Temporary Programs in Government
There’s a well-known joke in Washington: “Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program.” Digging a bit deeper, you see a pattern. Programs designed to tackle specific issues often stick around long after those issues are resolved. They gather supporters, create bureaucracies, and find advocates. Even when their original problems are no longer relevant, these programs persist, fueled by ongoing funding.
Milton Friedman provided insights on this issue. In “Free to Choose,” he discussed an important point: when I spend my own money, I scrutinize cost and value closely. However, when using someone else’s money for someone else’s benefit, as in federal grants, costs and benefits don’t receive the same level of attention.
The Trump administration is attempting to reform this system by fundamentally changing federal aid regulations via the Office of Management and Budget. The basic idea is straightforward: public funds should yield public results. If they don’t, there’s no reason for the funding to continue.
Historically, Washington has often operated on the opposite premise. Subsidies tend to stick around, with organizations building their frameworks around them. Then, staff members lobby to protect these programs. It’s rare for ineffective programs to vanish easily; instead, they are often rebranded and restructured. Advocates for specific funding are typically more organized and vocal, while those wanting cuts are more dispersed and less heard, creating a systematic advantage for insiders at the taxpayer’s expense.
The suggested reforms aim to stem the tide of automatic funding. The principles are pretty basic: federal funding should require ongoing validation rather than be automatic. Stricter reporting requirements would compel grant recipients to verify results instead of just documenting their actions. Expanding the “Don’t Pay” system would serve as a preventive measure against improper payments which have amounted to significant sums. Stronger transparency rules would allow taxpayers insights into where their money is allocated and its impact.
A significant focus of the proposal is to shift the grant-making approach from simple updates to ongoing evaluations of performance.
Moreover, the reforms tackle a rarely-discussed issue: the dependency of grant recipients. If a nonprofit relies predominantly on federal funding, it ceases to be an independent entity and essentially functions as a publicly funded contractor. Taxpayers deserve clarity regarding organizations that identify as independent yet are heavily financed by government support.
One noteworthy provision aims to level the grant competition field for faith-based organizations alongside secular ones. Legislation like the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and policies from previous administrations — including an executive order during Trump’s presidency — have already prohibited religious discrimination in many grant processes.
Yet, laws on paper often diverge from actual practices. The federal government should assess applications based on the ability to deliver results, rather than religious practices or rituals.
Critics might argue that such reforms could be weaponized against political opponents — and, indeed, there could be some merit to these concerns. The key is in proper implementation. The success of this initiative hinges on consistent and transparent application of performance metrics across the board.
Nevertheless, the foundational ideas behind these reforms should receive broad support. Federal aid isn’t an entitlement. Recipients need to earn their funding continuously through demonstrable outcomes. Those who genuinely want to manage public resources effectively must adhere to this expectation.
Friedman pointed out that poor incentive structures lead to negative results, regardless of the intentions behind them. For too long, the federal aid system has allowed ineffective incentives to persist. Oversight of large public funds requires constant monitoring; without it, errors, waste, and fraudulent activities are inevitable.
After years of promises to eradicate waste and fraud, the Trump administration’s proposed reforms could signal an unprecedented shift in Washington’s approach.
Ultimately, every dollar spent by the federal government is earned by someone outside of it. Taxpayers have the right to expect that their money is utilized wisely.
