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 unnecessarily 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: Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on and working for federal programs in the US
Estimated Size: 6800000
- The bill targets federal programs that are deemed wasteful or duplicative.
- If passed, the bill could lead to the elimination or consolidation of federal programs.
- Employees of affected federal programs might face job changes or job losses.
- Citizens utilizing the services offered by these programs may experience changes or cessation of services.
- Federal agencies will be tasked with identifying these programs and may experience changes to workloads or focuses.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to reduce wasteful spending by identifying unnecessary federal programs, which could free up resources for other areas within the budget.
- There could be job losses for those employed within these programs, however, some may be reallocated to other roles within the government.
- Programs identified as defunct or duplicative often have been underused or not impactful, suggesting limited adverse effects on the public depending on these services.
- Stakeholders such as program beneficiaries might need to adjust to changes in service delivery, such as longer wait times or alternative service providers.
- Wellbeing might decrease for federal employees affected directly by the policy due to job insecurity, but it might be unchanged for the general public unless they rely on specific service programs that are eliminated.
Simulated Interviews
Federal Employee - Program Manager (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could impact my job security if our program is deemed unnecessary.
- I'm concerned about my ability to find another federal position.
- I'm supportive of making government more efficient but worry about a loss of valuable programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Project Manager (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the housing program is cut, I might struggle financially.
- There could be fewer resources available for other vital services.
- I see the benefit of cutting down on inefficient government spending overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried about losing access to my healthcare program if it's deemed wasteful.
- I might need to find alternative and potentially more costly healthcare options.
- I'm generally supportive of government efficiency but concerned about the impact on vulnerable populations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Software Developer (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I do not anticipate much impact on my daily life or work.
- Efficiency in government is always good, provided essential services remain intact.
- Most programs I notice seem necessary, but perhaps there's waste unbeknownst to the public.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Nonprofit Director (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If funding decreases from this policy, our ability to deliver services will be impacted.
- Some programs could be consolidated but losing ones without backup would hurt community services.
- I hope this policy pushes for better coordination between the programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Federal Employee - Administrative Assistant (New York)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our agency could become leaner but fear it may result in job cuts.
- Redundancies are real, yet some areas are understaffed.
- Reshaping agency missions could lead to more focused work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Small Business Owner (Arizona)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen businesses benefit needlessly from federal subsidies, thus see merit in this policy.
- I believe the market could correct some inefficiencies if the government stepped back.
- Supportive of any policy that lessens future tax burdens.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Student (Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I initially feared cuts to student loans but the policy doesn't target them directly as far as I know.
- Government waste is concerning, but not at the expense of critical services.
- Hope efficiency allows shifting towards programs aiding education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Social Worker (Colorado)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If services are cut, my clients would need help transitioning to other support networks.
- Program efficiency could enhance service delivery if done right, so I remain optimistic.
- Worried about short-term disruptions impacting clients heavily relying on current services.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Recent College Graduate (Alaska)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't feel directly affected as I'm just entering the workforce.
- Eager to see tax dollars optimized, benefiting the economy longer-term.
- Job opportunities might get impacted if entry pathways are affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Immediate changes in program operations may result in short-term disruptions impacting employees and beneficiaries of federal programs.
- The scale of cost savings and GDP impact highly depends on the effectiveness and results of the program review and elimination process.
- Political factors could influence the implementation timelines and the extent of program eliminations or consolidations.