Debate Desk
Is Cutting Federal Agencies Reckless and Dangerous to the Public?
Reorganizing and trimming agencies is a normal act of self-government; the GAO has flagged duplicative programs for decades, and Congress can do it carefully.
The claim
Critics say that cutting agencies and staff harms essential services such as weather forecasting, food safety and benefits processing, that it is done without planning and that the public pays for the damage.
The answer in three points
- A government is not a sacred object, it is a tool. Voters have the right to decide what it does and how large it is. Congress created the agencies and can reduce or end them, and presidents can propose reorganizations.
- The case for review is strong. The Government Accountability Office has named programs on its high-risk list since 1990, and reports each year on overlapping and duplicative programs. Several agencies often do the same thing, and no one has to justify why.
- Care in how it is done matters, and so does the principle. A good approach identifies functions, protects those that serve the public and ends those that do not, through legislation and not just by freezes. A sunset requirement, as some states have tried, would make every agency justify itself again.
The danger lies in doing it badly, and the danger of never doing it at all is just as real. A budget that grows on autopilot teaches every agency that survival is guaranteed, and the discipline of justifying a program each year disappears. Voters who ask for a review are asking the government to practice what every family and business does without being told.
The numbers
- The Government Accountability Office has maintained a High-Risk List since 1990, which identifies federal programs vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.
- The Government Accountability Office reports annually on fragmentation, overlap and duplication in federal programs, and has identified hundreds of areas for savings, according to its reports.
- The Texas Sunset Advisory Commission, created in 1977, reviews state agencies on a schedule and recommends changes or abolition, according to the commission.
What they will say next
"Cuts will harm the vulnerable." They can if done badly. A review that protects essential services and trims waste serves them better than a budget that grows without a check.
"The staff are experts." Many are, and reorganizations should keep the best of them.
"The savings are small." Some are, and the gains also come from restoring accountability and ending programs that do not work.
"Congress made these agencies." Which is why Congress should review them and vote on their future.
A government that cannot say what it does well has no claim to unlimited funds.
"Layoffs hurt communities that depend on federal jobs." They can, and any reduction should come with notice, retraining and attention to affected places. Moving agencies out of Washington to the parts of the country they serve, an idea with support across parties, is one way to keep the work while reducing the cost and distance from the people.