The government has no idea how many agencies it has
Politics
The U.S. government does not know how many agencies and programs it is asking taxpayers to fund
, The Daily Caller has learned.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/03/the-government-has-no-idea-how-many-agencies-it-has/#ixzz3A5xgyE1v
Even though the editors of Wikipedia have been able to assemble a list of federal agencies, no complete official government list of federal agencies and programs currently exists.
The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) — which became law on January 4, 2011 — established required quarterly performance assessments of government programs.
That bill also mandated that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) create a website that would publish quarterly performance reports by the heads of each agency.
Currently that website — Performance.gov, which was launched in 2011 — contains only a partial list of government programs, and important agencies such as the FCC aren’t on the list.
OMB is an office within the executive that is responsible for budget development and agency oversight. A spokesperson for the OMB did not respond to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.
A spokesperson for the Congressional Budget Office also confirmed to The Daily Caller that the CBO did not have a list of agencies and programs, and instead referred The Daily Caller to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
A GAO spokesman, in turn, referred The Daily Caller to OMB, stating that no list of programs has existed in the past because of the lack of a consensus within the federal government about what constitutes a program.
“OMB has not released the list of federal programs but has an effort underway to develop a count,” said another GAO official.
The CBO is a non-partisan legislative branch agency responsible for providing the “budget committees and Congress with objective, impartial information about budgetary and economic issues.”
The GAO is an independent legislative branch agency that acts as “the congressional watchdog,” responsible for investigating “how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.”
GPRAMA also required agencies to publish their strategic and performance plans in searchable, machine-readable formats for fiscal year 2012.
Machine-readable formats are data formats that can be easily understood by computers, such as XML or StratML.
Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller that no useful list of government agencies exists.
Harper has been advocating for the creation a machine-readable federal government organization chart of several years.
The chart would map out how the federal government’s agencies and subagencies, bureaus and programs all interconnect.
“There are several lists, but none of them are machine-readable and they are by no means complete registries of the organizational units of government,” said Harper.
Harper made a similar point in a January 2012 essay about the lack of a machine-readable federal government organization chart.
Many reports, he wrote, are currently published in formats like PDF, which make it more difficult for the data to be useful to a computer.
A bill to establish reporting standards, which was supported by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, successfully made it through the House in 2012 only to die in the Senate.
That bill, called the Digital Transparency and Accountability Act (DATA Act), is currently awaiting reintroduction in the House.
list of federal agencies and programs currently exists.The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) — which became law on January 4, 2011 — established required quarterly performance assessments of government programs.
That bill also mandated that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) create a website that would publish quarterly performance reports by the heads of each agency.
Currently that website — Performance.gov, which was launched in 2011 — contains only a partial list of government programs, and important agencies such as the FCC aren’t on the list.
OMB is an office within the executive that is responsible for budget development and agency oversight. A spokesperson for the OMB did not respond to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.
A spokesperson for the Congressional Budget Office also confirmed to The Daily Caller that the CBO did not have a list of agencies and programs, and instead referred The Daily Caller to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
A GAO spokesman, in turn, referred The Daily Caller to OMB, stating that no list of programs has existed in the past because of the lack of a consensus within the federal government about what constitutes a program.
“OMB has not released the list of federal programs but has an effort underway to develop a count,” said another GAO official.
The CBO is a non-partisan legislative branch agency responsible for providing the “budget committees and Congress with objective, impartial information about budgetary and economic issues.”
The GAO is an independent legislative branch agency that acts as “the congressional watchdog,” responsible for investigating “how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.”
GPRAMA also required agencies to publish their strategic and performance plans in searchable, machine-readable formats for fiscal year 2012.
Machine-readable formats are data formats that can be easily
understood by computers, such as XML or StratML.Jim Harper, director of information policy studies
at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller that no useful list of government agencies exists.Harper has been advocating for the creation a machine-readable federal government organization chart of several years.
The chart would map out how the federal government’s agencies and subagencies, bureaus and programs all interconnect.
“There are several lists, but none of them are machine-readable and they are by no means complete registries of the organizational units of government,” said Harper.
Harper made a similar point in a January 2012 essay about the lack of a machine-readable federal government organization chart.
Many reports, he wrote, are currently published in formats like PDF, which make it more difficult for the data to be useful to a computer.
A bill to establish reporting standards, which was supported by House
Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, successfully made it through the House in 2012 only to die in the Senate.That bill, called the Digital Transparency and Accountability Act (DATA Act), is currently awaiting reintroduction in the House.
" no list of programs has existed in the past because of the lack of a consensus within the federal government about what constitutes a program."
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what the meaning of is is.
From Wiki:
ReplyDeleteOffice of the President
Office of the First Lady
Office of the First Children
Office of the First Family's Members
Does Barack's brother in Kenya have an office?
Boards and commissions
ReplyDeleteAbraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation
Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
American Battle Monuments Commission
Appalachian Regional Commission
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (United States Access Board)
Arctic Research Commission
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation
Broadcasting Board of Governors
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Chief Acquisition Officers Council
Chief Financial Officers Council
Chief Human Capital Officers Council
Chief Information Officers Council
Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee
Commission of Fine Arts
Commission on International Religious Freedom
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (United States Helsinki Commission)
Commission on Wartime Contracting (Will sunset when announced (currently not announced) )
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Defense Acquisition University
Delaware River Basin Commission
Denali Commission
Endangered Species Committee
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
Federal Advisory Committees
Federal Executive Boards
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
Federal Financing Bank
Federal Geographic Data Committee
Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
Federal Interagency Committee on Education
Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer
Federal Library and Information Center Committee
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation
Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Commission
Indian Arts and Crafts Board
Interagency Alternate Dispute Resolution Working Group
Interagency Council on Homelessness
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board
James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation
Japan-United States Friendship Commission
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries
Joint Fire Science Program
Marine Mammal Commission
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Mississippi River Commission
Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Interagency Fire Center
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
National Park Foundation
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (Northwest Power Planning Council)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Preserve America
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition
Presidents Management Council
Presidio Trust
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Regulatory Service Center (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs)
Social Security Advisory Board
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Veterans Day National Committee
Vietnam Educational Foundation
White House Commission on Presidential Scholars (Presidential Scholars Program)
White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance
This is how we piss away over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!
ReplyDelete"Suppose the government today borrows an extra $100 billion in order to expand drug coverage for seniors. Assume that the young workers today “pay for it” in the direct sense that they reduce their consumption by $100 billion, in order to invest in the additional $100 billion in government debt that has to be issued. (Thus, we are assuming unrealistically, for the sake of argument, that the higher government debt doesn’t “crowd out” private investment, just so we can see quite clearly why Baker and Krugman are wrong on this issue.) Clearly the older folks are better off because of this deal: they get more drug coverage from government spending, and don’t have to pay higher taxes to finance it.
ReplyDeleteNow further suppose that the young workers don’t touch their bonds, which happened to be 30-year Treasury securities rolling over at (say) 3 percent. After 29 years have passed, the originally young workers are now old. The original seniors—the ones who benefited from the $100 billion in extra drug coverage—are long dead. A new group of workers—who weren’t even alive when the $100 billion was borrowed—are now on the scene.
The now-old retirees sell their 29-year-old bonds at their current market value of $236 billion (that’s the original $100 billion compounding at 3 percent annually for 29 years in a row). At this point, the middle generation—the ones who were young workers originally, and now are retiring and living off of their savings—have been made whole. Yes, they reduced their consumption by $100 billion back when the government ran a budget deficit, but at the time they voluntarily lent that $100 billion to the government, because they thought getting $236 billion in 29 years when they were retiring would make the whole deal worthwhile. They didn’t lose from the whole operation.
Finally, suppose that the young workers (who were recently born) hold on to their government bonds for one more year, when they mature with a market value of $243 billion. In order to pay off the bonds, the government imposes a one-time surtax on current workers of exactly $243 billion. It thus takes the money out of the workers’ paychecks, and then hands it right back to them to redeem the 30-year bonds that they are holding.
The way Dean Baker and Paul Krugman have been “educating” their readers since late 2011 on this issue, they would be forced to argue that in our story above, the young workers weren’t hurt by the original $100 billion borrow-and-spend scheme. After all, the government 30 years later simply took $243 billion from those workers, and then gave it right back to them. So clearly it’s a wash, right?
But we can see it obviously wasn’t a wash. The original, old generation benefited greatly, the middle generation did all right, and the young generation—not even alive at the time of the original $100 billion deficit—got skewered. Yes, they “owed the federal debt to themselves,” but that is hardly consolation to them. They acquired the bonds by reducing their consumption by $236 billion the year before the big tax bill hit. This abstinence was not rewarded with additional consumption at some future point, but instead was necessary just to break even after the government whacked them with a big tax bill to retire its exponentially rising debt.
As this short tale illustrated, the man on the street’s intuition is correct: today’s budget deficits can impoverish future generations, even if future Americans hold all of the Treasury bonds. There really is a sense in which voters today can run up the credit card and stick the bill to unborn future generations."
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/does-government-debt-burden-our-grandkids/
William, I mean for this to be a respectful interchange. The flaw in the AC argument here is that they choose to skip the fact that we aren't willing to raise taxes to pay for anything. Not drug benefits, not wars, and certainly not our debt. What if, when Bush wanted to create his horrible drug plan, he dictated to congress that they must make cuts elsewhere to bring it to fruition? Surely, they would have cut Democrat favorite programs, but honestly, I think this would have been a better outcome.
DeleteAs it stands right now, we are locked into a mentality that we will not raise taxes to pay our bills. In the real world, the average slob needs to get a second job, and this is surely conservative thinking. At the government level, however, there simply is no consequence to spending. Even if there was a massive back and forth of program cutting wherein each party would cut the programs of the other when they got in power, the people would at least have some say in what programs stay by who they vote for. Right now, Because we won't keep raising taxes every year until we hit a point of equal money coming in as going out, the problem persists. This AC piece here is true enough, if you are looking at the world through a milk straw.
Looking at your list above, I'm sure there are quite a few that don't make much sense. But again, my point is that when there is not threat of tax increase, there really isn't any punishment in the present. I tire of hearing conservatives wail about burdening future generations when they only solutions they have are to keep slicing away at programs like food stamps when welfare is about 11% of the budget. When given the chance to do everything they wanted to when they had all three houses, the conservatives did absolutely nothing. I realize that you believe the real problem is Democrats and RINO's and that if the conservatives you support, the REAL conservatives have a chance, they will fix everything. What do we do int he meantime though while waiting for them to find some way to convince America to accept their austere ways AND their very sharp religious views?
Max, what does this have to do about religion? Stay on point for once! One f___ing time please!
DeleteOk Max. Since we raise about 2T a year, and we spend about 3T a year are you proposing that we raise taxes 1T (50%) a year to "pay our bills?" To be honest you and I and the middle generations will be long dead and gone and the future generations will be f___ed. But you and your progressive friends (on both sides of the f___ing isle) just don't give a shit about those kids and the future of the indebted country that they will live in. Out of sight, out of f___ing mind huh Max.
A yes or no answer for once would be appreciated. Don't tap dance about phasing in tax increases or cutting spending in the "out years."
I'm f___ing fed up with all the f___ing lies!
50% in one shot? No. That's a simple answer. Make it 10% a year or so each and every year and I believe we will start to see meaningful cuts. You can use the word Fuck William, this is like cable here. Your underscores are like pasties on nipples in a strip club. What's the point? I'm pretty clear, I'm for tax increases AND cuts in spending. What I'm not in favor of is perpetually slashing at programs that make up 11% of the budget while we continue to spend billions on the military.
DeleteHere's what it has to do with religion William, your Tea Party is quite Christian conservative and that is a major breaking point in trying to get elected nationally. While people may agree with some of the fiscal stuff, they are not in agreement with banning abortion and the other whackadoodle shit your aging white males come up with. So, it does matter if you want to win a political majority and get your way. That's pretty much my point
I don't know what it is in your thinking that makes you fervently believe that nobody but you is concerned. I mean, fair enough, you want to see wholesale slaughter to every government program out there because you believe most are bullshit. IF you could have your way, no doubt less money would be spent. The problem is that the real world doesnt work that way. Our debt wil not disappear just because we start spending less money. Some new programs are good, others are outdated and should be scrapped. The all or nothing approach, however, of simply cut and never spend again isn't going to happen. I'm more than willing to make sacrifices for future generations. The tax cuts of Bush were just fucking stupid and did nothing for my life. I wish we would have just left things alone at the end of Clinton's presidency. Even with the wars, we'd be much better off financially now.
Why does this surprise you. We start well meaning programs but they never go away once their usefulness has been fulfilled. And then the corruption starts to keep them in place. This is no big secret William just common sense.
ReplyDeleteSo it's common sense that the grandchildren, yours and mine, will be fucked.
DeleteYou are one fucked up deranged individual rick.
Why don't you get your head out of your fucking progressive ass.
Typical response when you have no answer.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRick 9.07
DeleteThis strikes a chord here. Goverment starting a program, usually involving benefits for the populace during good times. The times change and things get a bit tight but the government never winds back the now costly program. The situation gets even worse when the opposing party promise to extend the program in order to get elected.
A classical example of the above is our Liberal Prime Minister John Howard extending the eligibility to the age pension some years ago , it used to be governed by assets both cash and real estate. The family home and one acre of land was exempt but then Howard decreed that if the home had been built before a certain date, land acreage did not matter. We have a house on ten acres three miles from the centre of the capital city here in Tasmania. As a result of the changes some years ago, we get a part age pension. Perhaps it is time for governments to prune both departments and entitlements.
By the way, your Sec Defense is in Aussie at present for announcements and talks. It will be announced today that more and more US troops will be using Australia for training. There is also much talk that there will be Aussie involvement in the dust up in the Middle East. We are providing logistical support at present but the will of the people is not in favor of direct boots on the ground.
Cheers from Aussie.
Similar here King. We know we have to do something but we are not going in on the ground. Tired of war. We've been at it for 11 years. Time to come home. .I read yesterday where the UK and France were going to help the humanitarian situation. Figured it was just a matter of time until Australia and Canada joined the effort. Sadly it seems whatever happens in the world it's the same group of countries called on to respond. The four of us , the US Australia, Canada and England are forever allies in what is good in this world. Occasionally we get the French to help. Wonder what would happen if the four countries just refused to go. Chaos spreading worldwide I would imagine.
DeleteWilliam know what could begin to solve this problem of endless perpetuation of useless programs? Line item veto for the president. That's usually how these things get continued funding. Someone places their pet program on a necessary bill in exchange for a vote.
DeleteWe have two major party's king. The "hand out" party, and the "go along to get along" party. Both remain largely progressive. Hence we cannot even account for how we piss away tax payer dollars no less think about cutting anything.
DeleteMorning all
ReplyDeleteMy thanks for the replies, you prove the point I have often made here. We are following along behind and the end result is that you will jump off the cliff having shown us the way to follow. The outcome of the talks yesterday was a lavish piss up at our expense as Sec Defense, Sec State and their Australian counterparts signed an agreement for your B52 bombers to blow the shit out of the Northern part of Australia. Funny way to treat your friends and even funnier when your friends put on a lavish chuck wagon as soon as the agreement is reached!
Now for rick (and anyone else please) ric, would you please explain your use of the term "Line item veto for the President" please define the term and its potential uses. Try if you will not to politicize this, simply explain what it means and how it works. I know the Pres has power of veto for a period but I believe he must sign into law the same bill if represented for signature by both houses. If Lew reads this, your opinion also old friend would assist.
Very simply King, right now our president has the power to veto any law that congress enacts. These laws usually contain riders and amendments placed there to secure needed votes to pass the original law. Usually these are individual representatives pet projects and programs and to secure their vote on the issue at hand a rider is attached to the bill. The president at present can only veto the entire bill which could happen because of these amendments. A line item veto would allow the president to veto portions of a bill without having to veto the whole thing. he could then veto all the crap and keep the meat of the bill intact.
DeleteOr he could veto all the meat and leave all the crap in. Large enough majorities currently can override a tyrant presidents veto of vital legislation.
DeleteA line item veto Is a very sharp double edged sword.
Actually King, William forgot to mention my favorite thing to bitch about, which is the fillibuster. In spirit, the filibuster was meant by the founding fathers to be a way to force the majority party in the senate to reconsider a particular piece of legislation that a senator was outraged over. At one time, the outraged senator actually had to go on the floor and stand there and keep talking to block the vote from happening. Today, all that needs to occur is for the Senate minority leader to tell the majority leader they will filibuster a particular bill and the majority leader will simply kill the bill from being brought up. So basically, the minority in the senate can say, "I don't like that bill so I won't let you bring it to the floor and pass it with a simple majority of votes.
DeleteThe Democrats have a majority of seats in the senate, but because of the filibuster, they are not allowed to do much of anything. There is plenty of legislation that could get passed on a 51-49 margin, but the minority has the power to prevent this from happening. The way to get around this is to have a vote to end a filibuster and if you can get 60 votes, you can pass the legislation. This was not written in the constitution as standard procedure, but some people in this country, who basically are stupid assholes, like it when they are out of power and can do this.
Yes, the Repub's filibuster various bills in the Senate and the Dem's via Harry bury bills without them seeing the light of day.
DeleteHow many laws has Obama had to veto?
Is government now the House vs the Senate and President?
rick and William my thanks.
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting situation. If I read you correctly, the Pres has a right to veto in full any bill presented to him for signature. (It is my understanding that the veto applies only for a specific time frame when the Congress can resubmit the bill for signature and the Pres must comply). Now the operation of a line item veto is much more interesting. Does the facility for such a veto exist within the rules at present and if so, can congress prevent the President from using the facility? This does appear to give the Pres a decided advantage if he can wield this power. I see Williams point in this discussion. I wonder however if the people are likely to elect a genuine tyrant or someone who just appears to be a tyrant in the opinion of one particular group
It is not in our current law. It will never be granted to the executive by congress. That doesn't preclude a tyrant like Obama from using his "phone and pen" to use de facto veto's by not enforcing existing law, or promulgating his own law through regulation.
DeleteFrom Rand Paul,
DeleteThere are 73,954 pages of Internal Revenue Service Code.
If you miss a single sentence, the punishments range from invasive audits, to fines, to outright imprisonment.
The truth is, arming a government agency with this much prying power into our daily lives and expecting it NOT to be abused would be misguided at best.
At least 90,000 bureaucrats, attorneys and enforcement agents are already employed by the IRS. But news stories have been trickling out over the past couple of years about the IRS hiring literally thousands of new agents to “enforce” ObamaCare.
You and I both know what that means . . .
More knocks on our doors from agents saying, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Studies already show, Washington, D.C.’s convoluted tax code exacts a high price on American citizens:
*** The IRS itself estimates that Americans spend 6.6 BILLION hours per year trying to comply with the tax code;
*** Other studies show Americans spend up to $168 BILLION dollars – on top of the hundreds of billions they already pay in our sky-high tax rates – just to get their taxes done;
A tyrant in todays vision is basically anyone in an opposing party and it's a little ridiculous.
DeleteKing no it is not in our law. The President has 10 days to act by veto or signing. If he does not the bill becomes law. Within 10 days, excluding Sundays, the president must return the bill with his objections (Veto) or sign it. If the president vetos a bill, that veto can be overrode by a 2/3 majority of both the House AND the Senate. If one body fails to gain the 2/3 majority the veto stands.
DeleteIn the past there was the pocket veto. This occurred when the president didn't act and congress adjourned within the ten day time frame. Of course in today's world the congress never really goes into recess. They always keep someone around for communication from the president on outstanding bills. So this type of veto has effectively been taken away from the president. And King unlike William I didn't bring any partisan politics into the explanation of how our veto power works.
K,
DeleteBefore Obama can veto a law, it has to pass the Senate.
564 bills/laws lie in the Senate waiting for action.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUndercover government investigators were able to obtain thousands of dollars in taxpayer subsidies under ObamaCare using fake identities, according to findings presented to Congress on Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteThe probe by the Government Accountability Office has raised fresh concerns about the ability of the sprawling health care program to prevent or intercept costly fraud schemes. In the case of the GAO investigation, 11 out of 12 applications submitted using "fictitious identities" were accepted, resulting in subsidized health coverage.
"For each of our 11 approved applications, we paid the required premiums to put policies into force, and are continuing to pay the premiums. For the 11 applications that were approved for coverage, we obtained the advance premium tax credit in all cases," the report said.
According to the GAO, the total amount for these credits was $2,500 monthly, adding up to $30,000 a year.
Why is it that Fox reports this as news yet the MSM doesn't?
It's the honor system louman. Go with the flow man.
Delete