“Government should cut programs without measurable results, like a business.”

A business drops a product that does not sell. Supporters of this idea say government should do the same with programs that cannot show measurable results. In July, the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s watchdog agency, reported that many federal programs have no clear, measurable goals, so no one can tell whether they are solving the problem they were created to fix. The Department of Government Efficiency pushed to cut programs last year, though it also cancelled many of the evaluations that measure results. A February poll found voters in both parties back using evidence in government, but they prefer expanding programs that work (58%) over cutting programs that do not (37%). Critics say government is not a business: it has no profit to measure, and some of its goals are hard to count.

Pierre Lemieux, economist writing in Cato Institute’s Regulation magazine (agrees): A barber’s real measure is his profit, but government has no profit, so “some metrics are required to (imperfectly) measure if taxpayers get more value than what they are forced to pay in taxes.” Philip Joyce, University of Maryland public policy professor (disagrees): “Private-sector performance is measured by profitability, while performance measurement in government needs to focus on the achievement of outcomes.” He says government must weigh many values, not just efficiency. Leya Mohsin, Federation of American Scientists (middle): A large study found D.C.’s school scholarship program did not raise test scores, but it did raise graduation rates and parent satisfaction. She says “the study’s results don’t necessarily mean the program should be discontinued,” but that it shows room to improve.