Government can be inefficient and redundant

 “Federal government employees promote duplication, inefficiency. They squander our tax dollars.” -- an accusation levelled at me directly, in-person, December 2024

What Do I Think

Like many, I once accepted this myth without question simply because I had no other evidence . That was 20 years ago. Since then, I’ve navigated four federal agencies, four types of employment, four cities, and eight different laws. This journey has given me a deeper appreciation on what is, undeniably, a complex issue. To unpack it properly, this blog post will be a bit longer than usual—so grab a coffee and settle in!

Here’s the bottom line: Yes, for many reasons, the federal bureaucracy is inefficient. Most of these inefficiencies are similar to those you’d find in the administration of a small town, a large city, a state, or even a major private organization.

I believe what sets the federal government apart is the added complexity of two key clauses in the U.S. Constitution: the “Power of the Purse” and the “Take Care Clause.” These principles not only define the government’s structure but also deeply influence how it operates—and why I think it is inefficient and redundant when compared to the private sector.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this post are solely my own, published under my first amendment rights, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Government or any of its federal agencies.

I am focusing on only one part of a very complex fragmentation-overlap-duplication problem, which is summarized in a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report:

GAO-25-106915 (2024)

Source: Figure 1 of GAO-25-106915 (2024)

What is Power of the Purse? 

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Basically, only Congress can raise (collect), create (print), or decide how the government spends money.

Government programs, broadly speaking, include funding initiatives like Social Security or disaster relief grants, managing facilities such as national parks or military bases, building and maintaining infrastructure like highways or weather stations, and issuing permits. But in each case, Congress must first authorize or establish a program through legislation, and then allocate funding regularly, usually on an annual basis.

For example, in 1976, Congress enacted the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act (Fishery Act). They amended it in 1996 to include a disaster relief program for the fishing industry, which continues to be funded annually through appropriations bills. Over the past 30 years, this program has distributed $1.4 billion in relief.

Is the program inefficient? Probably. Are there problems with it? Certainly. In fact, in 2024, the Congressional Research Service released a 39-page report detailing issues with the program and offering recommendations for improvement. However, only Congress can initiate substantive changes—or defund it altogether. That's the power of the purse.

What is the Take Care Clause?

Once Congress creates and funds a program, the President—through the Executive Branch—must implement it. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Courts have historically placed significant limits on how much discretion the Executive Branch has in implementation. That's the take care clause.

Can a Federal Employee Start or Stop a Program?

No. Federal employees in departments and agencies can only spend money on programs that are both authorized and funded by Congress. They must follow the stated intent of Congress.

Can the Executive Modify a Program?

Yes—but only within certain limits established by law. The boundaries of this discretion are often defined through litigation. For example, in the 2024 Loper Bright Supreme Court decision, the Court significantly restricted an agency’s ability to interpret a Fishery Management law. Similarly, in 2023, the Supreme Court struck down a proposed student loan forgiveness program, arguing that the Department of Education had overstepped the authority that Congress had granted.

The Court ruled that the Secretary of Education’s changes to existing loan provisions were far from minor adjustments, stating: “The Secretary’s new ‘modifications’ of these provisions were not ‘moderate’ or ‘minor.’ Instead, they created a novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program.”

To emphasize its point, the Court made an analogy to the French Revolution, remarking: “The Secretary’s plan has ‘modified’ the cited provisions only in the same sense that ‘the French Revolution “modified” the status of the French nobility’—it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely.”

These two clauses underscore the separation of power. The President is charged with faithfully executing laws of Congress.
Where does the redundancy stem from?

In my opinion, one source of redundancy the complexity of the legislative process. All federal laws are codified in the 80,000+ page U.S. Code. A law passed in 1790s may still be valid today if Congress does not explicitly repeal it and a President may use it. Each new law adds more pages. For instance, one proposed December 2024 Continuing Resolution bill alone was 1,500 pages.

The legislative process creates the following inefficiency factors:

1. Unintentional Overlap. Different laws passed at different times. For example, Congress may fund one Department to provide fishery disaster assistance while another Department provides general disaster assistance. After a disaster, an entity like a seafood processing company or a marine port might be eligible to seek assistance from both programs.

2. Sheer Volume of Laws. No one can thoroughly read, understand, and cross-check every provision in 80,000+ pages of laws. New laws are frequently added without removing old ones.
3. Omnibus Funding and Continuing Resolutions. Annual appropriations may fund entire laws or agencies without scrutinizing individual programs. For instance, if the Fishery Act has ten programs, and Congress passes an omnibus bill funding the entire Act, it effectively mandates that all ten programs continue—regardless of their current relevance or effectiveness.
4. Confidence in departments and agencies. The confidence (or lack thereof) that lawmakers have in a specific federal agency stems from what interest groups tell them. A lawmaker who believes one particular agency can do something more efficiently than another would funnel new programs and funding to that one. But they would rarely work to rescind programs that were authorized to a different agency for fear of offending someone.
For additional perspectives, see the Government Accountability Office (GAO)'s latest annual report, "Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Billions of Dollars in Financial Benefits" (2024).

The Earmark Factor

Congress has its own discretionary funding mechanism that compounds duplication: Congressional Directed Spending, commonly referred to as earmarks. These are pots of money allocated for specific projects that benefit a particular constituency.

A November 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report revealed that in Fiscal Year 2024 alone, Congress allocated $14.6 billion for 8,098 earmarked projects. Returning to our seafood processor and marine port example, this creates a third federal funding option for them. 

The Executive’s Hands Are Tied

Due to the Power of the Purse and Take Care Clause, federal agencies must administer programs as directed by Congress. Even initiatives to reduce redundancy or reform inefficiencies often require legislative action. The Project 2025 report recognizes the executive's inability to unilaterally end earmarks, stating:

“Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons.”

What I (think) I Have Learned:
Both the legislative process and the programs it creates are extremely complex. No single person can fully grasp the intricacies of every law or the operations of every federal program. Yet, lawmakers are basically elected officials driven by a genuine desire to improve the nation, their legislative districts, serve specific interests, and, of course, get re-elected. To succeed, I think they would find it simpler and faster to create a new program or earmark funds for specific projects rather than find and eliminate duplication. After all, they would not want to upset some other group if they end another program. In many cases, we constituents share the blame because we advocate for new programs, regulations, or earmarks because we assume the program doesn't already exist, it is too broken to fix, or too difficult to access.

Additionally, new initiatives and earmarked funds make for more compelling social media and campaign messaging, giving elected officials tangible evidence of progress to showcase to voters.

Is this all theory? What are some examples? 

  • The Tennessee River, a vital 600+ mile tributary of the Ohio River, is a classic example of how federal agencies are given overlapping responsibilities. Multiple agencies—including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Department of Agriculture, and Federal Highway Administration—engage with the river in various ways, such as managing infrastructure, issuing permits, and conducting conservation efforts.

So, who is responsible for the river's water quality? In practice, everyone. Shared responsibility inevitably leads to duplication in monitoring and addressing water quality, as each agency has its own mandate, funding, and approach to solving problems.

  • This complexity isn’t unique to domestic matters. Consider an overseas example highlighted in a 2012 Department of State report. Embassy Nairobi, the largest U.S. embassy in Africa, hosted more than 1,300 personnel across 19 federal agencies.

Each U.S. agency in Kenya operated with Congressional authorization to carry out specific missions. For instance, three U.S. agencies might support the Kenyan judiciary, each from a different angle: one focused on governance, another addressing trade barriers, and a third tackling counterterrorism. Distinct authorizations and funding streams could result in overlapping efforts, such as sponsoring three separate training programs for the same court within the same month.

These examples, though simplified, illustrate how differing statutes, agencies, and objectives can converge, creating inefficiencies even with well-intentioned goals.

OK. But isn’t all this in the background? How does it affect the public?

Let’s walk through one scenario in more detail: a small, rural community in America struggles to attract private commercial companies to improve its internet connectivity. So, where can this community turn for help? At minimum, a dozen different programs could provide grants for broadband infrastructure:

  • U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration’ (NTIA) Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program, the Economic Development Administration’s Economic Adjustment Assistance Program, or the Public Works Program.

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) ReConnect Loan and Grant Program, Rural Utilities Service’s Rural eConnectivity Program, or the Community Connect Grant Program

  • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Universal Support Fund or the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.

  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program

  • Appalachian Regional Commission’s Connect Humanity’s Appalachia Digital Accelerator

  • U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Secure Schools Program

  • Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grants

Each agency has a specific mandate, funding source, and set of criteria for grants. However, these overlapping opportunities can lead to duplicated efforts or confusion. For example, the same community might apply for broadband funding from both the USDA and the NTIA with different applications and different deadlines.

While the lawmakers’ intentions are noble, this scenario highlights the inherent redundancy in federal programs, where Congress mandates multiple agencies to address the same issue through different mechanisms.

To their credit, savvy communities, companies, and individuals have figured out how to tap into these grant programs in order to achieve their goals. See for example, this press release from a company in Alaska: US Broadband Infrastructure Grants: Building Out a More Connected Alaskan Community.

And if all else fails, if they miss a deadline or can’t write a winning proposal, they can lobby their elected official(s) for an earmark. The 2024 GAO report on earmarks has a public dataset of all 8,000 projects. I found 16 that provided broadband, totaling $21 million. This would be over and above the grant programs listed above. 

Why Should You Care:

Don’t jump on the bandwagon and blame federal employees for duplication and inefficiencies. Understand the Power of the Purse and Take Care clauses in the Constitution as well as the separation of duties between the legislative and executive branches. 

One root cause of redundancy lies in the cumulative nature of lawmaking. Consider the problems created by omnibus appropriations or continuing resolutions, which continue funding programs without detailed evaluation or reform. Don’t take my word for it—review the government’s own analyses from the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office that document these challenges.

What can you do? Start by holding your elected officials accountable. Lobby not for shiny new programs or requirements, but for meaningful reforms to existing programs. Advocate for the elimination or consolidation of programs. Push to eliminate earmarks, which divert funds to pet projects instead of addressing broader, systemic needs. At the end of the day, it’s our tax dollars being spent. Our children and grandchildren will inherit the debt that we continue to mount. Understanding the process and pushing for smarter governance is how we ensure our voice makes a difference.

References:

Comments

  1. AnonymousJanuary 28, 2025 at 5:58 AM

    Thanks for the article and explaining it in an understandable way.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please comment on the post or propose another topic for me to articulate my thoughts.

Popular posts

Obituary. USAID (1961-2025). An Introspection and Prediction

Image
I mourn USAID the way we knew it. The agency that I worked for a decade has essentially disappeared, with only a fraction of it reincarnated and subsumed into the State Department. I empathize with all my former USAID colleagues, contractors, grantees, sub-grantees, recipients, project beneficiaries, vendors, and suppliers in the United States and around the world. All of you are economically and emotionally harmed. The battle will ensue in the Courts and in the end, Congress will have no choice but to act (see my January 4 post explaining this locus of power). The next incarnation of US Foreign Assistance will be skinny, laser-focused, more intertwined with U.S. Peace and Security, and obviously A.I.-driven. Disclaimer: the views expressed in this post are solely my own, published under my first amendment rights, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Government or any of its current or former federal agencies. What Other People Say Designed by  Freepik “Aft...
Read more

Fact vs Fiction: dissecting our news feeds

Image
News 1 : A ruthless and determined enemy force of 30 to 40 fighters attacked the U.S. base at 5:20am. In just a few minutes, the U.S. sustained three casualties. A U.S. Army specialist was killed when a rocket propelled grenade destroyed a truck he was driving. Two contract pilots died when their plane caught fire during take off after it was barraged by small arms fire and a rocket propelled grenade. The enemy force destroyed six U.S. aircraft, one allied aircraft, several vehicles, and other property. The U.S. and its ally engaged the enemy fighters for several hours before they withdrew leaving behind six dead. News 2 : The desert wind whipped sand against the canvas of the supply canvas cover. The U.S. sergeant squinted, his eyes watering, as he guided his string of camels through the treacherous terrain. The humped animals, though stubborn, were faring better than the exhausted mules they'd replaced to haul military supplies. A sudden, sharp crack echoed across the hills, foll...
Read more

Gandalf Advice: Stand Up?

Image
“There are other forces in this world, Frodo, besides that of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the ring. In which case, you were also meant to have it, and that is an encouraging thought.” — Gandalf, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring What Do I Think? Gandalf’s words to Frodo reflect an age-old debate: Are we merely playing out a script that has already been written, or do we have the power to shape our own destinies? The struggle between free will and predestination is not just a historical theological debate—it is playing out in society and governance today. It impacts how we interpret success and failure, in how we justify actions, and out day-to-day decisions. Designed by Freepik Christianity has long been divided on this question. Strict Calvinists embrace predestination, the idea that God has already determined who will be saved and who will be damned. In contrast, strict Arminians believe in free will, asserting that while They know what we will choose, the Almighty ...
Read more

Vengeance in scriptures

Image
Consider these three quotes, each regarded as the word of God within their respective religious traditions: "inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the scriptures. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction." “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and oppression is worse than killing.”  “Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” Image by macrovector on Freepik . Before you scroll down to identify the sources (think spoiler), consider what they collectively mean and imply.  What Do I Think When it comes to understanding sacred texts, I find myself navigating between three perspectives. First, that these texts are not exactly what God revealed but rather what men (intentionally gender-specific here, since religious scholars and leaders have historically been male) have altered over time to serve their own interests...
Read more

Shakespeare's "All the world's a stage"

Image
"All the world's a stage" monologue from As You Like It by William Shakespeare (Act II, Scene VII): "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts. His acts being seven ages.  At first the infant, mewling and puking in the nurse's arms. Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel and shining morning face, creeping like snail, unwillingly to school.  And then the lover, sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad made to his mistress' eyebrow.  Then a soldier, full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard. Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel. Seeking the bubble reputation, even in the cannon’s mouth.  And then the justice, in fair round belly, with good capon lined. With eyes severe, and beard of formal cut, Full of wise saws, and modern instances;  And so he plays his part.  The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slippered pantaloon. With ...
Read more

Contact Form - Subscribe to updates or provide a quote for me to respond to

Name

Email *

Message *