Politicians like the idea of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.
It’s free money!
Want to spend an extra half trillion on defense? That would bust the budget. But “I’ll save a half trillion at the same time by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” Oh! It’s budget neutral. Go right ahead.
See what I mean?
That’s why, for example, Ronald Reagan campaigned for president on the idea that eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending — while simultaneously cutting taxes and increasing military spending — could lead to a balanced budget. Really. I’m not kidding.
But this is bipartisan.
Bill Clinton highlighted his administration’s efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in programs such as Medicare. Clinton at least occasionally achieved a budget surplus.
Barack Obama’s “Campaign to Cut Waste” set a goal to reduce improper payments by $50 billion before the year 2012. Obama achieved a small part of his goal, and the campaign was later largely abandoned.
Now Donald Trump (aided by his trusty sidekick, Elon Musk) was going to save $1 trillion — or maybe $2 trillion! — by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in government.
I’m sure that every previous president was wrong, and Trump alone can eliminate vast amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse.
Remember that any sensible definition of “waste, fraud, and abuse” means “waste, fraud, and abuse” — not mere differences in policy choices. If, for example, I oppose space exploration, I might say that the entire budget for NASA is “waste” — but it’s not really waste; it’s just that I disagree with Congress about how money should be spent. So, too, if I were a pacifist and insisted that the whole military budget was waste, or if I were a pure capitalist and insisted that the entire government safety net — welfare and unemployment insurance — constituted waste. You could cut those programs, but you wouldn’t be eliminating waste; you’d just be spending according to my policy preferences instead of Congress’s.
When Musk eliminates USAID, he hasn’t eliminated waste. He’s eliminated a program that Congress thought was valuable, and Musk disagreed. So, too, with, for example, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs: You might agree or disagree with the value of these programs, but they’re not what’s typically considered to be waste.
Not only that: After Congress authorizes spending, it’s not clear that Trump or Musk have the power to choose not to spend the appropriation. Congress generally controls spending. If you disagree with spending choices, take it up with Congress; don’t instruct people not to spend congressionally approved appropriations.
This is not to say there’s no waste in government. Of course there is. Any entity that spends huge amounts of money, and is administered by human beings, contains waste, fraud, and abuse.
Spending $400 for a hammer is waste. Spending $7,600 for a coffee maker is waste. Spending $10,000 on a toilet seat cover is waste.
If it were really true that people who were 150 years old were receiving Social Security payments, that would be waste. But of course they weren’t.
“Fraud” and “abuse” are even worse than mere waste. If someone is defrauding the government, I’d sure like the government to sue — or maybe even prosecute — that person for fraud. Fraudsters should get the fate they richly deserve. Of course, I haven’t yet heard a peep about DOGE (or anyone) suing the recently discover fraudsters.
So, too, with the abusers.
Is it possible that DOGE didn’t cut anything that is legitimately called “fraud”?
How much did Musk and the DOGE crew actually save America by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse?
We have no clue.
First, many things that DOGE cut were simply agencies that Musk disapproved of. Eliminating those agencies may reduce federal spending, in ways that may be good or bad, but that’s not eliminating waste, or fraud, or abuse.
Second, many of the federal workers who lost their jobs to DOGE’s axe will ultimately be reinstated, so you can’t count the savings attributed to those workers.
Third, the process of sorting through the legality of Musk’s various actions requires a ton of time by government lawyers, both to investigate what Musk was doing and to litigate any improprieties. You’d have to subtract the government’s cost in legal fees from any amount DOGE claimed to have saved.
Fourth, Musk and his gang never conducted anything like a real audit, so no one knows even what Musk could legitimately claim to have saved.
Perhaps, years from now, someone will calculate whether Musk’s theatrics saved taxpayers even a penny.
Lastly, the icing on the cake. Trump recently tweeted:
Additionally, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security Benefits are not being cut, but are being STRENGTHENED and PROTECTED from the Radical and Destructive Democrats by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse from those Programs.
In his signing speech for the Big, Beautiful Bill, Trump repeated the point:
The largest spending cut — $1.7 trillion, and yet you won’t even notice it. It’s just waste, fraud, and abuse.
If I were you, I’d take that with a grain of salt.
And remember to deduct the cost of the shaker.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.
The post Eliminating ‘Waste, Fraud, And Abuse’ In Government appeared first on Above the Law.