For decades Republicans ran for office on the idea that they could bring about smaller, less expensive government. This, of course, was largely unachievable goal. Why? From the earliest days of our country, the necessity of a strong central government was tantamount to holding together 13 diverse states. When Washington took the reins of our new country, he was what was then called a “Federalist.” It was largely the only political party in the early days of the United States. Those who opposed it were call the “anti-Federalists.” In the federal elections of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran for the presidency against John Adams calling himself a “Democratic Republican.” Upon winning, he kept his promise by first reducing the size of our Navy to an unsustainable small size.

My expertise on this topic comes from having spent 30+ years employed by the Federal Government, 11 years of which was on active duty in the Army. Additionally, I hold a master’s degree in U.S. History. The Federal Government is responsible for working for the good of the entire nation in which the 50 states are seen as one. All government, from local to federal, exists in part to spend monies gain via taxes of all color.

How does government spend money. Let’s take the U.S. Military’s spending. For fiscal year 2023, the Federal Government has allocated $773 billion. The Defense Department must spend that entire amount by September 30, 2023 or lose it. The Defense Department has certain expenses where it can “spend” its money immediately. That is, paying for all employees to include soldiers for that year. The way all parts of the government spends money is that, in the simplest terms, it says it has given those monies to the soldiers and all DoD personnel. After that, it is sort of difficult process of contracts. In 2022, that amount was $338 billion. (www.usaspending.gov)

Throughout its history the Federal Government has relied heavily on the private sector to meet its needs. For example, from its earliest days, the military has relied upon companies like Smith & Wesson, Springfield Amory, Colt, and others for the latest advancement in guns. The DoD decided it needed a gun to replace the M-16 which the Colt company had been manufacturing since the mid-1960s. It told Colt what it wanted in the new gun, the M-4. The DoD awarded Colt a contract to do the research and development for the new rifle. In my non-accurate, for argument’s sake only, the government award Colt a contract right at the beginning of that year $10 million based on Colt’s proposal for how much that year’s R&D budget. There existed a back-and-forth conversation between Colt and the Federal Government. In June the DoD tells Colt it needs to make a major modification in$1 the specification for that new gun. Colt takes that and by year’s end the government has awarded, and Colt has spent $9 million. That $1 million dollars is required to be sent back to the U.S. Treasury. Now in the new fiscal year Colt tells the DoD that it still needs that $1 million dollars from the previous year plus another $15 million. The Federal Government later that year makes another major change and Colt says it is going to need an additional $4 million. That becomes $4 million of unbudgeted spending. Take that example and spread it among its 3.5 million budgets it spends each year and you can start to see where the excesses come in. Politicians and the public alike see this as government waste. The Federal Government has 226 separate agencies that need funding.

At its lowest level, a government contract can take 100s man-hours of work. Next, that agency puts the contract out for bid. The idea that the government must take the lowest bid is erroneous. There are hundreds of companies that via experience, the government has declared habitually underperforming. These companies are not banned from bidding on the contract, but the awarding agency can use the information to take a bid which is higher than that of the underperforming company. But there is a process by which the government is not hamstrung with annual budgeting which would allow for lower long-term costs. That is, by awarding monies to a different Federal Department the money needed to fund a project. This is called “industrial spending” but is a little used tool.

I worked at the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center in Cambridge Massachusetts. For 2/3 of my career there I worked exclusively on DoD funded projects, the last 1/3 on FAA projects. The Volpe Center does not appear on the Federal Budget for what is called “line item” spending. That is, when the DOT puts in its annual budget, the Volpe Center is not listed. That is because the entirety of the Center’s budget comes from contracts awarded to it from other agencies. When those agencies give the Volpe Center its money, the U.S. Treasury sees that as money spent and therefore not bounded by a fiscal year. That is, let’s say the DoD gives Volpe a $50 award. During the fiscal year Volpe only spends $20 of the awarded money. Because the Treasury sees this as spent money, the Volpe Center is not required to return the money to the Treasury. I am suggesting that the entire Federal Government if it found ways to “spend” its money in a matter where it does not have to budget each year for certain programs.

Another way to reduce “waste” is via a process called IV&V, independent validation and verification. This is simply an oversight by another agency to ensure that its awarded monies are being spent in the most cost-effective ways. IV&V is a method where a single person can oversee a large contract at a very low cost. That is, the cost of using IV&V far outweighs the cost were it not used.

The most visible effect of using the above processes is that waste, fraud and abuse can be easily managed if not entirely eliminated in any single contract. It would be a wise move for all portions of the Federal Government to understand exactly how the Volpe Center works and apply it to its own agencies.