Amateur hour is on full display in our nation’s capital — or, to be more precise, amateur week. The government remains in shutdown mode while the president refuses to budge on Obamacare, Republicans do not have an endgame in sight and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid name-calls and refuses to negotiate with the House.
The House continues to pass piecemeal legislations that fund part of the federal government. These appropriations fund specific areas such as national parks, veterans’ benefits and the National Institutes of Health.
While these areas are supported by both sides, the House refuses to fund some other areas of the government. Why is this the case? When you look at some of the other areas of the government, you start to see why, and you begin to realize the many inefficiencies of our federal government.
Take a look at the cabinet departments. According to Government Executive, 95 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency, 96 percent of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 98 percent of the Federal Communications Commission and 95 percent of Department of Education employees were deemed to be “nonessential” during the current government shutdown. Is paying for such nonessential employees cost-efficient when the government eventually opens back up?
Ironically, the Department of Veterans Affairs deemed only 4 percent of its employees “nonessential,” but it is one of the most poorly run departments in the federal government. Veterans filing their first claims receive their benefits within 316 and 327 days. However, if they are in a major U.S. city, the number ticks up to more than 540 days. And the VA have been questioned about preventable deaths at medical facilities while finding the time and money to reward roughly $573,000 in bonuses to its employees.
Safety net programs for the poor and disabled are also affected by the shutdown. While caring for the poor and disabled should be a priority for everyone, many people neglect to talk about the effective and efficient jobs local charities do.
And let us forget about the many inefficiencies of the Affordable Care Act.
When you have a big government, its citizens have to entrust the many functions of the state to capable and able-minded politicians. Because of the ever-increasing size and scope of the government, the politicians are forced to deal with more and more issues on a consistent basis that must be addressed.
However, one would be wrong in their assumption of “capable” and “able-minded” politicians. In having a big government — whether you agree with this or not — you need to ensure that you have the ability to tackle one issue and move on to the next.
This is currently not the case. Take the government shutdown, for example. Regardless of your political spin, we are in a government shutdown, period. And no side is budging, period. And no side is talking to each other, period.
The mentality in Washington is not, “Let’s get things done so we can solve another problem.” Rather it is, “Let us posture politically until it becomes too much of a political risk.”
A senior government administration official was quoted by The Wall Street Journal saying: “We are winning ... It doesn’t really matter to us,” how long the shutdown lasts, “because what matters is the end result.”
Such is an unfortunate reality when the government tries to perform too many roles. The time and consideration for important issues is too often squandered for political points and spin.
And let’s be perfectly clear; shutting the government down is not a smart idea, no matter what your political affiliation may be. But conversely, having a federal government that is run so inefficiently is also not a smart idea. Though many government programs start with good intentions, they can — and will — be mismanaged and hurt us in the long run.
The debate that should be taking place is one of government substance: tax policy, regulation policy or immigration, for example. Instead, the debate about utter governmental dysfunction is taking place — and no one is winning in that fight.
Michael Beato is a UF economics sophomore. His column runs on Tuesdays. A version of this column ran on page 7 on 10/8/2013 under the headline "Too big to fail? Not in the U.S. government’s case"
