DeSantis, the governor of my adopted state of Florida, is plagiarizing Elon Musk’s DOGE. Like Musk, DeSantis claims that his DOGE will eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse.” As with Musk and DOGE, DeSantis already knows what he wants to cut: 70 state boards and commissions and 900 jobs. He also wants to force universities to undergo reviews and audits, and the state will “look into” local government expenditures. As I am not an expert on government finances I will, unlike Musk, leave the merit of any cuts to the experts. Instead, I will discuss the concepts of fraud and waste.
There is an obvious rhetorical advantage to claiming that DOGE is targeting fraud and waste. After all, everyone agrees that fraud and waste are bad. Unless, of course, one is benefiting from either. Fraud, as a concept, is easy to define. It is intentional deception aimed at acquiring an unfair or unlawful gain. While it might seem that fraud would be easy to determine, what counts as fraud will always be a matter of which interpretation of the law is being used. J.D. Vance’s discussion of paroles and Temporary Protected Status provides a good illustration of this. While the Biden administration followed (their interpretation of) the law, J.D. Vance claimed that they had acted illegally, making the migrants in question illegal. The same would also apply to claims about fraud. While, for example, a contract was (interpreted as) legal and not fraudulent when it was made during the Biden administration, under Musk’s interpretation it could now be fraud. While there can be good faith disagreement about the law and fraud, Musk could easily claim that something is fraud simply because he does not like it. Given the lack of oversight of DOGE, fraud could be whatever Musk calls “fraud.” That said, as “fraud” is usually defined in laws, there would be at least some grounds for judging whether something is fraud. The concept of waste is much more problematic.
Wasteful spending is expending resources, especially money, in ways that are either unnecessary or inefficient. While we agree that waste is bad, this is like saying that we also agree that bad is bad. But people obviously disagree about what is wasteful and what is bad. It might seem that inefficiency is an objective matter and in some cases it is. For example, if the government had a contract with one of Musk’s companies that cost taxpayers more than what a competitor would charge for the same product, then that would be inefficient and hence waste. But there can be cases where spending seems inefficient, but it is not. After all efficiency is not just a matter of paying a higher price but involves getting the same or less by paying more. If, for example, Musk’s product was superior to the competition, then the extra cost could be worth it. It is also worth considering the obvious: someone could just lie about efficiency when they want to cut spending. While inefficiency does allow some degree of objectivity, whether spending is unnecessary seems entirely a matter of a person’s values. This applies to everyday spending and government spending.
As an example, consider going out for dinner and buying drinks. Whether that is wasteful depends on your values. While it could be argued that it would be more efficient to cook dinner at home and buy alcohol at the store as the cost would be much lower, some people believe that going out is not a waste of their money. This is because of the return they get from the experience. In terms of who is right, this is a debate of which values are correct and is not something that can be resolved by an Excel spreadsheet. Likewise for government spending.
What is unnecessary is in the eye of the beholder. People who do not like SNAP or Medicaid will see these as unnecessary. People who do not like subsidies for the wealthy will see those as unnecessary. So, when Musk claims to be cutting waste he could be telling the truth: he could be cutting spending that he, as the world’s richest person, thinks is unnecessary. While he sees his lucrative contracts as necessary, he obviously does not need SNAP, Medicaid, or farm subsidies and these no doubt seem unnecessary to him. From a rhetorical standpoint, claiming to be cutting waste sounds much better than cutting programs one does not like, hence that is what Musk says his DOGE is doing.
But has DOGE been a success? Even a cursory review of DOGE’s own “receipts” and claims reveals many untruths and errors. For example, the claims about Social Security fraud and $8 billion in savings in a Department of Homeland Security contract were debunked, with the $8 billion turning out to be $8 million. As of this writing, Musk has made at least 28 false claims, such as the lie about $50 million for condoms in Gaza and the claim that congress gave itself a 40% tax increase. In terms of finding waste, fraud and abuse DOGE has been a failure.
As to why DOGE has done such a poor job, one possible explanation is incompetence: Musk cares about waste and fraud, but he and his DOGE are not very good at their jobs. A second explanation is that Musk does not care about waste and fraud and DOGE has other goals. Going with the reasonable idea that the purpose of a thing is what it does, we should look at what DOGE is doing to see its actual goals. It has succeeded in demoralizing federal employees, it has targeted agencies that protect the American people from fraud and financial exploitation, and it has gone after agencies that regulate and investigate Musk’s businesses. In these areas DOGE has been a success. While DeSantis has yet to announce a billionaire to head up his DOGE, it is reasonable to infer it will serve a similar function in Florida. With the obvious exception of the more Musk focused goals of DOGE. It is reasonable to infer that DOGE is using the rhetorical cover of going after fraud and waste to poorly conceal its real goals. We should expect the same with Florida DOGE.
I am concerned about facilities for the care of the aging population. I think the CONTEXT of federal and state or provincial governance has no relevance when it comes to the needs of the old. The governmental region which I inhabit has completely eliminated any consideration for the elderly. We are non-existent to our leaders. When I read about efforts to have cities that are “age-friendly” (retirement communities with every service option that an old person would need), it is as if we exist in a separate reality. “Real soon now” the overwhelming majority of humans will be defining the meaning of what it is to be human. All of the present agenda of human society will have to be reconciled with the needs of the old. All present, the issues and conflicts that flow back and forth in the media will require revision. The elderly will cooperate with each other to their mutual benefit. The political issues, conflicts and wars (the CONTEXT of humanity) will evaporate. The powers that be will be irrelevant. I once thought that cooperation was impossible for humans. I now think that the age shift in society will change all of the rules. We could be at the cusp of a new humanity. We may be about to enter a new evolutionary stage.
Alright. This post asks: “what is fraud and waste?” I made some leading comments, but so far, no one has stepped up to the plate. I’ll begin this by re-mentioning *CONTEXTUAL REALITY*. So, that’s done. Most of us understand both terms–we at least sorta know what they mean. The Trump Dispensation, like other individuals, groups, cults, sects, etc. has its’ own agenda;terms;conditions; and, expectations. Some of these features are, or may be, written somewhere.
Most are merely word-of-mouth or, to some of us, hot air. Trump, and his constituents are contextual realists, meaning, as I have written before and elsewhere, reality is *whatever-the-hell* they say it is. So, right or wrong, their pronouncements on fraud and waste are reality, in their view. If there are those among the rest of us who don’t believe this, we don’t matter—that whatever-the-hell also applies to law and, by association, truth. Anyone who embraces this CONTEXT is welcome to their world (though those converts may be watched closely), all others need not apply. Finally, then, fraud and waste is whatever-the-hell they say it is, because, by reference, it is reality, within a context. Welcome to the Trump Dispensation.
Some might claim Vice-President Vance is a fraud. I think Mr. Trump likes him because he is relatively articulate and follows Trump’s agenda well. I would like to hear their private conversations and consultations, but that will never happen. Vance is what was once called a Shill. Or, a Lackey. He is from Middletown
a city in southwest Ohio. I used to hitchhike home on weekends while attending Miami University, in Oxford, Ohio. Had to get a ride before getting to Middletown. That ride had to get me through Middletown, because there was a no hitchhike ordinance in the city limits. Usually, if someone picked me up, they were driving to my hometown anyway and I did not need to worry about being stranded in a no hitchhiking no man’s land. Anyway, weekend trips home were always an adventure. Now, as reality exists, everyday is an adventure. Fraud and waste is * whatever-the-hell* someone says it is. And anyone can say so.
Look, I think the whole idea/notion of running government like a business is flawed. Musk, for example, is accustomed to having things his own way. He can—presumably does—get the best of the best, to do his business. If those chosen ones fail, he can do what Trump did (and wants to do now), and say: you’re fired! The trouble with that is, as President, Trump is too far removed from the nuts-and-bolts business of governmenf to have any real idea of what that is about. The recent debacle, in the Oval Office, with a head of state, illustrates this. The act of ganging up on a world leader;insulting him and belittling him for defending his country and people, was pedestrian, at best. I am ashamed of this. Returing to the Musk-Trump coallition: these businessmen are used to having things their own way, or else. Business is fully arbitrary: do it our way, or leave….you’re fired!. Current government pedestrians, would lead us towards, or
to authoritarian populism—not far from something worse. Diplomacy is a craft…more than who has more money…
Fraud and waste are genuine ideas, when based in fact. They are likely to be fraudlent and wasteful, when based in the background of contextual reality, because THAT reality is ” whatever the hell” its’ holders say it is. In other words, it is based in belief(s), and, of course,belief(s) are not necessarily universal.
They are selective and held because of interests, motives and preferences. As an example, I might claim throwing away potato peelings is wasteful, while someone else could say it is not. Who is right? Some third party could claim the difference of opinion is meaningless, a priori. Sorta leaves us where we started.