Independence Day: Justification for Excessive Government Spending
The government’s US government runs several programs that do not fall under the mainstream federal expenditure. Most of the projects are operated secretly due to security reasons. The scenario is made apparent in the documentary Independence Day. The expenditure incurred by the government to carry out some of the secret projects may not be transparent. In most cases, the prices are bloated (30K on a toilet seat, 2013).
However, there are circumstances under which excessive and secretive spending may be justified. The spending does not negate the need for secrecy, especially when it comes to the security of the President of the US. Matters to do with security do not have to be public information. Regardless of this, it is prudent to monitor how the military budget is utilized to avoid wastage and unnecessary expenditure (30K on a toilet seat, 2013).
There are other departments and agencies, such as the FBI and the CIA, that operate programs with indeterminate costs. The reason is the nature of the agency’s operational mandate. The departments handle their expenditure in a secretive manner. A case in point is the laboratory operated by the Department of Defense in the documentary (30K on a toilet seat, 2013). Most of the funds may go towards intelligence gathering and covert activities needed to safeguard the security of the country.
The independence and secrecy of such departmental expenditures are necessary and justifiable. The aim is to avoid jeopardizing the effectiveness of the agencies (30K on a toilet seat, 2013). The drawback, however, is that the secrecy may encourage misuse of funds and corruption.
Dilbert: Operating Under Budget Cuts
The most important reaction to a budget cut is to remain calm and avoid panicking. For example, the manager whose budget is slashed in the video podcast Budget Failure does not react angrily (Adams, 2009). The conduct of the program manager under such circumstances influences the activities of the employees. The wrong reaction may diminish the outputs of the project significantly (Adams, 2009).
The next step is to find out what the program can afford. To this end, the program manager should assess the available funding and compare it with the deliverables. The items that the project can afford within the constraints should be prioritized (Adams, 2009). It is important to evaluate and prioritize what must be done. Some of the non-essential requirements should be done away with depending on the regulatory reasons and the essential program operations. At this juncture, it is important to understand the new budget while working with the key stakeholders. The aim is to ensure that the information received is correct.
It is also important to re-address the medium-term priorities that may be expensive to implement. Where possible, such requirements should be ‘downgraded’ until the next budget (Adams, 2009). The program manager should streamline the processes to make sure that the deliverables are still achieved efficiently. In most cases, this can be achieved by sharing the constraints with the program team. As such, all the stakeholders understand the issues, including what can work and available opportunities.
A budget cut is not exciting. However, it is possible to make the best out of the grim situation. The best strategy is to rally the employees together and remind them of the values of the program (Adams, 2009). In essence, the program manager should not dwell on the past. Instead, they should accept the changes and seek to deliver the best with the available resources. Consequently, the manager should seek solutions that are workable and support the objectives of the program realistically.
References
30K on a toilet seat. (2013). Web.
Adams, S. (Producer). (2009). Dilbert cartoon: Budget failure . Web.