4 ms·

Well when it’s free & the gov pays, they’ll make sure their budget is tight.

• partiallypro 7y ago
  I can't tell if you meant for this to be sarcastic or not.
  • mywittyname 7y ago
    Lots of government-sponsored social programs manage on shoe-string budgets. In the US, it really comes down to how Republicans feel about a program. The programs they hate are often forced to run at maximum efficiency because they face an large amount of scrutiny and budget instability. It's the programs that Republican fail to scrutinize that become symbols of waste and mismanagement. The biggest and most obvious case is the military. I can't imagine the HHS being in a situation where they are forced by Congress to spend a few hundred million dollars on equipment they don't need, so it's given away, or having any project that costs $1,500,000,000,000. I hate to be political like this, but it's an observable trend. Scrutiny over the use of public funds by officials is an efficient means of cost-control. But the country has an issue with selective enforcement based, it seems, on how much of a program's budget is funneled into the hands of private government contractors.
    • tastygreenapple 7y ago
      This is a really interesting train of thought. Why do you think the Republicans are so effective at driving efficiency in the government? It seems like they're fantastic watch dogs of social programs, do you think the Democrats could become watch dogs of the other programs?