In the way of contrasting opinion, I don't go for the argument these agencies lack funding. The FDA for example, has historically received on the order of a 10% increase in funding each and every year. What these agencies lack is intense public oversight. When you have inspectors making $60K per year, to investigate multi billion dollar mega corporations, and everything takes place in secrecy, behind closed doors, you're asking for trouble. At that point you may as well disband the agency in question, save tax payers billions in wasted tax dollars, and let the corporations pass on their savings on bribes to the consumer.

The FDA's budget is currently well in excess of $2 billion annually. That is a LOT of money! It's my view tax payers need to take a few steps back from the "mo' money" mantra, and start demanding value received for value given. A fairly simple mechanism to accomplish that goal would be to make it a standard practice to fire the top highest paid 5% of agency management whenever government agencies fail to fulfill the objectives that are the sole reason for their existance in the first place. Agencies should also be subject to the same kind of reorganization that benefits large corporations when companies find themselves bogged down due to lack of efficency and productivity - consolidate, eliminate nonproducing units, lay off unproductive staff, replace ineffective management, etc..

If they do end up limited to a 3% increase, that'll be the first time in a long time. The last I heard, they'd been handed a substantial appropriation to hire more staff, etc.. Still, Congress should stop trying to fix every broken agency by throwing more money at it.

I saw a great quote awhile back, something along the lines of: "When government gets big enough to give you everything you want, it's big enough to take everything you have."

Don, whenever they hold oversight committee meetings (I watch those occasionally) - the answer from the agency is always mo' money.  The FDA does spend a lot of that on drugs (which seems to be a mainstay maker for everyone concerned) - and less on food (much less pet food).

Also, deregulation doesn't seem to work (look at the Credit Card Industry) - and extrapolate that to the drug industry.

The antithesis answer would be to spend less on drugs, and more on food?  That, of course, has been their arguments to the house and senate when it cmes to budgeting.