Eliminate and reduce unneeded departments and agencies

  • Massachusetts state government has more than 540 departments and agencies; with a WEEKLY combined budget of approximately $1 Billion.
  • We can save billions every year by opening up the books of each government agency and asking these questions:
    • What is its purpose?
    • How much does it cost taxpayers every year?
    • How much waste can we eliminate without affecting the service the agency provides?
    • Can it be combined with other agencies to save money?
    • What results does this agency produce? Is it worth the money?
    • Is this an essential service?
    • Is the service this agency provides higher priority or lower priority than giving back those tax dollars to the men and women who earned them, stimulating the economy and creating jobs?
  • Taxpayers may conclude that many of these agencies can either be reduced, consolidated or eliminated completely.
  • Some agencies may provide services that are “nice to have” but cannot be justified. For example, it may be nice to renovate a small museum that gets only modest visitor traffic every year. But is it justifiable to ask taxpayers to pay for such things? In this difficult economy, is it better to allow taxpayers to keep more of their earnings, stimulate the economy and create private sector jobs?
  • If we were to eliminate the 25 lowest-priority agencies out of the 540 (one out of every 22 agencies),  we would save $2.4 Billion per year, every year — enough to lower the sales tax to 3%. That would still leave 515 state bureaucracies intact.
  • Can Massachusetts survive with only 515 state bureaucracies?
  • Can we get by with a lot fewer than 515 bureaucracies?
  • Save $ Billions
Spread the word:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Posterous
  • Digg
Email to a Friend Email to a Friend

One Response to “Eliminate and reduce unneeded departments and agencies”

  1. imjustmusing says:

    I have said this for years. The State does not set priorities based on “needs” only “wants” and as the writer states “this would be nice to have”.

    Like many people in their own households they have a problem differentiating between what they need and what they want. This is why there is such tunnel vision and all we here from the opponents is “We have to cut local aid” It’s BS

Leave a Reply