Eliminating ‘Waste, Fraud, And Abuse’ In Government – Above the Law

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 [email protected].