Dear Congressman Matheson:
Thank
you for the opportunity to give you input for the federal budget
process as we reach the sequestration deadline. I especially appreciate
that you continue to reach out to those of us in the 2nd District that
you represented for many years before
beginning to serve the new 4th District beginning this year. You never
know how district boundaries or other opportunities will change, you
are wise to continue to be interested in those of us you might once
again have reason to work with.
It
is given that there are a lot of hard choices here. Anything that is
decided tends to put the interests of one person or group of people in
preference to those of another, always a difficult decision to make.
Please
particularly note the part of my blog post where I present the major
budget categories as then proposed by the President in dollars per
person. For me it helps put things in perspective.
It
is also given there will be an impact to the overall economy if any
cuts agreed to are too large. Because of that I especially appreciate
your strong desire to reach across the aisle and work to get the leaders
on both sides to make some carefully considered movement.
Specific (Simple)
Recommendations:
1. Overall, I believe sequestration is a reasonable idea. Let's assume for the
moment that each and every federal government program is essential.
There is still efficiencies that could be realized in each program. I
would hope that the labor portion of those efficiencies could be
achieved through
attrition rather than furloughs, and believe they can. It is sad that
we could not agree on how to do this without sequestration, but believe
that overall this is a way we can get started on what needs to be done
year by year, in baby steps, for the next decade and beyond.
2.
There are individual programs that should be completely eliminated, in
addition to implementing efficiencies in all programs. How about trying
for one a year, and starting with the Energy
Department. At $74.67 per person (at February 2011 proposed levels)
this isn't huge, but that's what we need. A little at a time. It is
fair to say that the Energy Department has not met the objectives it was
set up to accomplish when it was established over 30 years ago. Please
work to cut that department by 50% by eliminating it as a separate
department along with many of its agencies. The surviving 50% of its
budget could be added to the budget of the Interior Department, which
would likely absorb the programs that most need to remain.
Thank
you for seriously considering my input. I know I am one voice out of
many, and each of us do count. I know you personally recognize that and
thank you for your service.
Kind regards,
Doug Beecher
La Verkin, Utah
