Government waste is the proverbial “monkey on one’s back.” And it’s hard to shake off. Currently, DOGE is trying to lift the “monkey” of waste from the back of Uncle Sam, but a number of Democrats are helping the monkey hold on. Why?
I suppose it would be too much to ask the liberal media’s pundits to ask Democrats the simple question, “Why do you support waste and fraud?” And as a corollary, to ask Republicans, “Why haven’t you done anything to eliminate waste and fraud?” Both parties have been complicit in the snowballing of fraud and waste.
A Previously Told Anecdote
During Bush II’s presidency, I was called into a state representative’s office to discuss redoing research I had done on greenhouse gas emissions. The young representative, a Democrat, and his chief of staff, were intent on doing something that would put Republicans and particularly George Bush II in a bad light. They thought the energy/global warming issue was their best option. As we discussed the nature of the research necessary for the project, the representative asked, “How much would such a study cost?”
I thought for a minute or two, calculating the number of graduate research assistants I would need and the totals for their salaries, any materials, and travel, eventually saying—this was in early 2000—“about $60,000-65,000.” The representative looked shocked, and then said, “Is that all? It seems like so little.”
I said, “Look, I am a taxpayer. If I balloon the cost, I’m taking money I’ll have to pay along with other taxpayers. No, legitimately, I can do the study for that amount, maybe less; I have always come in under budget.”
He then pulled back in his chair, and said, “When I came to Harrisburg, I was enthused to tackle the problem of government waste. But I didn’t realize how big the problem was. These politicians think nothing of spending or throwing tax money at anything that will buy them votes. Politicians have “walking-around money” they’ll give to their local community for a parade, for example, or for improvement in a local firehall’s ballroom. The scale of spending is just too large to control; representatives and senators all have their hands in the till. Everyone is spend-happy. I was expecting you to say ‘well over $100,000 for the study, maybe $200,000.’”
I’ve told that story before, so, sorry if you’ve heard it. But it seems germane to the current news about DOGE, excesses in government spending, and outright fraud. It also says something about purposes for which politicians spend money. The chief of staff and the young politician were motivated (the latter, I believe, convinced by the former) by their political desire to negatively affect Bush and other Republicans.
I never did the research the representative and I discussed as the national conversation switched to the 9-11 attacks. In looking back, I’m happy that that ship sailed without me, but I did another and larger study for Pennsylvania on developing “green energy technologies” that I believed would be supplemental to fossil fuels but that wouldn’t replace them. Little did I know how “off the deep end” Democrats would go in trying to eliminate fossil fuels and in spending untold tax money on projects to achieve that goal.
As I have said elsewhere, I did the Commonwealth’s study on greenhouse gas emissions, a study that was funded by the USEPA through the Pennsylvania Energy Office, and one that the USEPA said it would use as a model for the other states to follow. Had I known at the time how politicized carbon dioxide would become, I might not have done that initial study. Mine and others’ similar studies became the basis for all the wasted dollars spent on projects, such as Solyndra. Such studies also motivated Obama’s and then Biden’s war on coal, oil, and natural gas that provided America with cheap energy. If we could only recover all the money thrown at global warming/climate change that enriched people and quashed fossil fuels without affecting global temperature…Well, that’s water that has passed over the dam of recovery.
The Democrat Mindset: Another Anecdote
Of course, no anecdote is proof of anything, and even a plethora of anecdotes don’t add to confirmation of anything. Inductive thinking never leads to unshakeable proof because there’s always something more to add or an exception. Nevertheless, I have a strong belief that Democrats believe throwing money at a problem is the only path to a solution.
I was on a field trip with college students sometime before my meeting I mentioned above. Dressed for climbing over rocks in Vermont and New Hampshire one morning, I went for coffee and donuts in the Montpelier hotel where I often stayed with students because 1) it was cheap and 2) if you’ve ever been to Montpelier, VT, you know the little capital isn’t a Mecca with numerous hotels. Anyway, as I entered the hotel’s free breakfast room, I saw a couple of tables occupied by Vermont representatives and senators, the men in suits and the women in dresses, who were going into sessions in the Capitol that morning. They were engaged in talk that led me to believe all were Democrats. I heard, “Yeah, Bush doesn’t want to do anything about energy” and other similar comments.”
Standing at the coffee pot across the room, I turned and interrupted their conversation. Now, picture this. I was unshaven, dressed in old jeans, a hoody, and wearing work boots, pretty much looking like a homeless man who sneaked in for the free donuts. Startled and a bit afraid that I was about to attack, they all grew silent and looked as I said, “Excuse me, I hear you want George Bush to do something about energy.” Some sheepishly nodded. I continued, “So, let me get this straight, you want George Bush to do something about energy, but you are all seated by the big picture window through which that morning sunlight is streaming. Yet not one of you thought to turn off the lights. Do you want George Bush to fly up from D.C. to flip the switch for you? And I have to ask, since you all stayed in the hotel. Did you use just a single towel this morning or two towels. You know it takes energy to wash towels. Also, I hope everyone carpooled to get here for your sessions. That would have saved energy.” The room fell silent as I picked up my styrofoam coffee cup, wished them all a good day, and left. I’m guessing that they did not return to their conversation about how Bush didn’t do anything about energy through some project funded through a government agency.
Government Spending Is Really Bureaucratic Spending
The monkey of waste is on the government’s back because people like those in Montpelier and elsewhere expect the government to fund solutions. But the funding is never precise, and once put in the hands of bureaucrats, it goes to whatever they choose to do with it, including egregious expenditures like that infamous GSA conference in Las Vegas that cost taxpayers more than $800,000. *
Unproductive conferences and unnecessary travel are par for government agencies. After the GSA scandal, the Obama Administration instituted new regulations on conferences, but still allowed agencies to throw conferences that cost up to $500,000. According to an article by Eric Katz, reducing the amount an agency could spend on conferences saved millions (see *). But agencies to this year have still run to or held conferences, spending tens of thousands—or more on each.
The only way to ensure a savings is to reduce the bureaucracy. It’s the monkey on Uncle Sam’s back.
*Katz, Eric. Looking Back at the GSA Scandal: Did the Administration Overreact?
https://www.govexec.com/management/2015/01/looking-back-gsa-scandal-did-administration-overreact/103764/
I suppose it would be too much to ask the liberal media’s pundits to ask Democrats the simple question, “Why do you support waste and fraud?” And as a corollary, to ask Republicans, “Why haven’t you done anything to eliminate waste and fraud?” Both parties have been complicit in the snowballing of fraud and waste.
A Previously Told Anecdote
During Bush II’s presidency, I was called into a state representative’s office to discuss redoing research I had done on greenhouse gas emissions. The young representative, a Democrat, and his chief of staff, were intent on doing something that would put Republicans and particularly George Bush II in a bad light. They thought the energy/global warming issue was their best option. As we discussed the nature of the research necessary for the project, the representative asked, “How much would such a study cost?”
I thought for a minute or two, calculating the number of graduate research assistants I would need and the totals for their salaries, any materials, and travel, eventually saying—this was in early 2000—“about $60,000-65,000.” The representative looked shocked, and then said, “Is that all? It seems like so little.”
I said, “Look, I am a taxpayer. If I balloon the cost, I’m taking money I’ll have to pay along with other taxpayers. No, legitimately, I can do the study for that amount, maybe less; I have always come in under budget.”
He then pulled back in his chair, and said, “When I came to Harrisburg, I was enthused to tackle the problem of government waste. But I didn’t realize how big the problem was. These politicians think nothing of spending or throwing tax money at anything that will buy them votes. Politicians have “walking-around money” they’ll give to their local community for a parade, for example, or for improvement in a local firehall’s ballroom. The scale of spending is just too large to control; representatives and senators all have their hands in the till. Everyone is spend-happy. I was expecting you to say ‘well over $100,000 for the study, maybe $200,000.’”
I’ve told that story before, so, sorry if you’ve heard it. But it seems germane to the current news about DOGE, excesses in government spending, and outright fraud. It also says something about purposes for which politicians spend money. The chief of staff and the young politician were motivated (the latter, I believe, convinced by the former) by their political desire to negatively affect Bush and other Republicans.
I never did the research the representative and I discussed as the national conversation switched to the 9-11 attacks. In looking back, I’m happy that that ship sailed without me, but I did another and larger study for Pennsylvania on developing “green energy technologies” that I believed would be supplemental to fossil fuels but that wouldn’t replace them. Little did I know how “off the deep end” Democrats would go in trying to eliminate fossil fuels and in spending untold tax money on projects to achieve that goal.
As I have said elsewhere, I did the Commonwealth’s study on greenhouse gas emissions, a study that was funded by the USEPA through the Pennsylvania Energy Office, and one that the USEPA said it would use as a model for the other states to follow. Had I known at the time how politicized carbon dioxide would become, I might not have done that initial study. Mine and others’ similar studies became the basis for all the wasted dollars spent on projects, such as Solyndra. Such studies also motivated Obama’s and then Biden’s war on coal, oil, and natural gas that provided America with cheap energy. If we could only recover all the money thrown at global warming/climate change that enriched people and quashed fossil fuels without affecting global temperature…Well, that’s water that has passed over the dam of recovery.
The Democrat Mindset: Another Anecdote
Of course, no anecdote is proof of anything, and even a plethora of anecdotes don’t add to confirmation of anything. Inductive thinking never leads to unshakeable proof because there’s always something more to add or an exception. Nevertheless, I have a strong belief that Democrats believe throwing money at a problem is the only path to a solution.
I was on a field trip with college students sometime before my meeting I mentioned above. Dressed for climbing over rocks in Vermont and New Hampshire one morning, I went for coffee and donuts in the Montpelier hotel where I often stayed with students because 1) it was cheap and 2) if you’ve ever been to Montpelier, VT, you know the little capital isn’t a Mecca with numerous hotels. Anyway, as I entered the hotel’s free breakfast room, I saw a couple of tables occupied by Vermont representatives and senators, the men in suits and the women in dresses, who were going into sessions in the Capitol that morning. They were engaged in talk that led me to believe all were Democrats. I heard, “Yeah, Bush doesn’t want to do anything about energy” and other similar comments.”
Standing at the coffee pot across the room, I turned and interrupted their conversation. Now, picture this. I was unshaven, dressed in old jeans, a hoody, and wearing work boots, pretty much looking like a homeless man who sneaked in for the free donuts. Startled and a bit afraid that I was about to attack, they all grew silent and looked as I said, “Excuse me, I hear you want George Bush to do something about energy.” Some sheepishly nodded. I continued, “So, let me get this straight, you want George Bush to do something about energy, but you are all seated by the big picture window through which that morning sunlight is streaming. Yet not one of you thought to turn off the lights. Do you want George Bush to fly up from D.C. to flip the switch for you? And I have to ask, since you all stayed in the hotel. Did you use just a single towel this morning or two towels. You know it takes energy to wash towels. Also, I hope everyone carpooled to get here for your sessions. That would have saved energy.” The room fell silent as I picked up my styrofoam coffee cup, wished them all a good day, and left. I’m guessing that they did not return to their conversation about how Bush didn’t do anything about energy through some project funded through a government agency.
Government Spending Is Really Bureaucratic Spending
The monkey of waste is on the government’s back because people like those in Montpelier and elsewhere expect the government to fund solutions. But the funding is never precise, and once put in the hands of bureaucrats, it goes to whatever they choose to do with it, including egregious expenditures like that infamous GSA conference in Las Vegas that cost taxpayers more than $800,000. *
Unproductive conferences and unnecessary travel are par for government agencies. After the GSA scandal, the Obama Administration instituted new regulations on conferences, but still allowed agencies to throw conferences that cost up to $500,000. According to an article by Eric Katz, reducing the amount an agency could spend on conferences saved millions (see *). But agencies to this year have still run to or held conferences, spending tens of thousands—or more on each.
The only way to ensure a savings is to reduce the bureaucracy. It’s the monkey on Uncle Sam’s back.
*Katz, Eric. Looking Back at the GSA Scandal: Did the Administration Overreact?
https://www.govexec.com/management/2015/01/looking-back-gsa-scandal-did-administration-overreact/103764/
RSS Feed