WINNING THE BUDGET BATTLE

 

[Published in the Sunday Guardian of India and Newsmax]

The best way to effectively end waste and rein-in government spending is to have the U.S. Supreme Court declare the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public law 93-344) unconstitutional.

America’s public debt is currently $36.22 Trillion. It was only $475 billion when the Congressional Budget Act became law in 1974.

The Congressional Budget Act created the current framework within which the Federal Budget is proposed, passed, and implemented.  It placed Congress firmly in the driver’s seat, and blocked future President’s from taking actions deemed constitutional and prudent for over 171 years.

The result was instant and dramatic.  In the six years prior to the 1974 Act, the federal budget increased on an average of $13.4 billion annually.  In the seven years after the Act, the federal increased by over $49 billion annually.

The Peterson Foundation for the study of the National Debt observed: “From 1950-1974, federal deficits averaged 0.7% of GDP. After the Congressional Budget Act was adopted, from 1975-2007, deficits averaged 2.5% of GDP. And when the Congressional Budget Act was enacted in 1974, real (inflation-adjusted) U.S. government debt per person was $3,240.”

Today, U.S. Government debt is $106,024 per person.

Expanding Presidential power usually erodes democracy, expands government, and facilitates the rise of an increasingly unaccountable “Imperial Presidency”.  Ironically, giving Presidents more power to control spending would do just the opposite.

The struggle over government spending has been a fundamental point of contention since the earliest days of our Federal Government.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution outlines the power of Congress to create laws [Sections 1 & 8] and the prevailing nature of those laws once signed by the President or passed over a Presidential Veto [Section 7].
Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests all executive power in the President of the United States [Section 1].

This division of power and responsibility was validated by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1825, "the difference between the departments undoubtedly is that the legislature makes, the executive executes, and the judiciary construes the law." [Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, 44 (1825)]

Earlier, Chief Justice Marshall, in his famous Marbury v. Madison, defined the difference between political acts belonging to the executive branch alone as opposed to those executive acts governed by congressional enactments: “He acts, in this respect.., under the authority of the law, and not by instructions of the President.  It is a ministerial act which the law enjoins on a particular officer for a particular purpose...”
[Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)]

However, what happens if Congress creates programs that eventually become unnecessary or obsolete? What happens if Congress continues to authorize and appropriate funds for those programs? What happens if Congress provides more funds than recommended by the Executive Branch or exceeds documented need?

President Thomas Jefferson was the first to test the boundaries of Executive authority to second guess Congressional spending. In the wake of the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson reported that, "the sum of $50,000 appropriated by Congress for providing gunboats remains unexpended. The favorable and peaceful turn of affairs on the Mississippi rendered an immediate execution of that law unnecessary.... "

Following Jefferson’s precedent, subsequent Presidents selectively withheld appropriated funds on programs that were no longer needed. They also asserted they were effectuating congressional intent not circumventing it.

The Depression and World War II provided opportunities for President Franklin Roosevelt to stretch budgetary discretion beyond Jefferson’s “economy” precedent. He moved funds away from what he deemed less important programs to more pressing programs. Post war demobilization gave President Harry S. Truman additional opportunities to hold back Congressional spending. Truman impounded $735 million in additional funds appropriated by Congress to increase to 58 from 48 the President's request for Air Force groups.

This expanded justification for Presidential Impoundment of Congressional funds became bi-partisan when President Dwight D. Eisenhower, set aside $137 million appropriated for the initial procurement of Nike-Zeus anti-missile system hardware. John F. Kennedy impounded $180 million appropriated by Congress over the President's request for developing the B70 Bomber. Lyndon B. Johnson unilaterally decreased federal spending by $5.3 billion to mitigate the inflationary impact of the Vietnam War.

Congress initially supported the President’s role in managing public funds. The Anti-Deficiency Act of 1905 provided that appropriations may, “… be so apportioned by monthly or other allotments as to prevent expenditures in one portion of the year, which may necessitate deficiency or additional appropriations to complete the service of the fiscal year for which said appropriations are made."

The Revised Anti-deficiency Act of 1906 stated: "Whenever it is determined...that any amount so reserved will not be required to carry out the purposes of the appropriation concerned, he [President] shall recommend the rescission of such amount ..."

President Warren Harding’s Budget Bureau Director, Charles E. Dawes, further asserted that an agency was not required to spend its total appropriation if it could fulfill its objectives by spending a lesser amount.

Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1951, continued to expand Presidential flexibility on managing and controlling spending: “In apportioning any appropriations, reserves may be established to provide for contingencies or to affect savings whenever savings are made possible through changes in requirements, greater efficiency of operations, or other developments subsequent to the date on which such appropriation was made.”

Legislative liberals began to challenge Presidential spending control.  Congressman George H. Mahon (D-TX) raised concerns regarding the passage of the 1951 Act: "I would not object, as I know other members would not object, to any reasonable economies in government. But economy is one thing, and the abandonment of a policy and program of Congress is another thing."

Recipients of federal funds began to challenge Presidential control of spending.  The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, began to constrict Presidential impoundment and other executive branch practices to control spending. 

These new battle lines hardened when President Richard Nixon mounted a more aggressive and effective effort to rein-in federal spending.  The Supreme Court, even under centrist Chief Justice Warren Burger, continued to build legal precedents against Presidential budget frugality.

“Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution vests "[a]ll legislative powers" in the Congress. No budget message of the President can alter that power and force the Congress to act to preserve legislative programs from extinction prior to the time Congress has declared that they shall terminate, either by its action or inaction.... Thus, in absence of any contrary legislation, the defendant's plans to terminate the CAA functions and the OEO itself are unlawful as beyond his statutory authority.” [American Federation of Government Employees v. Phillips, 358 F. Supp. 60 (1973)]

Nixon continued to impound congressionally appropriated funds. During the 1973-1974 budget year, Nixon refused to spend $12 billion. Congressional Democrats, sensing the decline in Presidential power in the wake of the mounting Watergate scandal, passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Nixon signed the law on July 12, 1974, one of his final major acts in office.

After extinguishing the President’s ability to control spending the federal budget more than tripled in just ten years.  From $269 billion in Fiscal 1974 to $851 in Fiscal 1984. Annual federal spending is now $6.5 trillion.

When the Republicans retook the House of Representatives after forty years, Newt Gingrich tried to reassert the President’s role in budget management by proposing the Line-Item Veto.  This was a key part of his 1994 “Contract with America”. It became a rallying cry for fiscal “hawks” from across the political spectrum. Former President Ronald Reagan added his voice to the renewed effort: “When I was governor of California, the governor had the line-item veto, and so you could veto parts of the spending in a bill. The president can’t do that. I think, frankly—of course, I’m prejudiced—government would be far better off if the president had the right of line-item veto.”

The bill was introduced by Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) on January 4, 1995, cosponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and 29 other senators. Related House Bills included H.R. 147, H.R. 391, H.R. 2, H.R. 27 and H.R. 3136. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 9, 1996.

Budget “hawks” from both parties cheered, and President Clinton began using the line-item veto and budgets became balanced.  Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), and others who opposed this “assault on Congressional prerogatives”, filed in court to void the law.  Their case was tossed out over lack of standing. Another case, filed by a city, succeeded in declaring the Line-Item Veto unconstitutional. [Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)]

On January 31, 2006, President George W. Bush proposed the “Legislative Line-Item Veto Act of 2006”.  Conservatives once again rallied to giving the President expanded budgetary powers. It was introduced in the House by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and passed overwhelmingly on June 22, 2006. However, the Senate killed similar legislation.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reveals daily evidence of how unbridled government spending wastes billions while lining the pockets of favored contractors and corrupt officials.

America is already barreling toward bankruptcy. Reestablishing the constitutionality of the President’s power to control spending is the only way to save us.

MUSK vs FEDERAL LEVIATHAN

 

[Published in the Sunday Guardian of India and Newsmax]

The United States (U.S.) must confront Federal Government spending.  U.S. national debt is now $35.7 trillion USD.  This is larger than the country’s $29 trillion USD Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Paying interest on the debt now exceeds $658 billion USD a year.  This debt service is becoming an increasingly large part of annual spending for the Federal Government.

Reducing the size and cost of government is a major priority for former President, Donald Trump.

He is promoting Elon Musk’s plan to find and cut trillions of dollars in Federal Government waste.

Musk will only succeed if he moves boldly and learns from the past.  His current plan to build a bureaucracy to fight bureaucracy will end in frustration.

The Federal bureaucracy has fended off countless similar efforts.

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan established something similar to Musk’s proposed effort.  The Grace Commission was charged with identifying and eradicating waste. Reagan first used the phrase, “Drain the Swamp” as part of the Commission’s mission.

Businessman, J. Peter Grace, formed the President’s Private Sector Survey for Cost Control (PPSSCC) as a separate organization funded by private sources. Over 150 prominent business leaders volunteered their time as overseers and members of the PPSSCC Task Forces. Its 36 task forces generated 2,478 recommendations that identified $424 billion USD ($1,243 billion in 2024 value) to be saved in three years. Congress ignored them all. 

Earlier government waste initiatives include the 1974-76 Commission on Federal Paperwork.  It was designed to assess paperwork burdens and implement the Paperwork Reduction Act.  The Commission employed hundreds of people to review government forms and processes.

This was my first job in Washington, DC.  As a graduate student at American University, I was a management analyst for the Housing Task Force.  One of my most surreal findings was a 36 foot (12 meter) long flow chart for applying to build government subsidized housing. The report’s 800 recommendations were issued and vanished.  Very few of the recommendations were implemented.

Vice President Al Gore led the “National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR)” initiative under President Bill Clinton.  It intended “to make the federal government work better, cost less, and get results Americans care about". During its five years, it was a catalyst for several operational changes, including the elimination of over 100 programs, the use of performance measurements, and expanding technology.

However, it promised savings of $207 billion USD never materialized.

There are other ways to rein in government waste.  They just haven’t been used.

Every year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and 73 Department and Agency based Inspector General Offices issue reports.  Annually they uncover over $650 billion USD in waste.   These reports include recommended actions.  Virtually none of them are implemented.

One example: Improper payments (payments that are made incorrectly) cost the U.S. over $200 billion USD a year. The GAO estimates that the U.S. government has lost almost $2.4 trillion USD in simple payment errors over the last two decades.  No action has been taken.

Every year outsiders expose government waste.

Senator Rand Paul issues his Annual “Festivus Report” each December.  It focuses on dubious grants and contracts.  His 2023 report revealed the U.S. government paid $900 billion for worthless research, fraudulent claims, and subsidies to domestic millionaires and foreign tyrants. Some of his specific findings included: an National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant to study Russian cats walking on a treadmill, Barbies used as proof of ID for receiving COVID Paycheck Protection Program funds, $6 million to promote tourism in Egypt, and $200 million to ‘struggling artists’ like Post Malone, Chris Brown, and Lil Wayne.

Dr. Rand Paul Releases 2023 ‘Festivus’ Report on Government Waste - Senator Rand Paul

Senator James Lanford issues his “Federal Fumbles Report” that highlights laughable waste.

Federal Fumbles - Senator James Lankford

Citizens Against Government Waste’s annual “Pig Book” illuminates questionable earmarks (now called Congressionally Directed Spending).

2024 Congressional Pig Book | Citizens Against Government Waste

The challenge is not finding the waste, but actually doing something about it.

There are steps that should be taken.

Step One – Clean House 

The U.S. Government’s Executive Branch includes mostly career personnel. They are selected through a competitive application process.  Once past a probationary period they can only be removed for cause. 

However, there are thousands of Executive Branch personnel who hold “policy positions” and are not eligible for career status protection.  These individuals are appointed by the President and his Office of Presidential Personnel (OPP).  They are “at will” employees and may be removed at any time for any reason.  The listing of these policy positions is known as the “Plum Book”.  It lists around 8,000 personnel that have limited or no career protection. 

As Director of Personnel for the Reagan Campaign and Transition, I looked at organizational charts for all career personnel who directly reported to policy officials or worked in policy offices.  There were also hundreds of agency and programmatic advisory boards and committees with their own support staff.  All of these people, upwards of 50,000, can be transferred or reassigned to clear operational pathways.

Only the Reagan Transition of 1980-81 completely cleared the policy and operational pathways.  This allowed the “Reagan Revolution” to move rapidly on a broad front to fundamentally change U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

An incoming Presidential Administration usually asks for the resignations from every political appointee from the prior administration.  However, some do not comply.  Other “holdovers” find career positions.  Some create consulting arrangements to remain on the public payroll.

The Executive Branch is awash with contractors. Many of them owe their allegiance to prior administrations. All have a vested interest in garnering more money for themselves.  A detailed review of these contracts and contractors can empty out large swaths of those loyal to the “status quo”.  Many of these contracts may be poorly written and administered.  Some may have no real value.  Ending these contracts will save billions.

Step Two – Take Control

A new President is like a ship’s captain.  They stand on the ship’s bridge to control its course.  In reality, this “captain” initially has no control beyond the bridge.  The size and complexity of the Federal Government hampers any change of course.  Too many activities have lives of their own, managed by individuals who are wedded to the “status quo”.

A new President needs to insert “Change Teams”, professionals skilled and committed to making the new Administration an immediate operational reality, into all Cabinet Departments and major agencies to instantly end the previous era.  This means full control of every key decision.  This covers all legal, regulatory, procurement, personnel, grants, and expenditures.

Nothing should happen until signed off by the Change Teams. 

Locking everything down also means revoking all delegations of authority and forcing every action, communication, and policy into the hands of the Change Teams immediately.  The Change Teams must literally patrol the corridors and rattle doorknobs to make sure no one is extending the actions of the prior era.  The first few days of Reagan’s Presidency found numerous examples of career employees refusing to yield.  In one case, a grant administrator had to be physically stopped from approving $350,000 USD of Carter era grants still sitting on his desk.

Bringing in new people who are loyal and competent is vital.  So is finding and promoting their career counterparts.  Whistleblowers exposed many problems during the Biden-Harris Administration.  They should become key advisors for identifying career allies and ferreting out resistance.

Both Republican and Democrat political appointees complain that their career colleagues often hide, spin, or fake facts.  This is not partisan.  Careerists want to protect their power, turf, reputation, and pet projects.  In many cases, careerists go through the motions of supporting the new Administration without doing anything.  Discovering and thwarting “Malicious Compliance” is a major challenge. This even happens within the Office of the President as this organization is filled with career employees. 

The transition planning process needs to start identifying trusted colleagues ASAP.  These may be whistleblowers who will embrace change, and confidential sources who have already proven themselves credible to Congress and media allies.  This first wave of trusted professionals identifies those they trust, and so on, until there is a critical mass to substantively shift policy and operational direction throughout the Executive Branch.

Step Three – Follow the Money

Approximately $1.028 trillion USD remains unexpended among general accounts and $461 billion USD remains unspent in trust funds.  While these funds are technically obligated, the fact that they have languished for years raises questions about their use and management.  These funds can be reclaimed and reused.

Look for the accounting code “1941” on federal agency accounts.  This code is for “unexpired unobligated balances”.  Another database is expired grant accounts. The GAO uncovered 7,500 just in Department of Health & Human Services’ Payment Management System.  Thousands of lapsed grant accounts are briming with money that will never be used but can be reclaimed.

The late Senator, Tom Coburn, exposed these funds in a detailed report, “Money for Nothing”. Nothing was done.  The U.S. media ignored his findings.

Microsoft Word - MONEY FOR NOTHING June 6 - final

Another code is the “Current Services Budget”, or “Baseline” budget. This outlines how much it costs to maintain existing services at current levels. It factors in various cost drivers - cost of living increases, escalation clauses in contracts, etc. Funding above “Current Service” is a spending increase.  This is a built in “ratchet effect” to expanding government.

Step Four – Eliminate Programs

Congress is the headwaters of expanding government.  Every year new programs, entities, and reporting requirements are established.  Members from both parties jealously guard their progeny.

Reviewing which ones are obsolete and duplicative may shame some in Congress to let them fade away.  Some may have lost their protection as their creator has left Congress. It took years for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process to eliminate obsolete facilities.

Abolition opportunities abound for those programs directly created by the Executive Branch.  These have no basis in law but are created under the concept of “management by news release”. One day stories that result in never ending wasteful activity.  Other programs are training projects to promote specific ideological ends, such as climate change, critical race theory, and transgender awareness.

Eliminating whole Agencies and Departments requires more courage than exists in Congress. 

Step Five – Reduce Personnel

Instituting a real hiring freeze will rapidly drop numbers through retirements and “churn” (people leaving government to take nongovernment jobs).  Special exemptions will be required as specific vacancies for performing real tasks arise.  These waivers should only be granted by the Change Teams. Do not conduct mass firings or “Reduction in Force” (RIFs).  This triggers an array of procedural impediments and legal actions.

Reagan’s General Services Administration (GSA) cut nearly two thirds of its workforce in three years using a hiring freeze without a RIF. No legal action occurred.

Congress establishes programs and organizations, but rarely details how they are staffed or managed.  This is the best opportunity to delayer, reduce, and consolidate.

The private sector has found that 2-5 layers of management are more than adequate to assure success. Corporate performance “dashboards”, knowledge management, and empowering/enabling front line workers led to abolishing the antiquated concepts of span of control, pecking order, and fiefdoms.  It is time for the Federal Government to join the 21^st Century and eliminate up to 23 layers of obsolete command & control supervisors, countless numbers of extraneous planning staffs, and unnecessary program overseers. 

Americans deserve value from every dollar spent. 

They rarely receive even $0.12 USD of value per $1.00 USD. 

Many dollars spent generate no value at all.

It is long overdue to fight Federal Government waste and win.

 

GAO’s UKRAINE SMEAR

[Published on Newsmax]

The anti-Trump chorus is breathlessly declaring the January 16, Government Accountability Office (GAO) report asserts “Trump broke the law” regarding Ukraine aid. 

That is not what the report states and that is not what happened.

The GAO serves a vital oversight function for the Federal Government.  Annually, GAO reports on waste, fraud, and mismanagement identify billions of dollars in potential savings. The Agency studiously avoids politics by outlining procedural and legal compliance issues.

GAO Report B-331564 is different, as it is incomplete on facts while overstating the Trump Administration’s noncompliance with a controversial law.

The report never admits that the Ukraine Aid in question was, in fact, released on September 11, prior to the deadline of September 30, 2019.

This omission is fundamental to the entire Ukraine matter and undermines GAO’s credibility.

The GAO report centers on the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). This was passed as part of Congress reining-in President Richard Nixon.  Nixon had impounded funds for many programs and agencies to counter Congressional spending sprees.  His actions continued a long-standing practice, going back to Thomas Jefferson, of Presidents exercising fiscal discipline to thwart Congressional overspending.

https://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/2015/04/budget-battles.html?m=0

The Congress took advantage of Nixon’s ebbing power by pushing through the ICA and other legislation to open the spending flood gates.  Discretionary spending has ballooned out of control ever since.

Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have attempted to restore the balance in budgeting and spending policy.  The GAO’s Ukraine report cites numerous court cases where Clinton and other Presidents have sought court assistance to set limits and clarify processes.

All funds were released prior to the Congressional deadline.  The delay in releasing Ukraine funds never crossed these legal lines. 

In fact, the delays fully complied with the law authorizing the funds (PL 115-232), as it explicitly stated that, “In order to obligate more than fifty percent of the amount appropriated, DOD was also required to certify to Congress that Ukraine had taken ‘substantial actions’ on defense institutional reforms’”.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued numerous “apportionment schedules” with footnotes explaining the delay in releasing the funds was to “allow for an interagency process to determine best use of such funds”.  Each memo consistently stated that, “this brief pause in obligations will not preclude DOD’s timely execution of the final policy direction.”

One part of the foreign military financing (FMF) earmarked for Ukraine was delayed only six days.

The GAO Ukraine report, clearly states that:

“The President may temporarily withhold funds from obligation—but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President transmits the special message—by proposing a “deferral.”  2 U.S.C. § 684”

At no point in the Ukraine Report does the GAO find that OMB or the President triggered a deferral or impoundment.  Therefore, there was no violation of the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

However, the GAO pours through countless memos from the OMB, as well as OMB responses to GAO questions.  Unfortunately, OMB’s responses dug avoidable holes into which the Trump Administration fell by raising needless challenges to the ICA.

OMB engaged in a battle it did not need to fight.  This triggered GAO having to recount the ICA battles from other Administrations and pointing out the flaws in OMB’s arguments.  OMB responded by not responding.  As the GAO-OMB dialogue dissipated, political rhetoric seeped-in.

The GAO stepped over their line by asserting there may be “potential impoundments” where none exist.  You either impound or you don’t.  There is no “potential”. The GAO ascribes “policy reasons” for the delay of funds without providing any evidence. 

Finally, to carve out its own place in the Impeachment, the GAO violated decades of its own professional code of conduct by declaring, “We consider a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance”.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a dedicated Never-Trumper, requested the GAO Ukraine report on October 30, 2019.  He kept demanding GAO provide a report sooner versus later in a letter dated December 23, 2019.  The GAO admits that its report is a work in progress and states it is waiting on additional information from the State Department and OMB. 

Unfortunately, Thomas Armstrong, GAO General Counsel, was willing to risk the agency’s reputation as the gold standard of oversight, by prematurely releasing an incomplete and flawed report, immediately relegating it to just another politically charged smear.

FUNDING THE WALL

[Published on Newsmax]

The solution to America’s Border Wall is hiding in plain sight.

Instead of fighting what may be a losing battle with Congress, President Trump should trigger a well-established, legal, and proven good management practice of “reallocating unused federal funds” to build America’s Border Wall.

All it will take to complete the next phase of the Border Wall is the stroke of President Trump’s pen and a push of a button from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The simple solution is mining “unobligated balances” throughout the Executive Branch.

Every year funds are allocated for federal projects and programs based on estimates. Congress adds money when those estimates fall short, even if caused by waste and fraud. Funds sit idle when spending is less than expected.

Families face this situation all the time. You take cash to buy fast food and have change left over. That change ends up in a coin jar. A family member eventually takes the coin jar to a bank or Coinstar to turn pennies, dimes, nickels, and quarters into easier spent dollars.

Presidents, since Lyndon Johnson, have funded their priorities mining these unobligated balances through the mechanism of a “budget sweep”. The President authorizes the Director of OMB to request Executive Branch Departments and Agencies to return unobligated and unexpended funds back to the Treasury.

Johnson funded his Great Society and the Vietnam War with the billions in “loose change” lying around Executive Branch Agencies. Nixon funded the Vietnam War. Carter funded expanding domestic programs. Reagan brought down the Soviet Empire. The Bushes fought their Iraq wars. Clinton juggled funds to stay within Republican Congressional budget limits.

Then something changed. During his eight years in office, President Obama allowed $914.8 billion in unexpended, unobligated, funds to pile-up across the federal government. He never did a budget sweep. This number continues to climb under President Trump, who has also not authorized a budget sweep.

Unexpended, unobligated funds are dutifully reported under “Assets and Balance Sheets” of the federal budget released each year by the Office of Management and Budget. These funds are documented, in detail, in every Department and Agency budget under the accounting code “1941”. For the current fiscal year, there is over $150 billion in “1941” unexpended, unobligated balances in the Defense Department alone.

An additional $1.028 trillion remains unexpended among general accounts, and $461 billion remains unspent in trust funds. While these funds are technically obligated, the fact that they languish for years raises questions about their use, management, and relevance.

There is, therefore, a total of $2.651 trillion in existing Executive Branch funds potentially available for immediate reallocation.

In June 2012, to his eternal credit, former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn issued a blistering report, “Money for Nothing” that exposed these funds for the first time. Unfortunately, not even conservative media covered it.

Senator Coburn documented this in his “Money for Nothing” report:

“In total, the federal government is projected to end fiscal 2012 with more than $2 trillion in unexpended funds that will be carried over to next year, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. While more than two-thirds of this amount is obligated for specific purposes, $687 billion remains unobligated, meaning it is essentially money for nothing."

The existence, processes, and uses of unexpended, unobligated funds were reported by the few conservatives among Trump’s Transition Team, to no avail. OMB officials were given detailed 1941 account spread sheets, as were several Cabinet Secretaries and their staffs. Nothing happened.

Trump must take control of the Border Wall project with processes and funds that already exist and are in plain sight.

OUR DERELICT CONGRESS

Published in Newsmax
#DEEPSWAMP #RINOgator



Republicans on Capitol Hill are doing everything possible to lose their majorities in 2018.  They always seemed uneasy in the Majority.  They may get their wish and have the voters return them to a permanent Minority.

Senate Republican Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, recently railed against President Trump about “excessive expectations” and not knowing the “reality of lawmaking”.

Is it “excessive” to think the Senate and House should pass a Budget Resolution?  Every previous Congress passed one by April.  The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 mandates Congress pass an overall Budget Resolution to guide Appropriations.  This year’s budget resolution was introduced on July 21, with no action scheduled. Republicans have majorities in both Chambers, what is the hold up?

Is it “excessive” to think the Senate and House should pass eleven Appropriation Bills to fund the government?  Up through 2014, the House passed all eleven bills by July.  Since the Republicans took the Senate in 2015, only a few Appropriation bills even passed the House.  Not one has passed the House in 2017.   Hearings haven’t even been scheduled.

Is it “excessive” to think the Congress should spend time actually working?  The House met for only eight days in April, twelve days in May, and will not meet in August. Worse, in 2017, House votes are scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesdays, and none are scheduled on Fridays.  This means most House Members only work two and a half days a week.  They can fly in Tuesday afternoon and leave Thursday night without being recorded as absent on the other days.  So in July there were only nine days of actual voting.  The same nine days of voting are scheduled for September, even though there is a firm end of month deadline for funding the government past September 30, 2017. 

Is it “excessive” to expect Members of Congress to work for citizens and not for themselves?  When Members are “in session”, they spend up to four hours every day making political fundraising calls out of the Republican and Democrat national headquarters near the Capitol.  Instead of participating in debate, attending hearings, and listening to constituents, Members are sitting in cubicles, wearing headsets, and making calls to shake down donors for campaign money.

Does the “reality of lawmaking” include casting fake votes for use in direct mail fundraising?  That is what happened in 2015 when Senators Alexander, Capito, Heller, McCain, Murkowski, and Portman voted for a straight repeal of Obamacare.  They knew President Obama would veto the legislation, their votes were used in campaign ads and fundraising.  These six Senators voted against a straight repeal of Obamacare in July 2017, because they knew President Trump would sign the bill.  When do votes reflect real policy instead of fake propaganda acts?

Does the “reality of lawmaking” include crippling President Trump’s ability to have his team running the Executive Branch?  Since Trump was sworn-in, Republicans and the conservative media blamed Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats for holding up Presidential appointments.  However, on the last day before the Senate left for their August Recess, Republicans unanimously invoked a procedure that prevented Trump from naming Recess Appointments.  This has never before been used against a Party’s own President.  Why didn’t Senate Republicans negotiate with Trump allowing him to Recess Appoint key nominees stalled in the confirmation process?  This act of treachery shows Senate Republicans truly want Trump to fail.

If they were in the military, Capitol Hill Republicans would have been Court Martialed for dereliction of duty.  Their actions, and inactions, are the very definition of dereliction: 

United States Code Title 10, Section 892, Article 92 - Member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties…Article 92 also applies to members whose acts or omissions rise to the level of criminally negligent behavior. 

Why are Congressional Republicans so determined to obliterate themselves and their Party?  

Americans deserve better.

TRUMPING THE BUDGET 2017

Published at http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/trump-speech-congress-budget/2017/03/02/id/776514/ #TRUMPING

President Trump’s inspiring and visionary speech to the Joint Session of Congress harkened back to the best of Ronald Reagan.    Just like Reagan, Trump has an historic opportunity to change the future of American government.  In his case, he can reframe the Federal Budget in business terms.  This means having the Executive Branch live within its means, demanding real value for money spent, and full accountability. Trump’s business-based approach will fundamentally challenge decades of out of control spending and waste.  This is the true test for his “draining the swamp”.

Members of Congress, from both parties, must be viable partners in bringing reality to government spending. This will be a challenge for those who usually protect Americans’ tax dollars with all the restraint of unsupervised Kindergartners with a bowl of M&Ms.

Much has already been made of Trump increasing Defense spending by $54 billion while seeking corresponding cuts in civilian discretionary spending.  Trump and his team need to understand that the Defense Department wastes funds just like civilian agencies.  Secretary Mattis could aggressively pursue military waste and confront questionable expenditures.  Good management can reallocate many additional billions to rebuild America’s capabilities.

Special interests across the political spectrum are already howling about cutting $54 billion from the FY2018 budget. The usual Washington Establishment commentators are rendering their garments predicting chaos, lay-offs, and other mayhem. This pre-emptive assault covers-up the vast sums of federal money lying around doing nothing.

There is $914.8 billion in unexpended, unobligated, funds piled up across the federal government within 1941 Accounts. Obama never conducted the “budget sweeps” done by all his predecessors. Trump, and his OMB Director, can recover these funds with the push of a button.

Another $1.028 trillion remains unexpended among general accounts and $461 billion remains unspent in trust funds.  While these funds are technically obligated, the fact that they have languished for years raises questions about their use and their management.  OMB should conduct an immediate review to sort out the worthy from the waste.

One of Trump’s first acts was to initiate an Executive Branch hiring freeze outside of Defense and Security functions.  A full freeze would have cut $350 billion annually in personnel costs, because 60,000+ employees a year leave government through retirements and voluntary departures. Not every vacancy should be filled.

Trump could save over $400 billion annually by delayering the entire Executive Branch.  Those on the front line of service are the ones who actually interact and provide tangible service to the public.  These positions, not the hierarchy, are what really matter. 

The private sector has found that 3-5 layers are more than adequate to assure the success of the front line.  Corporate performance “dashboards”, knowledge management, and empowering/enabling the front line have tossed away the old span of controls and pecking orders.  It is time for the Federal Government to join the 21^st Century and eliminate from 9-23 layers of obsolete command & control supervisors and countless numbers of extraneous planners and monitors. 

It is also time to finally end hundreds of billions spent on federal programs based upon outdated ideological agendas and pork barrel politics.  Why does the Federal Government spend billions running regional electric companies?  Isn’t it time to finally end FDR’s 1930s power grab before its centennial?  The Executive Branch is haunted by the costly ghosts of power grabs and boondoggles from Presidents Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama. 

It is time to take full advantage of a dynamic President and Republican Congress to exorcise these costly phantoms once and for all.

Americans demanded a completely different way of doing business in Washington, DC.  Trump and the Republican Congress can prove they are serious about making this change with the 2018 Budget.

TRUMPING ZIKA

[Originally published at:http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/budget/2016/09/14/id/748321/ ]

How do you spell fiscal fiasco? “Z-I-K-A”.

The battle over funding necessary research to combat the spreading Zika Virus has ground Congress to a halt.

The Obama Administration has plead poverty and asked for $1.9 billion in additional funds. Congress decided to exploit this urgency and necessity by loading up the legislation with politically charged amendments. Votes on such amendments are used by both parties to fuel fund-raising appeals.

Once again, the Washington, DC Establishment is putting partisan fund-raising ahead of the health and safety of Americans.

It gets worse – $21 billion in unspent unobligated funds are already laying around the very programs and agencies charged with fighting Zika.

On August 26, Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and James Lankford (R-OK) sent a letter to the Secretary Burwell of Health and Human Services (HHS) calling her out on these unexpended balances. She responded back on September 1, asserting she had already “repurposed” $374 million and could not do anything more.

Unfortunately, Burwell’s response contradicts President Obama’s declaration that $589 million has been “repurposed”, and the fact that only $180 million has actually been spent.

Washington’s budgetary “hide and seek” needs to stop.

Every Federal Department and Agency ends the fiscal year with unspent funds. Former Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) exposed this in his ground breaking report “Money for Nothing” issued in June 2012. Since his report, the amount of federal funds sitting doing nothing, and because they are unobligated will continue to do nothing, has soared to $909 billion.

This nearly $1 trillion in tax dollars are hiding in plain site. Go to the Office of Management and Budget website. Look up “budget” and “assets”. Every penny of federal spending is reported and categorized. Accounting code “1941” is for “unexpired unobligated balances”. Fiscal years 2015 (actual) and 2016 & 2017 (projected) are listed.

It does not take a certified accountant to realize there are a lot of “1941” line items in every part of the federal budget, each totaling millions of dollars. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) uncovered 7,500 expired grant accounts spread through HHS’s Payment Management System, all with funds that will never be used.

The two front line agencies charged with researching and fighting Zika are the Center for Disease Control (CDC), with $1.27 billion in unobligated funds, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with $722 million in unobligated funds. Both program directors have testified that they are completely out of money.

It is unseemly to play bureaucratic and partisan games with peoples’ lives.

16,000 Americans have become infected by Zika, mostly in Puerto Rico. So far 17 American babies have been born with birth defects and another 5 died in miscarriages. This is just the beginning. Zika has substantially impacted Brazil, with approximately 1.5 million cases. Encephalitis type illnesses are causing memory loss and depression in adults, while neurological birth defects (such as smaller frontal lobes) have risen 400% since 2014.

Congress is racing the clock on funding the federal government past September 30, 2016. Members spent more time this year in Republican and Democrat fund-raising call centers than doing their job.

This Congressional negligence means yet another fiscal cliff, with the usual government shutdown hysteria ending in a Continuing Resolution (CR). This year’s battleground is already strewn with political explosives. Conservatives want to ban Planned Parenthood from using federal funds to screen pregnant women for Zika. Liberals somehow think banning Confederate Flags has something to do with public health.

Washington, DC is infested with political parasites and infected with arrogant opportunism.

It is time to consider a revolutionary cure, which includes stopping the budget games and spending tax dollars wisely.

Both sides should listen to Trump’s call for putting America, and Americans, first.

TRUMPING THE BUDGET

[Published in http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/budget-congress-cronies-omb/2016/08/23/id/744737/ ]

It is time for Trump to do what he does best – expose how the Washington, DC Establishment lies its way to expanding government and helping its cronies.

Donald Trump has an historic opportunity to reframe and reset the budget battles that have plagued Washington, DC for years.

Members of Congress, when they return after their longest summer break in over fifty years, will be teetering on a chasm of their own making.  They will have only seventeen legislative days to pass twelve Appropriation bills.  Only a handful cleared the House prior to its long recess and none were considered in the Senate.  This guarantees much “sound and fury” ending in an Omnibus Appropriations bill, with several continuing resolutions to avoid a government shutdown.

Posturing by the Congress, the White House, candidates, and the media will reach fever pitch around the time of the first Presidential Debate on September 26.

Trump’s role in defusing this latest fiscal bomb can take several forms.

First, reveal how $2.405 trillion is just laying around doing nothing. 

Since President Obama took office, $914.8 billion in unexpended, unobligated, funds have piled up across the federal government. Obama never conducted the “budget sweeps” done by all his predecessors. The details are reported under “Assets and Balance Sheets” on page ten of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) budget. 

Another $1.028 trillion remains unexpended among general accounts and $461 billion remains unspent in trust funds.  While these funds are technically obligated, the fact that they have languished for years raises questions about their use and their management.

Second, reveal the red herring of entitlements.  Everyone knows that the only way to truly stop massive federal spending and debt is to reform entitlements.  The trap is that the required radical reform will not happen anytime soon.  It is like asking an overweight “couch potato” to suddenly jump up and win the Olympics’ Marathon.  No one in Congress, the Executive Branch, or the multitude of stakeholders is ready or willing to make entitlement reform happen.

The alternative is to prepare for tackling entitlements by first working on those budget issues that are long overdue.  This should appeal to anyone not lining their, and their cronies, pockets with federal favors.

The first move is slamming the door shut on filling federal vacancies.  This would cut $350 billion a year in personnel costs. This freeze would take advantage of Executive Branch attrition of 60,000+ employees a year through retirements and voluntary departures. Each agency head could submit waivers to OMB for those jobs they consider essential for their missions.

Not every retired government worker needs to be replaced. In fact, the Defense Department has already begun to leverage selective hiring freezes for a five year “delayering” initiative to eliminate 1,260 positions and save $1.9 billion over five years.  Even under Obama, officials admit not every layer of management (up to 23 layers in some agencies) is needed. Just think how much they could save if they were sincere.

The second way to immediate fiscal sanity is to cut $650 billion in government waste.  Every year, the General Accountability Office (GAO) and 73 Inspector General Offices find over $650 billion in ongoing waste. This waste is documented in 768 GAO reports containing hundreds of recommendations for operational improvement, and 8,760 audits and investigations conducted by the 73 Inspector General Offices among the Cabinet departments and independent agencies of the Executive Branch. 

That translates into $6.5 trillion in possible spending cuts or cost avoidance, over the next ten years, without harming one legitimate beneficiary of government services. Unfortunately, these findings and recommendations are regularly ignored by the Washington Establishment.

Congress, the Executive Branch, and the media are ignoring 9,528 ways to cut government waste every year.

Trump can make the professionals at the GAO and Inspector General offices “rock stars”.  He can look into the camera and say, “No matter how liberal or how conservative you are – you want the government to stop wasting your money.” 

These could be the first steps in shaping Trump’s management revolution as President. They are all bi-partisan issues.  Trump can then build upon these successes to solve the more divisive issue of entitlement reform.

Exposing the truth, and saving billions of dollars, “what do you have to lose?”