Top Secret America

And try to leave out any suggestions that "government should be run like a business," because it's impossible for the government to turn a profit without intolerable squawking about tax cuts.

 

This is a really interesting, great piece of journalism.

Too bad it can't be discussed and dissected, as a great piece of journalism, here.

 

Fair enough.

I would love to see the Post or someone else continue with investigations into other agencies and/or multi-agency initiatives.

 

Well, if a Government runs a surplus, the additional money should be returned.

The problem goes beyond not having "profits" to decide when a program or agency is doing well. The problem is that all too often there are no metrics to use.

How do we judge schools? By any metric -- test scores, graduation rates, etc. -- there is always an excuse.

How do we judge anti-poverty programs?

Why do we continue to fund -- and increasingly fund -- programs that don't show results?

 

YF - the reason your redundancy list is useless is it doesn't prove redundancy, only that there are a lot of groups that fit into categories.

For example, the "130 programs serving the disabled" could include individual programs for blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, wheelchair-bound but otherwise healthy veterans, wheelchair-bound but otherwise healthy civilians, amputee veterans, amputee civilians, autism, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, ALS, severe PTSD in the general population, severe PTSD in veterans, mental illness, mental retardation, dementia, Alzheimer's and osteoperosis. That's 18 reasons someone could be considered "disabled" without considerable overlap and that's before you separate child and adult populations, which need very different support routes and might better be served by different agencies. Hell, mental illness could be broken down into 5-10 categories easily without real redundancy. And I could think of easy 20-30 more when you start getting into genetic defects/illnesses with specific traits that would cause someone to be considered "disabled" by the federal government.

Are there likely some to many redundancies on that list? Obviously yes. But being in the same category does not necessarily make them redundant. For example, the 23 agencies providing support to former Soviet republics might each be responsible for a different country. They might function just as well under one umbrella, but then again, it might be more efficient to have 23 agencies if the one agency would be so bloated and bureaucratic that it's ineffective and takes money in but doesn't put anything out.

 

It's swell. Reading it is better than sex. Better even than watching World Cup Soccer. Awards should be given out.

Here's an idea: Tell us what you like about it. Quote something from it. That might move the conversation.

 

I like that it was so interesting, I didn't need to drink any coffee to get through it.

 

You're right. And the list wasn't meant to be "proof" of my point.

But when you see 342 programs, it's easy to conclude that some overlap.

Orszag thinks there is.

But what Heritage points out is true. When some agencies are defined by who their constituency is and others are defined by the services they deliver, their are bound to be duplicative programs.

And hey, if NASA's top goal is reaching out to Muslim nations, then you've got to wonder how many other agencies are pursuing "outreach" programs.

OK, that's mostly a joke -- a dig -- but there's also some truth to it.

 

So, it's different from soccer then?

 

The metrics are there, it's just a matter of getting people to listen to them. Which means electing politicians with the balls to eliminate wasteful programs. Which probably means term limits, because I can't think of another way to do it.

 

Too many people are invested in wasteful, failing programs.

And, while I'm for term limits, I'm not sure that would be enough to change it.

 

An interesting take on the series: