Bill Overview
Title: Identifying and Eliminating Wasteful Programs Act
Description: This bill requires each federal agency to compile a list of unnecessary programs. Specifically, each agency must compile a list of such programs, based on guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget, that are unnecessary, defunct, or duplicative federal programs; another agency could administer more effectively; or could operate more effectively if the program or activity were consolidated with other programs or activities. Additionally, the President must include the list of identified programs or program activities in the annual budget submitted to Congress. An agency may submit to Congress recommendations for statutory changes to eliminate or consolidate programs or program activities identified in the list.
Sponsors: Rep. Rice, Tom [R-SC-7]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on programs administered by federal agencies
Estimated Size: 331000000
- Federal programs across all sectors will be reviewed, which means diverse populations who rely on these programs could be impacted.
- The potential elimination or consolidation of programs might streamline services for some but reduce access or change the quality of services for others.
- Individuals currently employed in federal programs deemed unnecessary or duplicative may face job insecurity, particularly if these programs are eliminated.
- Contractors and vendors who provide services to federal programs may be affected by program cuts and consolidations.
- Public sector unions and advocacy groups may have an interest in the impact on federal employees.
- General public services that rely on governmental support may see changes, either positive due to increased efficiency or negative due to reduced resources or changes in administration.
- If enacted, similar international consolidations may occur as non-U.S. entities observe the effects of this U.S. policy.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to streamline federal programs, which could potentially lead to both positive and negative consequences for various stakeholders.
- The reduction of unnecessary or duplicative programs could improve government efficiency and thus improve public opinion of government services.
- The elimination or reduction of programs may lead to job losses within federal agencies and among contractors, impacting regional economies differently based on the concentration of federal jobs.
- The program could affect individuals differently based on their reliance on specific government services, with some experiencing improved service delivery and others facing reduced access or quality.
- There is a risk of political and public backlash, particularly from those whose services are reduced or from unions protecting worker rights.
- The potential cost savings of the first year are capped at $50 million, which limits the scope of immediate impacts, but the longer-term $500 million over 10 years provides a significant incentive for comprehensive review and actions.
Simulated Interviews
Federal Employee (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical about this policy actually improving efficiency. I've seen a lot of 'streamlining' efforts waste more resources than they save.
- My main concern is job security. If my program is cut, I might have to move or take a less stable job at my age.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
IT Consultant for Federal Programs (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope that consolidations will lead to larger, more stable contracts, but there's always a fear some agencies might cut IT budgets.
- Efficiency could mean more work for us if they streamline successfully.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Unemployed (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy might make it harder for some people to find jobs in contracting.
- Hopefully, streamlining will open new opportunities eventually, but that's not going to pay my bills now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt my benefits will change, but there's a little worry there.
- If they can really cut waste, maybe it will help improve services overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that any cuts will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable people.
- Streamlining might improve some services but at the cost of accessibility for many groups.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The idea of eliminating waste sounds good, but I fear contracts will dry up if my clients' budgets shrink drastically.
- There's potential for less bureaucracy, which is positive, but it must be balanced carefully.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Educational programs are always tight on budget; any cuts could severely impact quality and reach.
- I'm cautiously optimistic that they might identify real waste, freeing resources for impactful programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Health Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficiency is great, but we cannot afford to lose any part of our funding; lives depend on it.
- This policy could put a lot of strain on already stretched resources if not handled correctly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Non-Profit Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's some uncertainty whether our funding will continue if programs are cut or changed.
- We rely on these grants to help the homeless population. Hope they carefully consider what's truly necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Public Sector Union Representative (Houston, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We welcome efficiency but fear it would come at the cost of many federal jobs.
- Ensuring no one is unfairly dismissed should be a top priority.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Compliance and reporting burdens on agencies to compile and validate program lists.
- Potential for inter-agency conflicts on program appropriateness and effectiveness.
- Capacity and willingness of Congress to enact statutory changes based on agency recommendations.
- Magnitude of job loss within programs deemed unnecessary versus opportunities for reassignment or reskilling.