The Truth on Waste, Fraud and Abuse
August 19, 2008

Allegations of corrupt government contractors again dominate the headlines, vying for space with Olympians and Presidential Candidates for the both dreaded and cherished “above the fold” spot in newspapers. And, inevitably, the headlines are accompanied by the ubiquitous discussions about waste, fraud and abuse in government spending, along with the predictable demands for more “oversight”.  Popular mythology insists federal spending runs rampant with uncontrolled fraud from government contractors who are willfully determined to rip off taxpayers.  This distorted view also contends that fraudulent contractors are enabled by federal procurement professionals who are simply too stupid or too inattentive to prevent such fraud.  As with any side-show huckster, some ill-informed members of Congress will keep selling this snake oil as long as the gullible continue to buy.  Perhaps now is a good time to lay off the sauce. 

Look closer at “waste, fraud, and abuse” and one quickly discovers that almost all efforts are focused on ferreting out fraud, while little effort is focused on identifying and eliminating sources of waste.  Sadly, far more taxpayer money is wasted on poorly performing government programs that should be either fundamentally improved or eliminated.  Continuing to focus solely on fraud, even manufacturing such evidence, when more taxpayer dollars could be saved through program performance improvement is misguided.  Yet, not only does the fraud search continue, but the movement gains power as some members of Congress have learned that high-minded posturing on the evils of government contractors is perhaps easy earned media and an excellent strategy to divert public attention from the fact that the more difficult and urgent task of improving every government program and eliminating the poor performers is not being done.

This challenge is exacerbated when Inspectors General and other federal investigators pursue personal agendas and target other federal employees for attack if it serves their larger ambitions.  Too often, IG’s are not interested in the more difficult and urgent task of systematically reviewing all government programs and helping federal workers find ways to improve performance and ways to cut costs.  In fact, during the 22 months I served as Administrator of GSA, the Inspector General never provided me with a single idea or recommendation that could be implemented to save taxpayer money. Not one.  By contrast, I did receive many ideas from other government employees that, in all, represented over $1 billion in taxpayer savings. 

The oversight community doesn’t seem interested in improving government performance, but, rather, are pursuing a much different agenda.  Nor should this be a surprise.  During the past few years, we have all seen several high profile cases involving prosecutors, such as Mr. Nifong, and attorneys general, such as Mr. Spitzer,  that seem to have grossly misused their powers to intimidate, harass and falsely persecute others.   We have seen sensationalized allegations skillfully leaked to sympathetic media, and salient facts suppressed or simply deleted from government files when that, too, was convenient.  Worse yet, it seems accountability rarely extends over these investigators and misdeeds are ignored.  Whistleblowers, willing to come forward with specific inside information regarding misconduct by IGs and other investigators, are also ignored.  Some in Congress might normally praise whistleblowers, but only, it seems, if those whistleblowers are playing an approved tune. 

The real tragedy is that examples of investigatory abuses of intimidation and harassment extend deep within the government and are not limited to the high level political attacks such as those that I experienced.  Indeed, federal contracting officers and front line government employees have consistently reported that a misguided IG can foster a hostile workplace.  Innovation and creativity are eroded as a culture of fear and retaliation are allowed to take root.  Those daring to speak out become the next victims.  I certainly learned the hard way that speaking the truth in Washington is, perhaps, the most dangerous thing you can say.  

Fixing the problem is more important than fixing the blame.  Government managers need to insist on more accountability from the oversight community.

1.  No problem report should be accepted as complete, unless it is also accompanied by a detailed action plan to fix the problem.
2.  The financial records of the oversight community should have an annual, publicly available audit, just like every other agency.  The oversight community should have to live within their congressionally approved budgets, with no off-balance sheet transactions tolerated by the Office of Management and Budget.  The oversight community should begin to lead by example, not by finger pointing.
3. When a problem is identified, members of the oversight auditing team should become part of the management team that has the responsibility to fix the problem.  These oversight members would have to remain with the management team until the problem is solved.   Shared responsibility is better government.