Post 5: Streamlining Federal Programs

I am a waste not, want not type of girl so learning about all of the waste in our government really frustrates me.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is a non-partisan agency known as the "investigative arm of Congress" and their overall goal is "to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people". 

The GAO has been investigating different arms of the government based on a push initiated from Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma to look into these overlapping agencies in order to cut spending (we are talking BILLIONS of dollars) and consolidate programs while the government is trying to cut the deficit. In fact, since the early 1990's the GAO has been making reccomendations about streamlining federal programs to help save money.  The GAO found that several of them have overlapping programs which have similar goals, descriptions and beneficiaries.  For example, there are 82 programs to improve teacher quality, 80 to help the disabled with transportation, 47 for job training and unemployment, and 56 to help people understand finances.  It seems to me that these programs would be so much stronger and more effective if they combined their resources and knowledge.

A huge disadvantage of these types of systems is that their effectiveness can't really be tested, since there are so many of them.  This system has also caused confusion in many areas.  An example is a program that requires government programs to purchase plug in and hybrid vehicles to reduce energy consumption only to find that many gas stations don't sell alternative fuels.  This has prompted these same agencies to ask for waivers to the requirement.

So how would these programs be streamlined?  What goes into eliminating the unnecessary departments in order to better organize?  The GAO investigated this issue, put the information all together in a report and advised Congress on their findings.  The problems lies in the opposition from lawmakers thinking that the ideas might not put them in a favorable light politically.  They don't want to put something out there that might hinder their future votes.  

I am happy to learn about the GAO and it's efforts.  Having an agency whose only concern is to hold the government accountable is so beneficial.  I appreciate the fact that the GAO also offers suggestions to Congress, and doesn't just criticize their actions.

Time to take America back

Read my class mate's post here. I agree… It is time to take America back!  It wasn’t until I took this government class that I realized how commonplace it is for our government to borrow money, adding to our national debt.  How is this justified?  What I am teaching my children is that if you don’t have the cash for it, you can’t afford it.  The reason I this idea is valuable to our family is because we have seen the hole you can dig yourself into by borrowing money.  Furthermore, we see how hard it is to dig yourself out of that hole.  Isn’t it time for someone to teach our elected officials this?  How about bringing jobs back to America as well?  I am hard pressed to remember the last time I called a 1-800 number and spoke with someone who was from America.  Why are we outsourcing call centers when there are perfectly capable American citizens needing employment?  My close friends and family are suffering because of outsourcing.  Many companies, such as Applied Materials and Freescale, are sending work overseas because it’s cheaper, leaving American families out of work.  What if we all wore clothes, ate food, and bought furniture that was made in America?  If the demand for American goods went up, it would then drive the prices of those goods down.  More Americans would have job opportunities and we could help lessen the debt that America has incurred. 

GOP cutting funds for CDC program.

The blog Little Green Footballs is addressing an upcoming decision by the GOP to cut funding for the Center for Disease Control (CDC).  The CDC's immunization and respiratory health program provides free and low cost vaccinations primarily to low income families.  The proposed budget for 2011 would cut approximately $156 million from the CDC's immunization and respiratory health program.  Arguments on this issue are strong in both directions. 

On one hand, this program performs the essential tasks of informing the public about disease prevention, checking to see which vaccines are working, and potentially preventing outbreaks of disease to the public.  Some say it's "false savings" to cut funding to this program since the cost of an outbreak or epidemic could outweigh the cost of the vaccines.

The other side of the argument is that the government should not be as involved in health care plans and citizens should take more control of managing their family's health, including paying for services.  There is also concern about how the money is being spent by the states.  For example, California has received over 250 billion dollars over the last ten years for this program, and yet, they still have some of the lowest immunization in the country.  So where is that money going? 

As a working mom with kids, this is an issue that hits close to home with me.  My husband and I do not sit around and collect government benefits instead of going to work.  We are a self employed family that has a hard time finding health coverage that we can afford and that will even cover us.  Without programs such as CHIP my children may not have health insurance at all and vaccines or health care might possibly not even be an option.  As it is, there is a short fall of vaccines.  Just this past winter I was told that my children could not get the flu shot because of the health plan that they had, unless I could pay out of pocket.   I do think that states should be held accountable for their budgeting of funds that are intended to be used for immunizations and respiratory health programs but I am not sure that cutting funding to this program is beneficial for anyone.  Isn't there something else we can axe first?

Teacher layoffs based only on seniority fail kids.

I came across an editorial that discusses the way that teachers are being laid off.  Thousands of teachers are falling on the chopping block and the big debate is "who goes first?". Teacher tenure is a century old system designed to keep teachers from being dismissed arbitrarily.  This system was mainly developed to keep administrators from firing teachers who make a higher salary and to protect those who were subject to discrimination. It is now spurring debates as school districts are facing major cut backs to narrow the budget deficit.  The question arising in states all over America is "Do we allow teachers who have put in their time to have job security regardless of their performance?"  Currently in many districts, including AISD, the newest teachers are the first to get the ax.  Concerns arise as young, energetic teachers who have contributed significantly are let go from their positions solely because of the time they have put in, or lack thereof.  In the mean time, a few older teachers who may not be as excited about their job are just doing their time until they can retire.  Evaluations and recent teacher performance are not considered when doing this type of lay off.  So who suffers?  The children and families in the community.  Ways to revamp the system are being considered in several states.  Performance based systems are becoming more widely considered.  The author of the editorial thinks that "seniority rules should be coupled with effective teacher evaluation systems, which are sorely lacking." I strongly agree with this opinion.  As a mother, I want to be sure that the teachers who are directly responsible for my children's education are there because they want to be and not because they are merely waiting for retirement.  I do believe that older, more experienced teachers are a huge asset to our schools and they should be valued, but the bottom line is if you aren't happy in the classroom you shouldn't be there.

Postal Service going broke?!?!?!

By the end of the fiscal year in October the post office will not have the cash to make two necessary payments. In addition to a payment of $1.3 for worker's compensation due in November, the post office is the only federal agency required to pay $5.5 into an account to fund future medical costs. The postal service is asking Congress to reduce or eliminate the medical prepayments. Since the recession and the increase of email instead of "snail mail" profits for USPS have gone down, causing job loss and budget cuts. They are also looking for ways to increase business through package sales while still finding ways to cut costs, such as closing on Saturdays.  If it comes down to it, the mail will be delivered, and the federal government will not get their payment from the postal service.

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41875688/ns/business-consumer_news/