Policy experts clash over consolidation; CAP warns efficiency push shouldn't cut benefits
Loading...
Summary
At a House subcommittee roundtable, Bobby Kogan of the Center for American Progress warned that seeking efficiencies must not be a pretext to cut benefits, while other witnesses argued for consolidation, stronger authorizer incentives and changes to budget process to reduce waste.
Bobby Kogan, senior director for budget policy at the Center for American Progress, told the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency that efficiency goals must not be used to justify cuts in services. "Looking for duplication should not be cover for cutting assistance," he said, adding that consolidation and block grants have historically reduced benefits for the populations they aim to serve.
Kogan warned that rescinding programs without protecting beneficiaries can make people worse off: "If policymakers find a way to cut administrative costs for the federal government by dramatically increasing the burden on the American people, then they've made it worse, not better." He said reversing certain tax cuts and improving IRS enforcement would yield larger fiscal benefits than many program consolidations.
Other witnesses pressed complementary points. Matt Whitinger and Paul Winfrey emphasized that the count and definition of programs matter: Whitinger said small programs are often the most administratively costly and easiest to consolidate, while Winfrey argued that even if Congress implemented every GAO recommendation it would not match the fiscal impact of recent large tax cuts. "If congress implemented every single recommendation in GAO's giant report, that would amount to very roughly $20,000,000,000 in savings every year," Winfrey said, and contrasted that with larger revenue losses from recent tax legislation.
Members and witnesses debated policy tools: block grants, targeted consolidation, statutory changes and incentive structures for authorizing committees. Witnesses cautioned that consolidation can be constructive when it preserves program goals and beneficiary protections, but harmful when it simply reduces benefit dollars.
The chair said he will circulate draft bipartisan legislation and continue oversight work on duplication and efficiency.
