids, childdevolpment programs, having safe water, helping the homeless, stoping crime, helping teen pregnancy programs, getting grants to kids, helping drug addicts, getting food to be safe. That's pretty heartless.

Also those agenices could be around the U.S. helping the areas, not all in one place.

Also, getting out of Iraq could save the U.S. a lot of money.

Plus, you didnt put how much money each of those costs...

It's also the responsibility of the government to care for its people. I guess homeless people will be treated like sh**, it will be harder to pay for school, you water and food may be contaminated, kids could get in danger, all because you want to save millions of dollars when we could increase tax on the wealthy, and get out of Iraq..

Answer 8

Bureaucracy sucks and yes it keeps people from knowing the God-awful truth about Uncle Sam. Why else would the people keep paying federal income tax without complaints?

Answer 9

You're, of course, correct. Regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office, the government always gets bigger. That's why we need to elect a 3rd party candidate that is truly for smaller government or demand that one (or both) of the major parties stand for smaller government.

Answer 10

it depends if we need more than one program for one issue. maybe they are divided by area. or for instance the services for the disabled might be broken up by which disabilty, by job, by school, by activity, ect

if we could make just one program for one issue/group without lessening the quality of what the agency does, than I have no issue with it