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.

HOW CONGRESS CAN HELP DOGE

 

Published on Newsmax Congress Desperately Needs DOGE-Focused Hearings | Newsmax.com

Congress can assure the success of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by fulfilling its Constitutional duty to oversee the Executive Branch.

The House’s DOGE Subcommittee, Chaired by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, can act as a “Grand Jury”.  The Subcommittee can become a key forum for informing the public of existing waste, fraud, and abuse, building the nonpartisan case for cutting budgets and eliminating programs.  This existing information would be delivered by Inspector Generals who are tasked with performing objective reviews of the finances and operations of the Executive Branch.

The first hearing could review the Defense Department (DOD) failing its 7^th financial audit.

The recent independent financial audit documented that the DOD could not account for $824 billion.

The DOGE Subcommittee could simply have the accountants reveal what they found over the seven years of failed audits.  The Inspector General witnesses will not be hostile.  They will be eager to report their findings in the hopes that tangible reforms might finally be made.

DOGE-focused hearings will be an historic opportunity to bring fundamental and lasting change to the Federal Government.

Over the years, most Congressional Oversight Hearings were contentious as they convened to embarrass the Executive Branch.  Witnesses were hostile and refused to answer questions, obfuscated their answers, and outright lied.  Members ended up talking far more than the witnesses to make their case to counter the bogus testimony.

DOGE-focused hearings will be different. 

Witnesses from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the 73 Inspector General Offices could review the last ten years of their findings.  Each year they collectively report over $650 billion in ongoing waste and provide recommended actions. 

Few of their recommendations were implemented.

What great media moments could occur if credible, nonpartisan, professionals were allowed to present their findings. They would explain how the Executive Branch has squandered $6.5 trillion over the last ten years.  They would list unimplemented reforms, which could form the roadmap of eliminating countless programs and offices.

Waste is not partisan.  No one wants public funds misspent.   

The work of the DOGE Subcommittee could be bolstered by real oversight hearings as part of the Appropriation process.

Congress can control the Executive Branch through its Constitutional power of the purse.  What is funded exists and grows, what isn’t funded shrinks or vanishes.  

Appropriations Committees are mandated to meet and build the case for spending public funds.  Administration witnesses make their case for spending.  Appropriation Committee Members make their alternative case. What should occur is a dialogue designed to align Congressional intent, and Executive Branch actions, to public spending.  What should emerge is legislation with properly vetted financials.  Supporting these numbers should be the hearing record that builds a compelling case for how and why public funds should or shouldn’t be spent.

This rarely happens in Congress.  The result is Congress abdicating its spending control and destabilizing the Constitutional balance between coequal Branches.

There has been a steady decline in incorporating Congressional oversight into the Appropriation process. In 2015, there were 128 House Appropriation hearings prior to marking-up funding legislation. In 2024, there were only 71.  House Appropriators heard from only three of the 73 Inspector Generals.  No one from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was involved.   The handful of “public” witnesses represented Washington-based stakeholder organizations.  No one from oversight groups documenting government waste and abuse were invited to testify.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Appropriation hearings lasted three or more hours.  Hearings in 2024 averaged less than two hours.  In most cases, only the Department/Agency Head testified.

On average only three to five Members of Congress attend these hearings; even though all Subcommittees have at least eleven Members (Defense has sixteen).

There were 43 Senate Appropriation hearings in 2024.  Three Inspector Generals appeared, and there was no witnesses from the GAO or government watchdog groups.

Reversing these trends will be a critical part of establishing DOGE-focused hearings.

Senate and House Authorizing Committees could also help build the case for DOGE reforms by holding their own series of oversight hearings featuring testimony from the Inspector Generals under their respective jurisdictions along with the GAO. 

DOGE-focused hearings with House/Senate Oversight, Appropriations, Authorization Committees could form an echo-chamber of evidence building a compelling nonpartisan case for reducing the size of the Executive Branch and its cost.

The findings of these DOGE-focused hearings will make it easier to pass legislation to eliminate programs, offices, and agencies.  It will also make the case for dramatically reducing the budgets and personnel of obsolete and ineffective Executive Branch activities.

Americans deserve cost-effective government.  DOGE-focused hearings will return Congress to its Constitutional role and responsibility.

DOGE vs FEDERAL LEVIATHAN

 

[Published on Newsmax]

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is igniting widespread support for a long overdue assault on bloated and obsolete Executive Branch programs and agencies.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are applying advanced thinking and technology to eradicate unauthorized programs, “zombie” accounts”, and reclaim unexpended funds.  Their use of artificial or enhanced intelligence will reveal patterns of waste, fraud and abuse by mining years of Inspector General Reports and fraud hotline complaints. This pattern analysis will drive abolition, consolidation, and downsizing.

Finding the right court case and venue for overturning the unconstitutional Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public law 93-344) will be integral to reining in wanton spending.

Citizen Oversight: BUDGET BATTLES

DOGE can build a national movement, and internal government network, to fundamentally change the Federal Government’s mindset and culture for decades to come.  DOGE is posed to have more impact on America’s domestic policy than any other initiative since the 1960s Great Society.

A NATIONAL MOVEMENT

DOGE is the framework.  “War on Waste” (WOW) could be their battle cry. 

Everyone has stories of federal government waste, fraud, and abuse (WFA).  Finding federal waste is like “hunting cows”.  It is everywhere and obvious.

DOGE could ask Americans to “blow the whistle” on WFA.  An online form would identify the program, WFA evidence, and estimated cost.  Everyone who submits a credible WFA case would earn a digital “Waste Warrior” (WW) badge to proudly display.  Best WFA submissions, and the WW heroes who found them, could be featured each month, maybe on the DOGE podcast.  DOGE, WOW, WW, WFA merchandise could become cultural icons.

Grassroots WOW clubs and online communities could further embolden Americans to expose waste nationwide.  These could partner with existing government reform groups like Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) and Open the Books.

THE INSIDERS

DOGE needs to work through allies within the Executive Branch to find additional WFA and to implement tangible and lasting change.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should be the central command center for implementing DOGE recommendations.   The appointment of Russell Vought is a terrific first step.  He will need to build a team within OMB to be fully effective.

Trump should reconstitute Ronald Reagan’s “Cabinet Council on Management and Administration” (CCMA) to drive DOGE reforms through the Executive Branch.  Reagan’s Counselor, Ed Meese, used the CCMA to hold agencies accountable for meeting domestic policy goals, cutting costs, and reducing personnel.  Each Cabinet Department and major agency had a full-time CCMA liaison to make sure these goals were met.

Insider whistleblowers are increasingly stepping forward.  They need to become the network to aid DOGE and identify additional WWs throughout the Executive Branch.

Another pro-DOGE network are career employees who have received graduate credits, degrees, and certificates from conservative academic institutions.  The Institute of World Politics (IWP), founded in 1990 by Reagan National Security officials, has seeded the defense and intelligence agencies with their graduates, all ready to make America strong again.  Since 2010, Hillsdale College’s Washington, DC campus has offered degrees in government to early and mid-career government employees.  Hillsdale College has been a bulwark of constitutional conservatism since 1844.

Trump’s non-career appointees, DOGE advisors, CCMA liaisons, and career allies need to make sure they quickly achieve full knowledge of Executive Branch operations.  The entrenched bureaucracy will fight reform with all resources at their disposal, which are substantial. 

One proven method is “management by walking around”.  It is amazing what can be exposed, and stopped, using this basic approach.  Early in the Reagan Administration, a political appointee visited ACTION’s loading dock.  They discovered crates of the book “Rules for Radicals” by Leftist Saul Alinsky being readied for distribution to community organizations across the nation. The shipment was stopped and the books either returned to the publisher or destroyed.

In another instance, a government warehouse manager asserted he needed to buy twelve additional forklifts to meet the tighter response time for shipping supplies.  A political appointee did a surprise inspection finding twenty inactive forklifts because there were not enough certified operators.  The manager was immediately fired.

Insiders can review contracts.  Outsiders must file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that will be slow-walked by the bureaucracy. 

Most federal contracts are poorly written and ineptly managed. This is intentional, as kick-backs and crony capitalism rule the day.  In one bizarre case, the General Services Administration (GSA) signed a multi-million contract to renovate the eighth-floor utility rooms at their headquarters.  An audit revealed the building only had seven floors. The contracting officer certified the fictious work was done, money was paid and split with the contractor. The contracting officer and contractor went to jail. 

Whether we love a program or hate it, we want every penny spent honestly, ethically, and effectively. 

DOGE could be the bi-partisan crusade that unites all Americans.

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.