Federal Agencies that should be completely eliminated

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
...
The funny thing about this thread is that none of these government agencies will be cut ...
Why the all or nothing attitude? How about trimming some or all of the above?

Maybe super-fud is more fun, more attention getting.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Why the all or nothing attitude? How about trimming some or all of the above?

Have you not observed the past 200+ years of U.S. history? The government only grows, it never shrinks. Yes, a program may get cut here and there, but many more pop up, then a war starts, and then a bailout, and then and then...bankruptcy.

It is almost politically impossible to shut down any government agency. Each agency has behind it an entrenched group that would howl bloody murder if they got the ax, or if it was even hinted at.

Maybe super-fud is more fun, more attention getting.

You will not find any FUD in the article linked, only facts and numbers.

 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Why the all or nothing attitude? How about trimming some or all of the above?

Have you not observed the past 200+ years of U.S. history? The government only grows, it never shrinks. Yes, a program may get cut here and there, but many more pop up, then a war starts, and then a bailout, and then and then...bankruptcy.

It is almost politically impossible to shut down any government agency. Each agency has behind it an entrenched group that would howl bloody murder if they got the ax, or if it was even hinted at.
It sure seems to grow. But then the population has grown also. We have become more civilized - of course, this is hard to quantify.

Obviously, everyone screams at program/agency shutdowns. So we start cutting anyway. And we keep cutting. We win some, we lose some. We keep cutting. Get it? We don't try to get 13 digit cuts. We start with many 7 digit cuts.

Maybe super-fud is more fun, more attention getting.
You will not find any FUD in the article linked, only facts and numbers.
[/quote]
How do you know?
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: seemingly random
It sure seems to grow. But then the population has grown also. We have become more civilized - of course, this is hard to quantify.

The size of government per capita has grown by leaps and bounds since WWII.

Obviously, everyone screams at program/agency shutdowns. So we start cutting anyway. And we keep cutting. We win some, we lose some. We keep cutting. Get it? We don't try to get 13 digit cuts. We start with many 7 digit cuts.

Seven digit cuts? Bwahaha, that's like buying a Ferrari on credit and then cutting back on oil changes. :laugh:

How do you know?

It has been verified by the government's top accountant:

Text

 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,365
8,676
136
As a guy who works in college radio, the FCC. I think it is (or was) chaired by a close relative of Colin Powell (his brother?). It's been drifting further and further to the right for 20+ years. Even Tipper Gore was hot for censorship in the media.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,365
8,676
136
Originally posted by: palehorse
Feel free to debate the merits of each Agency. I certainly expect hostile differences of opinion. :)

I'll start.

1)
Agency: National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
Estimated Federal Budget Savings: $128.412 million/yr.
Reason: It's a completely non-essential expense that does nothing for national security, economic stability, or the condition of our infrastructure.

2)
...

Now wait. The NEA is at least an argument against America's detractors who see us as philistines. We need some institutional support for the arts. To ditch it in the name of "national security" is hopeless and irrational.

Tell me you were trolling.... :disgust:
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Muse
As a guy who works in college radio, the FCC. I think it is (or was) chaired by a close relative of Colin Powell (his brother?). It's been drifting further and further to the right for 20+ years. Even Tipper Gore was hot for censorship in the media.
I think it was his son.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,365
8,676
136
Obama said he was going to go over the budget line by line. This is tantamount to saying he is going to really shake things up. This is positive.
 

venkman

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2007
4,950
11
81
I would Keep only the following organizations:

Defense and Veteran Affairs
Post Office
NASA
Regulatory Agencies with limited scope and clear mandates
(SEC, FAA, FCC, FDA, etc)



and some GSOs with STRONG regulations
Fannie, Freddie, Sallie, and MAYBE the Fed (after all, mortgages and student loans are still very important)

Everything else can be privatized or left up to the states.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Guys, you can safely ignore Dissipate. Trust me, he is ignoring you. No matter how often his brand of anarcho capitalism is owned, he keeps dredging it back up for another go-around.
 

DanceMan

Senior member
Jan 26, 2001
474
0
0
As mentioned before, I would dismantle the TVA, and privitize/sell off it's current assets.

DEA and ATF, as others have mentioned before. Parts can go to FBI.

DHS, and especially the TSA. There was already talk of re-privitizing parts of the TSA. Move FEMA back out.

Department of Education. I think K-12 should go (leave it up to states), Leave the college level stuff, and the rest can go into the Department of Commerce.

Same with the DOT. Can probably move most of the good stuff to Department Of Commerce.

I would remove the political/moral crap from the FDA and FCC, but leave the essential parts as is.

The Department Of Energy I would focus on energy independence, and have them support something like the Energy X-prize.

I would leave the overall planning/strategic view for NASA, but would like to see them privitize/contract even more for the construction/engineering pieces.

DHHS? Make them competitive bid on drugs, as well as other changes. Would raise SS eligbility age, and institue the rule you can't get more out of SS than you put in.

Department of Agriculture -- Reduce farm subsidies in most cases.

I would take a hard look at military programs. Kill some (like the Ospry) and take a hard look at other parts (like Star Wars, but probably keep proven parts, like surface-to-air missle systems). Would consider a few more domestic/international base closures, but also keep a focus on rapid force deployment.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guy, I've been in the DoD. I know what it involves.

Guy, I've worked for half a dozen law firms, doesn't make me a lawyer. Being "in" the DoD means nothing in the context of this discussion. Question is, should the DoD be cut 33-50% based on actual merit; as in do the benefits outweigh the costs of risking the potential for threat agents to exploit vulnerabilities in our national security? Overwhelming answer to this question is yes, monumentally inane to cut DoD spending by that much unless you can be specific.

The creation of government jobs does not justify government spending. Those same jobs could be used to build roads, dams, colleges, blah blah, whatever.

If gov't jobs outweigh the cost of gov't spending, then sorry, it does justify the spending.

Our global security concerns are certainly lower than they were during the cold war, and yet we are spending at cold war rates. This is simply a poor use of our funds.

How were our security concerns less troublesome during the Cold War when we're currently concerned with Red China on multiple fronts (having to buffer from an invasion of Taiwan, having to protect against dollar depreciation yuan peg), a possible reemergence of Russia (with Georgia invasion) and in-fighting about missiles in Poland, North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, and of course fighting multiple strains of nebulous enemies in the ME (insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syrian and Hezbollah aggression, etc.), countries with no defined borders and irrational politicians making it nearly impossible to negotiate. At least the Soviet Union actually engaged in rationality with the U.S.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: hellod9
How about all the ones starting with the letter D?


Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
www.darpa.mil

Defense Information Systems Agency
www.disa.mil

Defense Intelligence Agency
www.dia.mil

Defense Logistics Agency
www.supply.dla.mil

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
www.dnfsb.gov

Defense Security Service
www.dss.mil

Defense Threat Reduction Agency
www.dtra.mil

Drug Enforcement Administration
www.usdoj.gov/dea


wonderful idea. we can let france protect us and spend our money on better things.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
This and this but not one penny to help me heal my insanity. Buzz buzz go the hornets trapped in their log.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Evan

Can you cite any risk management assessment that concludes 33-50% of the DoD budget should be cut based on a cost/benefit analysis of their role in protecting national security? I'd be real interested in looking at it.

Procurement has increased from $55b in FY2000 to $170b in FY2008.

R & D has increased from $38b in FY2000 to $79b in FY2008.

Operation and Maintenance has increased from $109b in FY2000 to $257b in FY2008

The overall increase in spending has increased from $335b in FY2000 to $693b in FY2008.

The number of military personnel overall has remained static.

These figures do not include funding for veterans benefits or health.

Nor do the figures include funding 'stashed' way in other parts of the Federal Budget.

A 'portion' of the expenses may certainly be attributed to the GWOT but generally speaking the costs of Afghanistan/Iraq are not included.

btw - Your question is nebulous without defining your view of 'national security'. It can be argued that the military is responsible for national defense - national security is a product of intelligence and law enforcement.

National security includes preempting possible national crisis that affect us economically or politically, like Russia invading Georgia, China invading Taiwan, Iran sending insurgents across the border into Iraq, etc. All of which require substantial funds for the Navy (for example), who will send out a multitude of cutters, air craft carriers, and destroyers to strategic locations around the world in an attempt to stamp out any possible threat to domestic interests. Foreign intelligence gathering is the job of the CIA, and obviously isn't part of the DoD (even though it has been suggested before that one take over the other).

And your numbers don't really have me balking, as Clinton significantly reduced the size of the military during his tenure, especially WRT the USAF (I think they cut like 60,000 jobs from 93-01). The boom in tech easily explains most of that increase in R&D and maintenance, a sophistication that is absolutely required in a far more globalized world with far greater security concerns than ever. Hell, you couldn't even find accurate, coherent, and accepted IT security standards until this decade. This is a new era with much greater costs required, not mandatory. Read any risk management book on new-age security concerns, they're overwhelmingly in agreement that security in engineering and IT are absolutely critical to maintaining national security interests at home, requiring a presence abroad. Not that some of it isn't wasteful, as there is no debate about that.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
i think we could make major cuts to the military if we could get Europe to pull its weight.
They have had a free ride since WW2
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This and this but not one penny to help me heal my insanity. Buzz buzz go the hornets trapped in their log.

divert $28,000,000 from NEA to cure Moonbeams insanity.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guy, I've been in the DoD. I know what it involves.

Guy, I've worked for half a dozen law firms, doesn't make me a lawyer. Being "in" the DoD means nothing in the context of this discussion. Question is, should the DoD be cut 33-50% based on actual merit; as in do the benefits outweigh the costs of risking the potential for threat agents to exploit vulnerabilities in our national security? Overwhelming answer to this question is yes, monumentally inane to cut DoD spending by that much unless you can be specific.

The creation of government jobs does not justify government spending. Those same jobs could be used to build roads, dams, colleges, blah blah, whatever.

If gov't jobs outweigh the cost of gov't spending, then sorry, it does justify the spending.

Our global security concerns are certainly lower than they were during the cold war, and yet we are spending at cold war rates. This is simply a poor use of our funds.

How were our security concerns less troublesome during the Cold War when we're currently concerned with Red China on multiple fronts (having to buffer from an invasion of Taiwan, having to protect against dollar depreciation yuan peg), a possible reemergence of Russia (with Georgia invasion) and in-fighting about missiles in Poland, North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, and of course fighting multiple strains of nebulous enemies in the ME (insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syrian and Hezbollah aggression, etc.), countries with no defined borders and irrational politicians making it nearly impossible to negotiate. At least the Soviet Union actually engaged in rationality with the U.S.

Working in a law firm sure doesn't make you a lawyer, but it does give you the opportunity to learn their approximate HR budget. The reason I told you that is so that you can spare me your lectures about what makes up the DoD.

As far as your idea that our defense budget is somehow paying for the reduced potential of 'threat agents', you just made that up. I already told you how and why our defense spending is so high, and it has little to do with national security. It has to do with power projection, which is at best tangently related and has a hideously large cost/benefit ratio, one I believe cannot be supported. Hence, large cuts.

Now for the rest of your post:
1.) The reason China does not invade Taiwan is not based upon the fear of armed defeat by the United States. Even with our current military if we were to attempt to fight China there, we would lose. Our naval assets are not useful in the straights, we would be vulnerable to land based aircraft and anti-ship missiles, and China could effectively remove Taiwanese airbases within hours of conflict beginning. China does not go to war with Taiwan because China's relationship with the US is far more important. It is not a military matter, but a diplomatic/economic one. Oh, and I have no idea how the value of the Chinese currency is an issue the DoD will deal with. Are we bombing their printing presses?
2.) Russia is emerging as a regional threat to former Soviet republics, not the US. We long ago decided that we would not go to war over these countries, it is not in our national security interest to do so, and it is once again not based upon the size of our military. Russia will not dare to attack a member of NATO, and that is the primary vehicle we will use to check their expansion.
3.) Our military is not useful against North Korea's nuclear weapons.
4.) The leaders of the middle east are not irrational, you are simply falling for the same idiotic drivel that is always peddled about the enemies of the US. Negotiation is not only possible, but effective.

I'm sorry, but your reasons for having this gigantic military and your idea that it is 'monumentally insane' to cut back our out of control defense spending are based largely upon poor understanding of how and when we use our military and the expectations of foreign governments for how we use our military. The whole point is that with a much smaller budget we could defend our regional interests just as easily as we do now. What we would lose is the ability to switfly bomb places like Iran and Iraq. I for one, think taking those options out of the hands of future presidents would do us far more good than harm.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Anyway, this thread shows just why we won't have smaller government. Everyone wants cuts, except for their priorities. Conservative or Liberal, it ain't happening.

exactly! that was the entire point! "Case in point," if you will...

My job here is done. :cool:

/thread
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Working in a law firm sure doesn't make you a lawyer, but it does give you the opportunity to learn their approximate HR budget. The reason I told you that is so that you can spare me your lectures about what makes up the DoD.

Unless you were in accounts payable/receivable at the DoD, I kind of doubt you have much knowledge of military waste. I know nothing about the law in comparison to the attorneys I've worked for and won't pretend that I can analyze the legal justifications for their spending.

As far as your idea that our defense budget is somehow paying for the reduced potential of 'threat agents', you just made that up. I already told you how and why our defense spending is so high, and it has little to do with national security. It has to do with power projection, which is at best tangently related and has a hideously large cost/benefit ratio, one I believe cannot be supported. Hence, large cuts.

Threat agents is a well known term in security, risk management, and intelligence, not made up in the least. Hate to break it to you.

Now for the rest of your post:
1.) The reason China does not invade Taiwan is not based upon the fear of armed defeat by the United States. Even with our current military if we were to attempt to fight China there, we would lose. Our naval assets are not useful in the straights, we would be vulnerable to land based aircraft and anti-ship missiles, and China could effectively remove Taiwanese airbases within hours of conflict beginning. China does not go to war with Taiwan because China's relationship with the US is far more important. It is not a military matter, but a diplomatic/economic one. Oh, and I have no idea how the value of the Chinese currency is an issue the DoD will deal with. Are we bombing their printing presses?

The U.S. military's presence acts as a diplomatic assurance to the Taiwanese. This has been reported ad nauseum. Secondly, I never once doubted the legitimate economic reasons China has for not going into Taiwan. They are very much concerned with keeping social order and it is well known exactly how concerned China is with social uprising and overpopulation. They already get immense guff for displacing millions by building dams, and the fallout from invading Taiwan could have dire consequences on China's terms of trade with the U.S., greatly affecting their booming middle class.

2.) Russia is emerging as a regional threat to former Soviet republics, not the US. We long ago decided that we would not go to war over these countries, it is not in our national security interest to do so, and it is once again not based upon the size of our military. Russia will not dare to attack a member of NATO, and that is the primary vehicle we will use to check their expansion.

You said cut 33-50% of the military and I explicitly said it didn't have to all be about troops. R&D into engineering and tech services is far and away more expensive than maintaining troops, so if you're cutting half the military budget you're cutting out a multitude of avenues the U.S. can deal with Russia in Poland. The U.S. suddenly can't use missiles to hedge against the risk Russia poses to the U.S. economically (by funding Iran with services), because then suddenly the AMRDEC can't fund their immensely expensive projects. Everyone would agree that unmanning the front lines is of critical importance, and you can't possibly do that by halving the DoD budget, just totally out to lunch proposition. R&D is expensive and that's just reality.

3.) Our military is not useful against North Korea's nuclear weapons.

Military intelligence gathering is, however.

4.) The leaders of the middle east are not irrational, you are simply falling for the same idiotic drivel that is always peddled about the enemies of the US. Negotiation is not only possible, but effective.

Yes, clearly ME leaders have proven themselves rational people. :roll:

I'm sorry, but your reasons for having this gigantic military and your idea that it is 'monumentally insane' to cut back our out of control defense spending are based largely upon poor understanding of how and when we use our military and the expectations of foreign governments for how we use our military. The whole point is that with a much smaller budget we could defend our regional interests just as easily as we do now. What we would lose is the ability to switfly bomb places like Iran and Iraq. I for one, think taking those options out of the hands of future presidents would do us far more good than harm.

Except you have yet to cite any specific cuts (as I knew you would fail to do) because you can't possibly justify your original figure of 33%-50%, probably realized you overreached with that number, and are backpeddling now to save face. I'd say a reasonable estimate is maybe 10%, which is a ballpark figure and really just a total guesstimate. I never once said that it's "monumentally insane to cut back our out of control defense spending", as defense spending is out of control without question. Just not some loony lib definition of 33%-50% out of control.

Though, I think your statement that we would be better off losing the ability to swiftly react with missiles says it all. Out to lunch.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This and this but not one penny to help me heal my insanity. Buzz buzz go the hornets trapped in their log.

divert $28,000,000 from NEA to cure Moonbeams insanity.

Don't worry about me. I paid way more than that myself.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Originally posted by: palehorse
Feel free to debate the merits of each Agency. I certainly expect hostile differences of opinion. :)

I'll start.

1)
Agency: National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
Estimated Federal Budget Savings: $128.412 million/yr.
Reason: It's a completely non-essential expense that does nothing for national security, economic stability, or the condition of our infrastructure.

2)
...

That`s completely stoopid!!!
 

Ballatician

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2007
1,985
0
0
Originally posted by: Muse
Obama said he was going to go over the budget line by line. This is tantamount to saying he is going to really shake things up. This is positive.

I hope he actually does because there are too many departments that seem to do the same exact job.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, you can safely ignore Dissipate. Trust me, he is ignoring you. No matter how often his brand of anarcho capitalism is owned, he keeps dredging it back up for another go-around.

You can safely ignore eskimospy, he has been on the government dole. Asking him if a government agency should be cut is like asking a crack addict whether or not they want another hit of crack.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, you can safely ignore Dissipate. Trust me, he is ignoring you. No matter how often his brand of anarcho capitalism is owned, he keeps dredging it back up for another go-around.

You can safely ignore eskimospy, he has been on the government dole. Asking him if a government agency should be cut is like asking a crack addict whether or not they want another hit of crack.

??????????Spying on eskimos for the Govt? say it ain't so, Eskimo:Q