Congressional spending on USIP isn't cost-effective
Congressional funding of the USIP is not cost-effective compared to competing forms of public expenditure.

Congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Anthony Weiner, writing in the Wall St Journal, argued that:

The USIP is a "a case study in how government waste thrives. The idea began during the Cold War as a modest proposal with $4 million in seed money. But the organization received government funding year after year essentially because it had been funded the year before—and because it had important allies.."

"...the level of taxpayer support that this private organization receives is excessive. Since 1985, taxpayers have forked over more than $720 million (inflation adjusted). That has included support for a gleaming new 150,000 square foot office building...."

CONTEXT(Help)
-
The Future of the US Institute of Peace »The Future of the US Institute of Peace
Congressional Funding of USIP? »Congressional Funding of USIP?
Withdraw Congressional funding »Withdraw Congressional funding
Necessary cost-saving measure »Necessary cost-saving measure
Congressional spending on USIP isn't cost-effective
Cost–Benefit Analysis? »Cost–Benefit Analysis?
Congressional funding of USIP illustrates how government waste thrives »Congressional funding of USIP illustrates how government waste thrives
Other forms of public expenditure are far less cost-effective »Other forms of public expenditure are far less cost-effective
USIP provides excellent value for money »USIP provides excellent value for money
USIP provides excellent value for money »USIP provides excellent value for money
No oversight hearings held on the USIP since 1985 »No oversight hearings held on the USIP since 1985
+Comments (0)
+Citations (1)
+About