You might think that the last agency, whose funding people concerned about deficits would want to cut, is one that has successfully saved taxpayers billions by ferreting out fraud and waste. You might, but if you did, you’d be wrong. In the House, that is easy enough to explain. Republicans love fraud and waste as long as it benefits the rich. But in the Senate, the trouble is that a DINO, worse than even Joe LIEberman, chairs the subcommittee responsible for that agency.
The nation’s most prominent federal watchdog, often credited with identifying potential taxpayer savings, may soon fall victim to steep government spending cuts.
The Government Accountability Office, the congressional investigative agency, stands to lose up to $50 million in funding this year that its defenders say would force widespread layoffs and the closure of its regional offices. Current budget proposals also would force the agency to detail the costs and manpower used to publish each of its reports, a task that supportive lawmakers fear could politicize the nonpartisan office.
GAO publishes more than 1,000 reports and audits annually, and agency officials frequently testify before congressional committees to detail their findings. Despite its relatively spot-free reputation and the billions of dollars in potential savings it has identified in recent years, House and Senate appropriators responsible for drafting the legislative branch budget seem determined to force the GAO to reduce, as part of a 5.2 percent drop in all congressional spending.
As Washington seeks ways to cut back, “the buck shrinks here,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee on the legislative branch. He said his proposed cuts “are real and will force Congress and the agencies on Capitol Hill to live with less.”… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Washington Post>
I trust that some will be pleased that I finally put the tinfoil hat on a Democrat, but if Nelson is a Democrat, pigs fly. He sounds like a Republican, votes like a Republican, goose-steps with Republican, and is responsible for weakening healthcare and finance reform more than any other Democrat, and as much as any Republican. He should be stripped of his subcommittee chair. He should receive no funding for support from the party. When he next stands for reelection, she should be challenged by a progressive in the primary, whom the party should fund and support.
The GAO is too valuable not to fully fund it.
14 Responses to “GAO on the chopping block”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Is it too harsh to say ; “Blabbering Idiot” ??
No 😉
The article could have stopped at watchdog agency. Everyone knows you can’t plunder the house until you get rid of the dog.
Right on, Blue!
Of course they do. Can’t have oversight for the high and might. How dare us think we have the right to know what they are doing?
They insist on the golden rule and they have the gold.
About time you put the foil hat on a “Blue Dog”. I would have liked Blanche Lincoln in a tin foil G-string, but she got voted out, you know? (Manically grinning devil emoticon)
That image spoiled my appetite!
Ben(edict) Nelson is scum. He’s every bit as reprehensible as his Rushpubliscum butt buddies.
I like that name, JR.
Ok, there can be a relatively simple test of how effective the GAO is — take the savings and measure it against the GAO budget. Then measure against the likely outcomes of reduced personnel and more work. If you really want to tear your hair out, add in the detailed spending reports required of the GOA only. Those are nothing more than make work projects at a time when there are fewer people to complete the same work. They provide no added value.
“Requiring detailed spending reports would “be an overly burdensome mandate that would further consume GAO’s dwindling resources without providing any obvious cost benefit,” Coburn and four other colleagues wrote last week . . . ”
Not only is this a really dumb idea (I say that as one who used to do audit work in banking), but it smacks of a political agenda. The people need to have an independent body that can provide assurances that policies and proceedures are in place and that spending is within guidelines. Otherwise, why don’t you just give the fox the key to the hen house!
Exactly, Lynn. Their goal is to prevent oversight, not to save money.
Test 😉
Another Test 😉