Fiscal responsibility: suppose the govt "doesn't spend money it doesn't have."
- Thread starter NAOS
- Start date
Just like anything else. An overhaul would be needed, but it can certainly be done.
Programs that get funding need to have a goal, if goals aren't met, there are consequences.
Any decent venture needs a plan, sets of goals, remedies for deficiencies, and known consequences. Most inefficiencies that I find are a result of a lack of one of the aforementioned. Too much passing the buck, otherwise.
I personally know of several large federal agencies that have to blow money every year at all their local offices so they do not loose that money. They do not need the stuff they get but if they don't get something they lose that money.
Edit: So i base my stance on first hand real life experience that says it is the exact opposite of your stance. Now nothing is ever "all" so I am sure there are agancies that are different but I have seen it is more widespread than people think.
This is among my biggest gripes of all. I personally know of what would likely account for, at least, hundreds of millions of dollars annually..
My point was that, if the money was spent on genuine upgrades that were designed to improve efficiency, it's often a case of "I've managed to save for these items that will really help" rather than "I've got to spend this money needlessly so I can get money I don't need next year". So, merely spending a lot at the end of the fiscal is not necessarily a sign that the spending is wasteful (although I agree some of it will be).
Yes it would. A small local office in a small town blows several grand. Times that by what 5-10 agencies thru how many towns nationally? How much more would a large office say in downtown Seattle or Houston waste? 20 grand? 30?
Waste is absolutely a HUGE, HUGE problem. The government has enough money. T hey are just incapable, for various reasons, of handling it correctly.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
If they are buying things that they do not need just so they do not lose that money it is absolutely wasteful.
Government offices rarely *need* to invest in better computers. They can struggle along with the older ones. however, that doesn't make buying those newer computers wasteful.
I'm not doubting there are examples of waste. However, I have also seen examples of what would, in the private sector, be thought of as investments in productivity.
I'm really only saying it's possible .. and it's not rocket science.. not saying we'll EVER get there.
Waste is an issue in all large beauacracies (such as large health insurance companies). Probably not even PKM can make the entire federal government efficient.
Of course, Brow. No one has ever said everything the government spends money on is waste .. that would be equally as ridiculous as saying there is no waste.
Waste is an issue in all large beauacracies (such as large health insurance companies). Probably not even PKM can make the entire federal government efficient.
Of course not, nor would I want to be the one to try. I see a problem that needs fixed. I have tried to ignore it in the past .. but it's difficult when I see people with needs and a government saying they need more of my money to fix it.
That would be fantastic if the computers and hardware was not already upgraded regularly. I have had two new computers since I came to my office. The new windows and various other upgrades such as chairs, desk, photocopier...
That is not usually part of a local offices budget so your arguement does not really hold water. How many boxes of pens, post its, glue sticks, staples, tape...do I really need to just sit around?
If a private company does not need new computers, but invests in them to decrease customer wait time and increase throughput, is that wasteful?
If the city department handling welfare does not need new computers, but takes advantage of a budget windfall to buy them so theny can decrease wait time and increase throughput, is that wasteful?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
When I worked on-site at Wright-Patterson AFB, many people in DPOE had six-year-old computers. I'm glad you have not had to worry.
Unless the supplies are overflowing the cabinets and being thrown out, but them at the end of one fiscal year just means not having to buy them during the next fiscal year. It's not like that stuff decays.
Waste is an issue in all large beauacracies (such as large health insurance companies). Probably not even PKM can make the entire federal government efficient.
That is the problem. T he problem is so large and so complex that I do not believe there is any single person that is capable of that. It would have to be taken at a local office level and up across all offices across the nation. That or actually truely listen to the ground level people.
It would be such a huge monumental undertaking that it would take a decade or more to fix.
True but why do I need a stack of that crap that is so large that all the stuff on the bottom eventually grows old enough to throw away. I have moved a few government offices and I have had to throw away thousands of dollars in supplies just because things like highlighters had dried up just sitting there. Glue sticks had dried out, post its had faded horribly, stacks of folders no longer fit the cabinets designed for them and boxes of them were thrown out.
So in my example why do the agencies I mention have to waste that money when it can be used to buy the computers that are needed at Wright-Patterson AFB? It is being wasted.
It is inefficient and wasteful by it's very size. All this crap they buy could be put to dozens of better uses.