ATLANTA — Across the United States, a diverse coalition—including good-government advocates, conservative anti-tax activists, politicians from various parties, and everyday citizens—express concerns regarding “waste, fraud, and abuse” in government operations. Recently, President Donald Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, headed by Elon Musk, have brought renewed attention to this longstanding phrase, which can be viewed as both common sense and as a form of political propaganda.
“It encompasses a broad notion,” remarked Matt Weidinger from the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank with a conservative leaning. “However, the interpretation of ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ varies significantly among individuals.” This piece explores the significance of this rhetoric and its implications as Trump embarks on his second term.
The idea of a distant government as a source of exploitation has been a recurring theme in American discourse. Tracing the origins of “waste, fraud, and abuse” as a political term is complex, as the disputes encapsulated within it predate the nation itself. It draws parallels to early American grievances, notably the rallying cry against “taxation without representation” during the colonial struggle for independence.
Once the United States gained independence, debates over governance and finance continued. One significant contention arose over Alexander Hamilton’s proposal for a national bank, which has philosophical ties to the modern-day Federal Reserve and various federal loan programs. Trump’s political icon, Andrew Jackson, opposed the Second National Bank, viewing it as favoring affluent shareholders. Jackson famously stated, “There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses.”
The political resistance from Southern elites to Henry Clay’s American System further illustrates these conflicts. Planters viewed investment in infrastructure—roads, bridges, and waterways—as an unconstitutional overreach that would enrich industrialized Northern states at the expense of the agrarian South.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan’s inaugural address crystallized a key tenet of modern conservative ideology: “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” He criticized the inefficiencies of the social safety net and the unaccountability of federal spending by targeting the infamous “welfare queen,” a portrayal some critics deemed racially charged. His administration created the “Grace Commission” to identify waste, although its recommendations saw limited implementation. Nevertheless, Reagan’s administration did implement significant changes, including raising the retirement age for Social Security.
The sheer scale of federal spending underscores the challenges inherent in combating waste and inefficiency. For the fiscal year 2023, federal expenditures reached approximately $6.7 trillion, covering a range of programs from transfer payments to state aid. The Cato Institute delineates these expenditures, highlighting $3.19 trillion in transfer payments, $1.15 trillion dispensed to states, and significant amounts allocated for debt interest and government services.
Public opinion on government spending is not monolithic. Recent poll data reveal that while 60% of American adults believe overall government expenditure is excessive, around two-thirds feel that spending on essential programs like Social Security and education is insufficient. A similar sentiment exists regarding funding for Medicare and assistance for low-income citizens, with many arguing that programs like Medicaid are also underfunded. It’s worth noting that payments for Medicare and Medicaid are primarily directed toward healthcare providers rather than individuals, highlighting the complexity of perceptions regarding these programs.
The search for a clearer understanding of the actual loss attributed to waste and fraud has engaged various agencies, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO’s findings projected savings of about $667 billion from recommendations made over the past decade. Trump ally Vivek Ramaswamy emphasized the potential losses related to unapproved contracts and programs, yet many of these continue under existing mandates, such as veteran services and NASA activities.
Additionally, the issue of the “tax gap”—the discrepancy between what the government is owed and what it actually collects—remains largely unaddressed. This gap, estimated by the IRS to be around $696 billion for the 2022 tax year, combines clerical errors and deliberate fraud. Other reports have flagged “improper payments” across various welfare programs that typically amount to several hundred billion annually.
Weidinger noted that although these improper payments may include some fraudulent activities, they primarily consist of overpayments and insufficiently documented claims. Errors can arise from several scenarios, including benefits erroneously dispensed after a recipient’s passing or miscalculations in assistance amounts. However, during extraordinary circumstances like the COVID pandemic, certain relief programs saw notably higher incidences of outright fraud.
Ultimately, while some estimates regarding fraud and improper payments may represent an undercount, it appears unlikely they will match the levels of savings projected by Musk and Trump. The complexity of managing government expenditures continues to fuel the dialogue around the effectiveness of federal programs and accountability.
