Quote Originally Posted by SLP View Post
That is one of the big catch 22 problems with government. If those in charge actually try and be prudent and not waste money their departments are cut and the money goes towards something else, hence they end up less important with less power. This also is a problem with some very large corporations sometimes as well. People will just spend money on almost anything in order to use up their budgets rather then end a fiscal year with a surplus.

Thinking outside of the box, I often have wondered if this would work. Anyone in government that has any discretion over funds, would get a small % bonus of any money saved within a yearly budget. The risk would be some people making cuts that might be to severe, just for the cash. Well that and the bad press when someone gets a huge bonus and it is reported. Of course that person would have had to save the taxpayers exponentially more, but people wouldn't see it that way.
From my governmnet background, I tend to disagree with the bonus idea. Civil servants take an oath to do it right, and that includes safeguarding public funds. That falls generally in the words "I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter"

It's very hard to paln for contigency funding for next year, if the money you had this year was lucky enough to not experience that event. The mind set has to be that's is duty to preserve funds, and if not needed by my office, then they should go back into the general fund to meet some other departments unplanned for emergency. Example, maybe we didn't need "salt money" but the money we saved there might be need to repair a bridge that a tugboat skipped accidentally hit.

Just me, but I think a fed, state, county, or city worker ought not be rewarded in cash for savings the publics funds we entrusted to them. It should go on the performance report and serve as the basis for promotion consideration.