• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is the structure of the federal budget inherently flawed?

O

Orsorum

Lifer
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the federal government allocates funds based on how each dept. used the funds the previous year - thus, if they were efficient and cut their fund usage by 10%, they would recieve a 10% deduction in their budget the following fiscal year.

Doesn't this invite blatant abuse and mismanagement by the system? If you have no system of incentives or rewards for efficiency, and in fact are rewarded for doing the exact opposite (using as much money as possible as to maintain your current budget level)....

*sigh* My head hurts.

I am still wondering why the government is not due for a massive internal audit, dept. by dept (yes, I realize it would be a massive undertaking, but it might be worth it to trim the federal budget).
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the federal government allocates funds based on how each dept. used the funds the previous year - thus, if they were efficient and cut their fund usage by 10%, they would recieve a 10% deduction in their budget the following fiscal year.

Doesn't this invite blatant abuse and mismanagement by the system? If you have no system of incentives or rewards for efficiency, and in fact are rewarded for doing the exact opposite (using as much money as possible as to maintain your current budget level)....

*sigh* My head hurts.

I am still wondering why the government is not due for a massive internal audit, dept. by dept (yes, I realize it would be a massive undertaking, but it might be worth it to trim the federal budget).
Click to expand...
Yes, at least to an extent. So do many businesses. In both cases, you will see a rush at the end of the fiscal year to spend all of your budget so you don't lose any $$$ the next year.

The alternative, starting from scratch each year, is a tremendous amount of work. I'm not suggesting it's right, just acknowledging that it's common.
 
Yup. Also, believe it or not, the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) has NEVER been audited despite the fact that they are the ones who print all our money.
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the federal government allocates funds based on how each dept. used the funds the previous year - thus, if they were efficient and cut their fund usage by 10%, they would recieve a 10% deduction in their budget the following fiscal year.

Doesn't this invite blatant abuse and mismanagement by the system? If you have no system of incentives or rewards for efficiency, and in fact are rewarded for doing the exact opposite (using as much money as possible as to maintain your current budget level)....

*sigh* My head hurts.

I am still wondering why the government is not due for a massive internal audit, dept. by dept (yes, I realize it would be a massive undertaking, but it might be worth it to trim the federal budget).
Click to expand...

This system is completely broke. You should see the the moeny flying out the door at the end of the fiscal year as departments scable to spend anything that is left.
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
I am still wondering why the government is not due for a massive internal audit, dept. by dept (yes, I realize it would be a massive undertaking, but it might be worth it to trim the federal budget).
Click to expand...

Yes - This is VERY MUCH needed. But it also needs to be done along with auditing the usefulness of the Dept and it's spin-offs. Unfortumately there isn't much "glory"(ie vote getting) in doing such a thing. Hopefully someday we get a group of people elected that will do the deed. The 94 Freshmen tried but alas were swallowed up in the whole political sewer.

CkG
 
Hopefully someday we get a group of people elected that will do the deed. The 94 Freshmen tried but alas were swallowed up in the whole political sewer.
Click to expand...
Considering the majority of those elected in '94 still hold office (some have even moved to the Senate) . . . they weren't swallowed up in the sewer . . . they are the sewer.
 
most large organizations operate that way. i think carter made them all account for everything fresh one year, instead of doing everything incrementally. it didn't help much.
 
The complexity of the sysytem(any system) leads to situations like this. It's impossible for 1 person or committee to oversee all Dept/Sections spending in Realtime, so each Dept/Section Oversees itself, add in that those above the various Depts/Sections have determined that those Dept/Sections which have money leftover don't need as much next Fiscal Year, then each Dept/Section is encouraged to use up the Funds given to it.

I suppose that the Higher Ups' could change it by giving bonuses to those Dept/Sections that have excess funds at the end of the Fiscal Year, but then the various Dept/Sections would just underfund their programs. You could also choose to gaurantee a Dept/Section a certain level of Funding, thereby allowing them to carry excees from one Fiscal Year to the next, but then after some time someone will see a tidy sum of cash and either want it for themselves(General Revenue for eg) or will choose to review that Dept/Sections level of Funding, thus having the Spend-it-all effect on the Dept/Sections.

Basically, it doesn't matter how you do it, there will always be an amount of corruption/waste, so the answer isn't to restructure how it's done, but to review the various Dept/Sections every few years to see where the fat is and cut it out. As long as each Dept/Section has a clear mandate and clearly set programs to follow, though they try to offload their excess funds at the end of the Fiscal Year, their "waste" may not actually be "waste". IOW, it makes sense for a Dept/Section to be stingier closer to the begining of the Fiscal Year then at the end, simply because if they ran out during the Fiscal Year they'd be up shatcreek. So it is wise for them to have some extra at the end, just in case.
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
What kind of incentives could be offered to encourage less spending?
Click to expand...

"Profit sharing", err, giving employees a percent of money saved, but like I said in my post, that would likely just result in people not spending in order to line their own pockets.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Orsorum
What kind of incentives could be offered to encourage less spending?
Click to expand...

"Profit sharing", err, giving employees a percent of money saved, but like I said in my post, that would likely just result in people not spending in order to line their own pockets.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... so, perhaps make it a goal to reduce spending while simultaneously conducting random audits from year to year to make sure goals are being accomplished?
 
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Orsorum
What kind of incentives could be offered to encourage less spending?
Click to expand...

"Profit sharing", err, giving employees a percent of money saved, but like I said in my post, that would likely just result in people not spending in order to line their own pockets.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... so, perhaps make it a goal to reduce spending while simultaneously conducting random audits from year to year to make sure goals are being accomplished?
Click to expand...

I think so. I also think it may work that way to a certain extent already, but couldn't say for sure.
 
YES, that is definately one of the factors that keeps the system FUBAR.

And for once I agree with most of CkG's post - we must be nearing the end of the universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top