May 23, 2012

Government Accountability Office "GAO" Cites Billions of Dollars in Duplication, From Military to Highways

It is one of the inexplicable facets of government: duplication across agencies and departments at a cost of billions of dollars to taxpayers.

One example: Attempts to develop safety measures against improvised explosive devices has seen two parallel groups in the Marine and Army developing their own technologies. Congress has approved $17 billion for IED research. The Army has a mine roller costing $77,000 to $225,000 per unit. The Marines have built similar anti-IED equipment for $85,000. There is still disagreement on which one works better.

GAO, the watchdog arm of the federal government, has weighed in with a series of suggestions with the potential to save taxpayers billions of dollars simply by eliminating duplicated efforts by government agencies. Spending cuts are at the core of a pitched battle between President Obama and the GOP-controlled House, overshadowed by the specter of a shutdown of the federal government if no agreement is reached by week’s end.

“GAO has identified a mother lode of government waste and duplication that should keep Congress busy for the rest of the year,” Sen. Tom Coburn of R-Okla. said.

Covering over 30 areas of government spending where program overlap has led to “unnecessary duplication” the report finds that “reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap or fragmentation could potentially save billions of taxpayer dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services.” The first of what is slated to be an annual series on duplication in government, the report was directed by an amendment from Sen. Coburn during last year’s vote on the debt limit.

In some cases the GAO discovered that “financial benefits ranging from the tens of millions to several billion dollars annually may be realized by addressing that single issue,” with the report specifically citing the Department of Defense’s military health care system, where “broader restructuring could result in annual savings of up to $460 million.”

Other areas of duplication:

  • The conflict between various branches of law enforcement, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, over jurisdiction of investigations involving explosives. Coburn’s office estimated there was $35 million spent in duplicated efforts related to the issue in fiscal year 2010.
  • In programs to aid the poor, Coburn’s office estimated that $2.9 billion was spent in fiscal year 2009 on duplicated efforts among 20 programs to aid to the nation’s homeless population. It also cited $62.5 billion in food assistance programs, spread across 18 programs in three federal departments.
  • Highways, a bane to every road warrior in the nation, are criticized for being governed by more than 100 separate programs. “The current approach to surface transportation was established in 1956 to build the Interstate Highway System but has not evolved to reflect current priorities in transportation planning,” the report said. Even as the government strives to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels for the federal fleet, the report noted the feds spent $1.9 billion in new vehicles in fiscal 2009 and gassed up the existing fleet of 600,000 vehicles to the tune of 963,000 gallons of fuel per day.

The report “shows we could save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year without cutting services,” Coburn said in a statement.

Entitled “Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue,” the report is now available on the GAO’s website.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Staff Writer

Aaron Mehta graduated with honors from Tufts University in 2007 with a bachelor’s degree in history and communications. Hailing from the Boston area, he has worked for a national political convention, for the legal watchdog group CREW in Washington, and on several Massachusetts-based campaigns. Most recently, he filled the role of research and policy director for a city council race in Boston.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.