How Government Spending Works

[blackjack50]

I do not know how many people have been involved in, or listened to government agencies talk about money, but I would like to share it with yall. The stuff I have listened to has been local, state, and federal level stuff. They weren't big agencies, but the federal stuff mainly involved some Army Corps of Engineers stuff, and the state stuff was when I held a student job and used to listen to department heads talk about money, and local well I am from a small town lol. Anyway

Is anyone familiar with the idea that people who run the budget at government offices try to spend as much money as they can in order to request more money for the next fiscal year? They end up buying 5K post it notes (example) when they only use maybe 500 a year. Of course they keep up this process of spending in all aspects trying to spend the entire budget so they can request more. Does this strike anyone else as just plain wrong? Can someone please explain the logic behind this lunacy? It seems to me that the American taxpayer's wallet would get a huge relief if any part of the government enacted a savings policy in which any department that came in under budget could roll 50% of the surplus into bonuses. I mean I am no math whiz, and certainly not an economic genius. The thing I do understand is that when someone constantly requests money for things they don't need and spend it on things that are simply a waste, it will eventually cause the person paying to run out of money.

 

[Xerographica]

Which is of course a large part of the reason why taxpayers should be allowed to directly allocate their taxes...aka pragmatarianism.

 

[mike2810]

I do not know how many people have been involved in, or listened to government agencies talk about money, but I would like to share it with yall. The stuff I have listened to has been local, state, and federal level stuff. They weren't big agencies, but the federal stuff mainly involved some Army Corps of Engineers stuff, and the state stuff was when I held a student job and used to listen to department heads talk about money, and local well I am from a small town lol. Anyway

Is anyone familiar with the idea that people who run the budget at government offices try to spend as much money as they can in order to request more money for the next fiscal year? They end up buying 5K post it notes (example) when they only use maybe 500 a year. Of course they keep up this process of spending in all aspects trying to spend the entire budget so they can request more. Does this strike anyone else as just plain wrong? Can someone please explain the logic behind this lunacy? It seems to me that the American taxpayer's wallet would get a huge relief if any part of the government enacted a savings policy in which any department that came in under budget could roll 50% of the surplus into bonuses. I mean I am no math whiz, and certainly not an economic genius. The thing I do understand is that when someone constantly requests money for things they don't need and spend it on things that are simply a waste, it will eventually cause the person paying to run out of money.

At this point I will have to state your story is your personal opinion. I also have had dealings with State and Federal budgets for a Land Management agency. What you have stated is not what I experienced or was involved in. Further when in comes to the Feds, do you realize it is Congress that sets the budgets for the Departments/Agencies? So blame the President and Congress for over expenditures. Also Federal procurement regs are pretty tight and have gotten tighter over the last 10-15 years. In many States it is the same, agencies request State legislatures set budgets.

So guess my story cancels your story.

 

[blackjack50]

At this point I will have to state your story is your personal opinion. I also have had dealings with State and Federal budgets for a Land Management agency. What you have stated is not what I experienced or was involved in. Further when in comes to the Feds, do you realize it is Congress that sets the budgets for the Departments/Agencies? So blame the President and Congress for over expenditures. Also Federal procurement regs are pretty tight and have gotten tighter over the last 10-15 years. In many States it is the same, agencies request State legislatures set budgets.

So guess my story cancels your story.

Their objective in the agencies though is to spend it all though, so they can request more. It really doesn't cancel out mine.

 

[mike2810]

Their objective in the agencies though is to spend it all though, so they can request more. It really doesn't cancel out mine.

well if you have a planned budget tied to accomplishment, and you came in under or zero, I would say you carried out what you said you would do.

Agencies can request all they want. Even during the fiscal year. That does not mean they will recieve additional funds. Again, Congress must approve the dollars and the President must sign the spending bill

I can tell you in the feds, managers are raked over the coals if they spend their funds without completing all planned objectives or more.
Your example is not real world and is based on a false assumption.

 

[Risky Thicket]

At this point I will have to state your story is your personal opinion. I also have had dealings with State and Federal budgets for a Land Management agency. What you have stated is not what I experienced or was involved in. Further when in comes to the Feds, do you realize it is Congress that sets the budgets for the Departments/Agencies? So blame the President and Congress for over expenditures. Also Federal procurement regs are pretty tight and have gotten tighter over the last 10-15 years. In many States it is the same, agencies request State legislatures set budgets.

So guess my story cancels your story.

For a couple of years I took the director's position of a federally funded agency. I approved all expenditures. Spending does depend on how you receive federal funding, which can be a bit complex. However, in my personal and direct experience, Stonewall is pretty much on the money (no pun intended). I can tell you that we didn't zero out the year spending money on office supplies, that's a line item where expenditures beyond budget can, and usually will, bring federal attention. Rightfully so. But we did zero out the year. There are good reasons and there are bad reasons for it. I would agree that there is certainly a better and less costly way. I don't have any recommendations, however.

 

[blackjack50]

For a couple of years I took the director's position of a federally funded agency. I approved all expenditures. Spending does depend on how you receive federal funding, which can be a bit complex. However, in my personal and direct experience, Stonewall is pretty much on the money (no pun intended). I can tell you that we didn't zero out the year spending money on office supplies, that's a line item where expenditures beyond budget can, and usually will, bring federal attention. Rightfully so. But we did zero out the year. There are good reasons and there are bad reasons for it. I would agree that there is certainly a better and less costly way. I don't have any recommendations, however.

Yea. My position was a lowly maitenence position for the state. Basically I mowed, cut gross, moved logs, cleaned up limb damage, assisted with vehical problems (like going to pick up drivers who crashed or had problems), and that sort of junk. I remember we needed trees removed for some reason? I think it was because they were too tall? I don't know and it never made sense to me, but what I do know is the man they hired was NOT the cheapest. He wasn't even 2nd cheapest. I personally knew the guy who did it the cheapest in the area, and knew the guy who was the second cheapest BECAUSE they removed trees at my house.

The only thing I can tell you is that they fed us some line about them being able to pay us for the extra lumber and stump removal, and I was the one who was throwing the logs off into the woods behind the complex. Smelt like fish back their too.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Yea. My position was a lowly maitenence position for the state. Basically I mowed, cut gross, moved logs, cleaned up limb damage, assisted with vehical problems (like going to pick up drivers who crashed or had problems), and that sort of junk. I remember we needed trees removed for some reason? I think it was because they were too tall? I don't know and it never made sense to me, but what I do know is the man they hired was NOT the cheapest. He wasn't even 2nd cheapest. I personally knew the guy who did it the cheapest in the area, and knew the guy who was the second cheapest BECAUSE they removed trees at my house.

The only thing I can tell you is that they fed us some line about them being able to pay us for the extra lumber and stump removal, and I was the one who was throwing the logs off into the woods behind the complex. Smelt like fish back their too.

There's no doubt in my mind the guy that was hired was a friend of a friend or maybe the big boss's own tree removal guy. I'm with you, there was a connection and the guy with the best price didn't get a fair shot.

 

[DiAnna]

Again, this is personal experience only. For many years I was finance director for a SoCal city. At the end of every fiscal year, every single department was comparing their budgeted expenses with actual expenses, and if there was so much as a dime that hadn't been spent, they would go on a crusade to spend every last cent. Then they would come to budget negotiations for the following year asking for the same amount plus XX% because obviously they needed more because they had to spend it all.

This is a common mindset in public finance, because in the mind of a public entity the money being spent does not come out of their pockets as a dip in profits that might cause layoffs, or cost cuts, or draconian measures necessary to please a board of directors or stockholders. It just came from the citizens of the city, and if the city needed more money, we'd just go get it from them. I mean, what were they going to do, pay the increased taxes and water costs, or sell their house and move? They'd pay. The city knew it, and pretty much spent whatever it wanted on whatever department heads wanted to spend it on.

So there's definitely more than a grain of truth in what the OP has posted.

 

[mike2810]

For a couple of years I took the director's position of a federally funded agency. I approved all expenditures. Spending does depend on how you receive federal funding, which can be a bit complex. However, in my personal and direct experience, Stonewall is pretty much on the money (no pun intended). I can tell you that we didn't zero out the year spending money on office supplies, that's a line item where expenditures beyond budget can, and usually will, bring federal attention. Rightfully so. But we did zero out the year. There are good reasons and there are bad reasons for it. I would agree that there is certainly a better and less costly way. I don't have any recommendations, however.

I worked for a federal agency for 30 years. Was responsible for a budget. Zeroing out is not the same as wastefull spending. If you plan correctly, you know what you should have to meet the tasks assigned within the budget.
My point is the title is misleading, and the OP makes it sound like all agencies go about major spending or overspending so they can claim they need more funds. Federal/State budgets are not as simple as the OP makes it. Further more, while there are some bad apples in every group, many federal/state employess are good stewards of the tax dollars they use.

 

[mpg]

When I worked in a hospital, my department made sure that every dollar was spent. When we had money left over at the end of the year, we had to come up with an idea to spend it.

 

[Manc Skipper]

My experience on the other side of the equation was budgets were generally tight, but if a budget was somehow not fully spent, it was reset to that total, then any adjustment up or down for the next year was made based on the lower amount. Self-defence made any service think very seriously about finances.

 

[blackjack50]

There's no doubt in my mind the guy that was hired was a friend of a friend or maybe the big boss's own tree removal guy. I'm with you, there was a connection and the guy with the best price didn't get a fair shot.

I don't think there was a connection, so much as just the desire to get the money spent. I mean the guy who wanted us to go with the expensive stuff was not a particular mastermind of a criminal enterprise, nor was he some evil genius. At least he didn't strike me as one. I think all he cared about was getting as much money spent to request more. It just seemed wrong to me, and I know better than to trust state government employees with money lol.

 

[blackjack50]

I worked for a federal agency for 30 years. Was responsible for a budget. Zeroing out is not the same as wastefull spending. If you plan correctly, you know what you should have to meet the tasks assigned within the budget.
My point is the title is misleading, and the OP makes it sound like all agencies go about major spending or overspending so they can claim they need more funds. Federal/State budgets are not as simple as the OP makes it. Further more, while there are some bad apples in every group, many federal/state employess are good stewards of the tax dollars they use.

I disagree. I think many government agencies attempt to spend every cent of their budget. I understand that they MAKE a budget so that they do not have extra, but the idea of a budget is always to come in under. Trying to make $X budget instead of trying to come under it is wasteful.

I am not saying that government workers are scumbags, and I am not saying that they are intentionally trying to hose the taxpayer either. They are in competition with other government agencies/departments for money, and they are not in competition for their buisness. So they need to get more money so that they can run, rather than get their budget cut. I mean how often do you see ridiculous government projects (local, state, federal) that really only look like spent money rather than something that is needed.

 

[ProjectCornDog]

Way government spending actually works:
-The Fed prints money, therefore inflating it
-Borrow money from other countries like China, despite them being Communist although we have an embargo on Cuba
-Steal money from citizens and use the money in anyway they choose
-Elementary ideas like proposing an economy plan based on formulas and numberes despite the fact its silly to predict human behavior and the never-ending fluctuating market
-Create bubbles to temporarily solve problems so legislators can stay in power

 

[justabubba]

I do not know how many people have been involved in, or listened to government agencies talk about money, but I would like to share it with yall. The stuff I have listened to has been local, state, and federal level stuff. They weren't big agencies, but the federal stuff mainly involved some Army Corps of Engineers stuff, and the state stuff was when I held a student job and used to listen to department heads talk about money, and local well I am from a small town lol. Anyway

Is anyone familiar with the idea that people who run the budget at government offices try to spend as much money as they can in order to request more money for the next fiscal year? They end up buying 5K post it notes (example) when they only use maybe 500 a year. Of course they keep up this process of spending in all aspects trying to spend the entire budget so they can request more. Does this strike anyone else as just plain wrong? Can someone please explain the logic behind this lunacy?

actually, you have already expressed the reason this happens
this year's budget is the baseline for next year's
that this year's functions were adequately funded does not assure that will be true for next year. the complexity or composition of the work may be modified such that the previous budget would be inadequate for the more advanced/extensive work in the ensuing year
that 'surplus' available this year may become essential next year - if the expectations are to be met

additionally, those managers whose actual budget is significantly less than what had been projected might be found less competent by their supervisors. the program manager with a surplus might be found to be a weak administrator who does not adequately understand the needs and costs of his program if he deviates from the budget target. no manager returns obligated but unspent funds. doing so might cause the manager to be viewed as an 'odd duck' by his peers and supervisors

It seems to me that the American taxpayer's wallet would get a huge relief if any part of the government enacted a savings policy in which any department that came in under budget could roll 50% of the surplus into bonuses. I mean I am no math whiz, and certainly not an economic genius. The thing I do understand is that when someone constantly requests money for things they don't need and spend it on things that are simply a waste, it will eventually cause the person paying to run out of money.

you have just incentivized the hollowing out of government works. the manager can spend his budget doing the job the public expects ... or, if he will realize a portion of the savings that can accrue from cutting corners, then he - and anyone else who will get to personally pocket a share of the savings - will be looking for a way to shortchange the American public

 

[beerftw]

how government spending works.quite simply they waste more money than they need to spend.take the military for example,with all the money they spend someonecould easily brush through it with a fine tooth comb and save billions.we dont need luxury air conditioned offices for officers while deployed,make them suffer as much as enlisted,they are making 4-6 times as much money so why not.

look at no bid contracts,our government pays top dollar for the lowest grade crap,again look at the military,they would pay 150k to furnish a battalion with ikea grade crap that would cost 9k from ikea to fully furnish,but because of no bid contracts we pay 300 dollars a piece for folding chairs and 1k a peice for a desk yopu could buy at walmart for 250 bucks.and this doesnt just include the military,it includes alot of the government in general.

why do we pay so much,because senator so and so's friend runs a company so the government gives him a contract to charge what he wants,senators dont care they dont flip the bill,we do.

pork barreling is the last major problem.pork barreling in the past was almost exclusive to democrats but in the last decade republicans have jumped aboard full swing.if someone could just end porkbarreling altogether we could save billions,but apparently building a bridge to nowhere for a politicians re-election is more important than education or defense,since no one makes an argument to end pork barreling.

 

[justabubba]

how government spending works.quite simply they waste more money than they need to spend.take the military for example,with all the money they spend someonecould easily brush through it with a fine tooth comb and save billions.we dont need luxury air conditioned offices for officers while deployed,make them suffer as much as enlisted,they are making 4-6 times as much money so why not.

look at no bid contracts,our government pays top dollar for the lowest grade crap,again look at the military,they would pay 150k to furnish a battalion with ikea grade crap that would cost 9k from ikea to fully furnish,but because of no bid contracts we pay 300 dollars a piece for folding chairs and 1k a peice for a desk yopu could buy at walmart for 250 bucks.and this doesnt just include the military,it includes alot of the government in general.

why do we pay so much,because senator so and so's friend runs a company so the government gives him a contract to charge what he wants,senators dont care they dont flip the bill,we do.

pork barreling is the last major problem.pork barreling in the past was almost exclusive to democrats but in the last decade republicans have jumped aboard full swing.if someone could just end porkbarreling altogether we could save billions,but apparently building a bridge to nowhere for a politicians re-election is more important than education or defense,since no one makes an argument to end pork barreling.

little of what you have posted is true
the federal government buys commercial - when what it needs is commercially available
the items such as furniture you mentioned, would be available on the General Supply Schedule
those commercial items can never be sold to a non-government buyer for less than what is posted on the General Supply Schedule

 

[beerftw]

little of what you have posted is true
the federal government buys commercial - when what it needs is commercially available
the items such as furniture you mentioned, would be available on the General Supply Schedule
those commercial items can never be sold to a non-government buyer for less than what is posted on the General Supply Schedule

you have obviously never worked in the military otherwise you would know what you said is absolutely untrue.

 

[justabubba]

you have obviously never worked in the military otherwise you would know what you said is absolutely untrue.

i have worked as a federal contracting officer [my warrant was limited to $5 million]
and in the course of my work have assisted in the procurements for every military branch
i can assure you, what i posted was accurate
and what you posted is absolute nonsense

 

[beerftw]

i have worked as a federal contracting officer [my warrant was limited to $5 million]
and in the course of my work have assisted in the procurements for every military branch
i can assure you, what i posted was accurate
and what you posted is absolute nonsense

i spent quite alot of time sorting through reciepts in afghanistan,and ill say the military on average pays more for most things.to top it most militaary items bought have to be approved for service,which makes purchasing most civilian equipment difficult.like an example hand tools,depending on the company may or may not overprice.snap-on and skillcraft tend to charge the same or less than the civilian world counterparts.my old unit spent almost 1k per desk for cheaply made sheet metal and particle board desks,and they were the desks available through the supply catalog.

another example the device for stopping heat mines on mraps costs quite a bit,i forget the price,but its not any more advanced than a metal box with glow plugs shoved in it.


Pentagon overpaid billionaire oil tycoon Harry Sargeant up to $200m | Mail Online