Congress Is Fiscally Reckless. Will Lawmakers Step Up?
Trump is talking about cutting government spending, but that's mostly in Congress' hands.

America's greatness lies not in perfection but in her relentless pursuit of it. For nearly 250 years, this nation has strived to fully realize the revolutionary ideals laid out in its founding documents. While we have often fallen short, our capacity for self-reflection and renewal inspires hope and spurs improvement.
Let us hope the efforts of President-elect Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and others to reassess the aspects of government that border the presidency are performed in that same spirit. Let us also hope that Congress steps up to the plate and engages in its own self-reflection.
For the past few decades, Congress has transformed its constitutional "power of the purse" from a tool of responsible governance into an instrument of fiscal destructiveness. The most visible sign is a national debt that just crossed the $36 trillion threshold, barely three months after reaching $35 trillion. This is nuts. This year's budget deficit is $1.9 trillion and will be $2.8 trillion in 10 years. Instead of practicing careful budgeting and oversight, Congress repeatedly relies on massive omnibus spending bills, often passed in haste without proper review.
The abdication of duty is bipartisan. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have shown genuine commitment to restoring fiscal responsibility. Basic oversight functions, like passing individual appropriations bills on schedule or conducting rigorous cost-benefit analyses, are regularly ignored. And, of course, very few in Congress want to take the steps needed to stabilize the major drivers of the government's future debt: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Beyond this cowardice, Congress' fiscal frivolity is visible everywhere. Take the issue of expired authorization. The newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has already flagged "$516 billion to programs whose authorizations previously expired under federal law. Nearly $320 billion of that $516 billion expired more a decade ago."
This, again, is nuts. It not only reveals that Congress doesn't care much about its own rules and oversight power—if members want to continue spending on these programs, they should duly reauthorize them—but shows that the government is way too big for Congress to handle.
Next, take the issue of improper payments. According to the Government Accountability Office, payments that "should not have been made or that were made in an incorrect amount" reached $236 billion last year. Since 2003, the total has been $2.7 trillion. Medicare and Medicaid each account for over $50 billion annually, while the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program had $3.6 billion. GAO offers recommendations to address a small part of the problem, but Congress has failed to adopt them. Improper payments continue and even grow every year.
Congress also ignores large-scale fraud throughout the budget. GAO estimates the annual financial loss at "between $233 billion and $521 billion" based on data from 2018 through 2022. According to reports, the estimated annual fraud for Medicare and Medicaid was at least $100 billion in 2023.
No private-sector company would stay afloat were its officials to permit this level of fraud and waste. Yet the federal government suffers no consequences because neither we nor our representatives in Congress hold it accountable. Twenty-first century technology could likely prevent the vast majority of the fraud and improper payments. That may be the most effective use of DOGE, with all the engineers and geeks who can bring a precise, scientific approach.
Last but not least is the Department of Defense, which has failed its seventh audit since 2018. Its size, we're told, is the main reason why. It spent over $824 billion and employs 3.4 million service members and civilians deployed over many countries. In this case, Congress has demanded a clean audit—by 2028. Here's to hoping.
I could go on, but in the end, the message is clear: Congress isn't doing its job.
The sheer size of the federal government has created a self-perpetuating vortex of dysfunction. The bureaucracy and scale of spending have grown so vast and complex that meaningful oversight has become nearly impossible. But while Congress cannot effectively monitor the thousands of programs, agencies, and expenditures under its purview, by making only token attempts to live up to its constitutional responsibilities, it all but ensures even more waste, duplication, and programs that continue long past their usefulness.
The only cure is to shrink the size of government. Trump is talking about it, but it's mostly in Congress' hands.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This also shows what a crap judicial system the US has.
The Supreme Court has ruled that taxpayers have no standing to sue to stop this. I believe they even ruled the Representatives do not have standing to sue to stop illegal spending.
The government protects itself. The worst thing about the 1787 Constitution is it leaves the definition of government's limits to government itself. States have no ability to rein in the feds. Citizens have no ability to rein in either the feds or the states.
Voting is not the answer. It's one vote for one Representative ever two years, and one vote for President every four years. Imagine if every consumer item was sold by a government monopoly store, and your choice was (a) the guy who hates crunchy peanut butter but wants all cars to have four doors, and (b) the guy who hates ball point pens and wants all shoes to use velcro instead of laces. And the unelected bureaucrats made every other decision on what stores stocked.
The easiest most powerful fix is to allow every citizen to sue for review of any law or regulation they wanted, paying for a jury of 12 random adults to individually describe what the law or regulation does, and if more than 1 or 2 disagree, the law or regulation is void. Of course the citizen has to pay for the review to get decent incentives. Maybe there are better idea. But government defining its own limits is long-term suicide.
Stop re-electing people over and over. Stop voting for political family dynasties. Stop voting for professional politicians.
At the federal level our only choices are professional politicians. Those who want to help fix the system and the people are weeded out at the local level.
You mean like trump?
Can't hire competent assassins anymore.
Votes are meaningless in any practical sense. Stop pretending government can be fixed by telling people to vote better.
The best way to change things is to keep doing the same thing.
Or to ‘eliminate’ the problems.
Pick random people off the street as legislators. The only exception is that lawyers cannot be chosen. Terms for both Senate and House are four years.
I’ve often wondered if a lottery would yield better results than elections.
Not if you win.
LOL
The bureaucracy isn't elected.
I agree with the court. Since your tax bill has no relationship to legislative spending, where would you get standing to sue over the latter? You do have standing to sue over the amount you're taxed.
Similarly, since the legislature itself votes that spending, how could their members have standing to sue over it?
It's just common sense.
It's not common sense. It's ritual, like a fig leaf to hide the naughty bits and pretend they don't exist. It sure as hell has no relationship to justice.
Link taxes and voting then. Give people one vote for every 10K in net taxes they pay. People who receive government funds (government employees, welfare recipients, retirees, government contractors) shouldn't get a say in how the money provided by taxpayers is spent. Usually in a club, only people who pay dues get to vote, not the people the club hires.
You mean like when Obama spent billions on insurer bailouts that didn't exist in the law or other spending authorization and everyone shrugged?
The Supreme Court has ruled that taxpayers have no standing to sue to stop this.
....
Voting is not the answer
I think you're analysis is spot on, but we're pretty much powerless to enact this change, aren't we? We could only indirectly vote for presidents that would appoint SC justices to overturn this precedent. We're farther away from this solution than voting for fiscally responsible reps. Or do you have another idea?
BTW, I took your recommendation for Friedmans book. I'm on the Amish chaper (3) currently. So far I'm liking it.
Put social security and medicare into a Sarcopod.
No no. Keep importing a subservient under class claiming they pay into the systems yo hide the continued government spending even on the underclass.
[recalibrates Act Blue decoder ring] Dang it, I had the settings wrong! Yes!!! Illegal alien rapist traffickers are the solution to the dilution of contribution.
In Congress, the primary purpose of spending is to create political capital and political cash. Efficiency and effectiveness are seldom if ever considerations. This is the massive corruption that has dominated our government for decades. The political class focus on money to the detriment of prudent governance is our most pressing problem. It is the primary cause of annual deficits and our crushing debt. Those we elect to serve are consumed with their careers and personal wealth. We are their victims.
And they are our employees. We keep re-employing them to continue to overspend. It's what the (majority of the) voters want.
No it isn't. Voting for politicians is a charade. If you had to vote for Walmart or Kroegers to be the entire country's only shopping choice for the next four years, is that a choice?
> And they are our employees...No they're not.
We have no way to fire them. And, no, voting them out is not firing, it is refusing to "renew their contract."
I'll add to the compensation, that the electorate (so, districts for Representatives, States for Senators, national for President and Vice President) ought to have the means to hold a special election, referendum, etcetera to remove an elected official at any time. Consider it a "board of directors" meeting to decide whether an "employee" is "fired" or not.
> ... Those we elect to serve are consumed with their careers and personal wealth...Which is why they need term limits and an overhaul to their compensation package whereby Representatives are paid a salary equal to the median income of their district, Senators are paid a salary equal to the median income of their state, the President and Vice President are paid a salary equal to the median income of the nation, and, finally, no Federal elected office qualifies, ever, qualifies for a pension from the Federal government for their service in elected office.
Will lawmakers step up? (checks Magic 8 Ball)
Signs Point to No:
The last time the budget was balanced, Andrew Jackson was the president. The last time the debt was paid off, Thomas Jefferson was the president.
Holy shit. Reason finally figured out there were 3 branches of government.
And Reason’s bitching here is disingenuous at best. Considering how many of these assholes vote democrat, however ‘strategically and reluctantly’.
Do you expect them to hang out with people who can’t throw a proper cocktail party?
Or a red wedding?
A recommendation that would go a long ways to lowering fraud and waste is to eliminate use it or lose it budgeting rules. In the service the amount of waste that these rules encourage is ridiculous. I belonged to a Combat Support Hospital, and I remember one year we had money left in our training budget, so we sent four people to Mountain Warfare School, which had nothing to do with our mission. Yeah, it looks good on their promotion packet, but it wasn't mission critical. The next year we deployed to JRTC (not sure if it's still the same but in the 1990s JRTC and NTC were considered deployments) and as a result of this mission, we were short on our training budget, and several soldiers who wanted to go to professional development courses to get promoted were denied because we didn't have the budget for it, because JRTC ate up most of our training budget. We had other line items that we were under budget but you can't transfer between budgets. So, the next year they raised our training budget, but without JRTC we once again were under budget and we sent people to schools that were unrelated to our mission. It's a viscous circle.
Worked in a couple of businesses where, toward the end of the year, we would get contracts over our standard prices, with the requirement we invoice before the end of the year.
Another thing that drives up FoD budget is middle man buying rules. It generally doesn't apply to stuff like bullets and bombs, but to stuff like cleaning supplies, fresh food, etc. There's a whole industry created to buy for the military, because for a number of goods the military isn't allowed to buy directly from the producer. And by law, a certain number of these vendors have to be female or minority owned. Our barracks NCO got in big trouble because he let us buy cleaning supplies once directly from the PX rather than from requisitioning them and buying them from the approved vendors.
Same thing was happening with FEMA this year. Even as they confiscated other groups donated supplies.
Look, just because they wouldn’t help people with trump signs on their property doesn’t mean they’re biased.
In 2016, Carli Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard, ran for the Republican nomination for president. She had me at "Zero-Based Budgeting."
I can answer this for you . No . The answer is no. Lawmakers will not only fail to address it, they will accelerate it .
The entire federal government is a giant grift. The primary purpose is to make sure the right people get paid. Whether it's green new deal or Covid relief or microchips or a museum in Nancy Pelosi's district the well connected profit. While the politicians claim otherwise the system now operates under MMT. All of this was inevitable with the creation of a central bank, FDR's confiscation of the alternative currency gold and Nixon's default on the federal government's gold debt at Bretton Woods. I'm pretty jazzed up about DOGE because at least we may have a serious discussion about the debt. But it's a long road back and I'm not hopeful.
"The newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)"
No. New federal departments are established by law, starting with Congress, not tweets from a private citizen.
The so-called DOGE is an extra-governmental advisory committee.
^ This.
No miracles will come from it. At best it will be a list of things that seem reasonable to do. And little of that will be something the President can do.
And that list wouldn't be enough anyway. We're at the point where only UNreasonable action would make a difference.
At best it will be a vehicle to pressure lawmakers to knock it off in a high profile manner that bypasses the media gatekeepers for Government. Maybe some EOs to cancel spending priorities.
DOGE has one major advantage over prior efforts in this area.
The members have the ability to keep the waste in front of the public 24/7 using (anti)social media.
A huge report of waste dumped immediately in a trash can is the norm, but Norm left town. This time, there will be unrelenting publicity about waste and fraud until the public forces the congress to do their job.
(and a pony for each child)
"It can't be fixed, and we shouldn't even bother trying!"
Will Lawmakers Step Up?
No. We are heading for the cliff with the pedal on the floor. It is much too late to hit the brakes. Prepare either to survive in a post-apocalypse world, or to end your life when things get unsurvivable for you. I'm glad I'm not young.
No. That was easy.
Ideas™ !
"a self-perpetuating vortex of dysfunction"
Best description of government waste ever. But busting a vortex of destruction is like busting up a tornado. That can only be done in movies.
Build a basement with strong walls to ride out the economic windstorm until it's over. Protect yourself first, then worry about waste, fraud and abuse.
So tired of winning.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/trump-taps-chris-rufo-help-de-wokify-ivy-leagues-receiving-federal-funding
Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a prominent critic of DEI efforts, plans to outline how federal funds could be conditioned on the removal of these programs. The proposal aims to eliminate perceived discrimination in university practices, arguing that DEI programs violate the Civil Rights Act by favoring certain racial, ethnic, or gender groups.
“If you don’t stop discriminating and violating the law, you will no longer be qualified for federal funding,” Rufo emphasized. He anticipates that institutions, particularly Ivy League universities that receive billions annually in federal research funding, would quickly comply.
Don’t Republicans whine and cry when Democrats put conditions on federal funding? Why yes, yes they do. So why is it “winning” when Republicans do it?
I think we all know why.
What a strange criticism. Why would libertarians be against conditions which comport with the Constitution? The federal government may not promote racial and sexual discrimination, so conditioning its spending this way is the correct move.
Spend more time making insightful comments and less getting your hate on for the regulars.
Comport with the Constitution? Is that a joke?
Withholding money is how the federal government forces the states to pass laws that Congress has no power to do. Speed limits and drinking age are prime examples. There's nothing in Article I says the federal government has the power to dictate speed limits and age limits. So instead it takes money from the people of the states, and tells state governments they're not getting the money back unless they pass certain laws.
That's not very libertarian, no matter which party is in power. And it's a fact that Republicans and conservatives get very angry when Democrats do that to force states into passing laws they don't like.
However when they do it it's "winning".
Sorry bub, but the only hate I'm seeing is from Trumpians who take great pleasure in getting retribution on their enemies by doing things they themselves consider to be unfair and unjust when done to them, but justify it by saying the people they hate did it first. Why do you think I post "It's ok because Democrats did it first" all the time? It's because that's what these people really think and believe.
"DEI programs violate the Civil Rights Act by favoring certain racial, ethnic, or gender groups."
The DEI programs I have seen do not do that.
'Democratic' [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] *is* the very problem.
'Guns' don't make sh*t.
And every nation of people that tried to make their 'Guns' make sh*t for them destroyed themselves. Gov-Guns cannot supply you with anything but Gun-Force to ensure Liberty and Justice for all.
The US Constitution specified enumerated powers for a reason.
Yet the [Na]tional So[zi]alist *criminal* minds just had to launch a 'revolution' and destroy the USA for their Nazi-Empire.
Don't worry. Santa Claus is coming to town. Otherwise it's like practicing safe sex. If we're not careful, we'll need some kind of abortion. That would entail throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Veto veto veto.
That headline, though...
No doubt.
Uhm. Congress is quite literally made up of... wait for it...
... LAWMAKERS.
If the lawmakers are fiscally reckless...
Fuck it. Never mind.
Wait until she finds out how they became lawmakers. To say nothing of her own hand in it.
Trying to introduce the Reason staff to logic is like trying to teach a pig to whistle.
It wastes you time and annoys the pig.
About 3/4 of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, National Defense, and interest on the national debt. You can zero out the entire rest of the federal government-- no border patrol, no passports, cancel all veterans benefits, release all criminals from all federal prisons and end prosecutions, no air traffic control so no more air travel....and you STILL have a budget deficit.
Unless you want large cuts in those four programs you can not fix the problem without significant tax increases. And Trump wants big increases in defense spending and more tax cuts.
^^
America's greatness lies not in perfection but in her relentless pursuit of it. For nearly 250 years, this nation has strived to fully realize the revolutionary ideals laid out in its founding documents. While we have often fallen short, our capacity for self-reflection and renewal inspires hope and spurs improvement.
Evident romantic bullshit