Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet and U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have reintroduced a proposed federal law — the Bonuses for Cost-Cutters Act of 2021 — allowing a federal agency’s Inspector General to pay bonuses of up to $10,000 of savings realized when a federal employee identifies unnecessary spending through waste, fraud, or mismanagement of public funds.
It’s being reintroduced, because it went nowhere last time around. A lot of things went nowhere in 2021, as we can all remember.
I am hoping they changed the name to the ‘Bonuses for Cost-Cutters Act of 2023’, for good luck.
Federal law already allows a federal agency to pay bonuses of up to $10,000 when a federal employee identifies unnecessary spending through waste, fraud, or mismanagement of public funds. The ‘Bonuses for Cost-Cutters Act’ would expand these categories to include “identifying surplus or unneeded funds”, and would ensure that 90 percent of the savings are automatically directed toward deficit reduction.
The federal government could use a little bit of deficit reduction, as I understand it.
But I’m wondering how this would work? So, say I’m a federal employee, and my supervisor has $1 million in surplus or unneeded public funds in the budget, and I am able to identify this.
Senators Bennet and Rand expect me to rat on my supervisor, for a measly $10,000?
And get fired?
What chance would I ever have of getting another federal job, after such a debacle? Seems like pretty slim pickings.
I sometimes wonder if our senators understand how the world actually works.
The proposed law also seems a bit problematic in another sense. Say I’m a federal employee, and I somehow notice that my agency has some “surplus or unneeded public funds” in the budget. Just for fun, let’s say it’s $10,000.
But now I’m getting ready to report my agency (to someone?) claiming that our agency has a surplus $10,000 in the budget. In fact, however, the $10,000 is not actually “surplus”. Because — thanks to the ‘Bonuses for Cost-Cutters Act’ (assuming it gets approved) — my agency now needs that $10,000 to pay me, for spilling the beans. So how can anyone say that the $10,000 is surplus?
Which makes me a liar and a thief, and probably unsuitable for my position.
(Some federal positions are suitable for liars and thieves, but not all.)
However, here’s the real kicker.
We are basically talking about a law that a priori assumes ongoing government waste, normally accepted to such a degree that we have to promise to pay people $10,000 a pop, to try and keep our government honest.
What about all of us ordinary taxpayers, who are cheating regularly on our income tax returns?
How about paying us $10,000 to honestly report our incomes? Since you’re happy to hand out money in exchange for honesty.
I could probably keep myself honest for $10,000. On an annual basis, preferably.
Underrated writer Louis Cannon grew up in the vast American West, although his ex-wife, given the slightest opportunity, will deny that he ever grew up at all.