Typical Civil Servant

[trtinajax]

OTTAWA - Canada's budget watchdog is asking parliamentarians to get to the bottom of why the Harper government is spending less than it has been authorized.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the government has been unable to, or not spent, about $10 billion that was approved in each of the past three years.

Why do Civil Servants think that the objective of government must be to spend as much money as possible. In business I was always praised and praised my staff if we were able to accomplish our objectives for the year, at the same time coming in under budget. This civil servant mentality that the money was budgeted therefore it must be spent before the end of the fiscal year has to be ended. Even spending on totally useless items seems to be preferable to leaving some budget dollars unspent. Of course we operated on a zero budget approach where during the budgeting process you had to account for each dollar you budgeted for, none of this take my spending for this year and up it by 10% to establish next year's budget.

Maybe the Conservatives should really be looking at the need for a Parliamentary Budget Officer.

 

[great bear]

How can you tell if a civil servant has died on the job? 1. approach the civil servant slowly just to make sure he/she is not in a deep sleep. 2. wave a pay cheque in front of his/her eyes. If the person in question does not grasp at the pay cheque the civil servant is not dead. However there have been cases of dead civil servants involuntarily reaching for pay cheques even when dead.

 

[TeasePlease]

Playing devil's advocate, government budgets are often program-based. If large budgeted amounts have not been spent, it raises questions as to whether certain departments have failed to deliver program commitments.

It's is also not a government-specific problem. Private sector managers often go on year end spending sprees with unused budget. They know that if they don't spend it, they'll lose it.

 

[CapitalGuy]

Playing devil's advocate, government budgets are often program-based. If large budgeted amounts have not been spent, it raises questions as to whether certain departments have failed to deliver program commitments.

I agree with that perspective. If the program called for that $10B to be spent, and it didn't get spent, then something is wrong, and the PBO is trying to figure out what's wrong. It means our tax dollars are not being spent properly (ie. the way our government directed they be spent) and the flaws need to be found and fixed. He's trying to figure out how the various Departments are fucking up. Its not like we get the money back - it goes right back to the government coffers to get mismanaged on other programs.

If, like me, you would prefer that that $10B not be spent in the first place, that's a political matter. Call your MP and demand he reduce spending. But good fucking luck finding a Party that agrees with THAT radical concept.

 

[George The Curious]

Are you serious? the only way to measure public service objectives is to see how much money spent? If the same objective is achieved by volunteers, it means not good enough?

 

[Keebler Elf]

OTTAWA - Canada's budget watchdog is asking parliamentarians to get to the bottom of why the Harper government is spending less than it has been authorized.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the government has been unable to, or not spent, about $10 billion that was approved in each of the past three years.

No idea of the politics going on here but it may be that the "budget watchdog" suspects the government is manipulating the budget by making it larger than they need so they can then claim "cost savings". Do that enough and you undermine the credibility of your budget or, WORSE, your budget creeps upwards as spending rises to meet the (incorrect) budget.

While I agree that a fundamental principle should be spend within your means, another is that you should only budget for what you legitimately expect to need (which includes your "fudge factor").

 

[red]

I agree with that perspective. If the program called for that $10B to be spent, and it didn't get spent, then something is wrong, and the PBO is trying to figure out what's wrong. It means our tax dollars are not being spent properly (ie. the way our government directed they be spent) and the flaws need to be found and fixed. He's trying to figure out how the various Departments are fucking up. Its not like we get the money back - it goes right back to the government coffers to get mismanaged on other programs.

If, like me, you would prefer that that $10B not be spent in the first place, that's a political matter. Call your MP and demand he reduce spending. But good fucking luck finding a Party that agrees with THAT radical concept.

or if its been spent but not recorded.

 

[red]

Are you serious? the only way to measure public service objectives is to see how much money spent? If the same objective is achieved by volunteers, it means not good enough?

say the gov't budgets 2 billion to fix a bridge. if the money isn't spent- is it because it wasn't done? or done cheaper? or cheaply? its an important question

 

[oldjones]

OTTAWA - Canada's budget watchdog is asking parliamentarians to get to the bottom of why the Harper government is spending less than it has been authorized.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the government has been unable to, or not spent, about $10 billion that was approved in each of the past three years.

Why do Civil Servants think that the objective of government must be to spend as much money as possible. In business I was always praised and praised my staff if we were able to accomplish our objectives for the year, at the same time coming in under budget. This civil servant mentality that the money was budgeted therefore it must be spent before the end of the fiscal year has to be ended. Even spending on totally useless items seems to be preferable to leaving some budget dollars unspent. Of course we operated on a zero budget approach where during the budgeting process you had to account for each dollar you budgeted for, none of this take my spending for this year and up it by 10% to establish next year's budget.

Maybe the Conservatives should really be looking at the need for a Parliamentary Budget Officer.

You're assuming that the government departments met their objectives without spending all the money Parliament had assigned and voted them. Any evidence for that? My bet is that the PBO and the folks he's reporting on agreed the objectives Parliament had set when voting the money were far from being met.

In the movie business, my producers gave me royal shit for not spending every cent of the money they'd busted themselves and sold their souls to raise so they could make the best film they could and bring in multiples for every dollar spent. They hired me to help make them prosper, not to pinch pennies.

I consider my hard earned tax dollars deserve the same respect, and I resent a government that tries to miser my country, city or province into mediocrity. Especially when they do it by the back door, pretending to give us our money's worth but making sure we don't prosper so they can boast to the short-sighted and ignorant about how stingy they've been.

Stupid to umpire any game using rules from another.

 

[TeasePlease]

Are you serious? the only way to measure public service objectives is to see how much money spent? If the same objective is achieved by volunteers, it means not good enough?

Our friends at the friendly local union hall would have a few thoughts about that, no doubt....

 

[George The Curious]

say the gov't budgets 2 billion to fix a bridge. if the money isn't spent- is it because it wasn't done? or done cheaper? or cheaply? its an important question

Just because $2 billion is spent, how do you know it is done properly? maybe it is still done cheaply and extra money went to corruption?
To see if the bridge is done properly, send an inspector, regardless how much is spent. the less money spent the better.

 

[FirstCaveman]

It's pretty simple... where were they under budget, and were the programs in those spaces properly delivered.
We all appreciate good governance - lets just see the facts and numbers that independently disclose this success.

 

[Anynym]

Does nobody else have a problem with the fact that the PBO, who reports to Parliament, now thinks that Parliament reports to the PBO? I mean, Page always acted that way but he never came out and said it.

Absolutely ridiculous abuse of office. The PBO should be shut down for incompetence if this is how they think.

 

[fuji]

I think it is entirely appropriate for the PBO to demand answers in this area. The Government is probably hiding something somewhere -- we may be accumulating unfunded liabilities in order to make the books look better than they are. It's important that we have a clear understanding of how the government is spending money.

The PBO is doing the job properly.

 

[TeasePlease]

I think it is entirely appropriate for the PBO to demand answers in this area. The Government is probably hiding something somewhere -- we may be accumulating unfunded liabilities in order to make the books look better than they are. It's important that we have a clear understanding of how the government is spending money.

The PBO is doing the job properly.

Accumulating unfunded liabilities to make the books look better???

what?

Lol

 

[fuji]

Accumulating unfunded liabilities to make the books look better???

what?

Lol

An unfunded liability is a required future payment for which you have not set aside appropriate funds.

Some examples would be, a homeowner or car owner who fails to make needed repairs, and claims to have a "budget surplus", when in reality, repair costs are just mounting and no money to pay them has been set aside. Or a classic one is if pension funds are not being set aside, knowing full well that in the future there will be required payments, but the required savings have not been set aside to pay for them, that's an unfunded liability.

If the government is saving this 10 billion by failing to set aside money that will be required in the future, or failing to spend it now on things like repairs to avoid future payments, then it is false savings. It is a fake surplus being presented as one, in order to make the government look better today, when it will come back in the future as a deficit.

So it's important to know how the money has been "saved", to ensure that it really is savings, and not just smoke and mirrors.

 

[TeasePlease]

An unfunded liability is a required future payment for which you have not set aside appropriate funds.

Some examples would be, a homeowner or car owner who fails to make needed repairs, and claims to have a "budget surplus", when in reality, repair costs are just mounting and no money to pay them has been set aside. Or a classic one is if pension funds are not being set aside, knowing full well that in the future there will be required payments, but the required savings have not been set aside to pay for them, that's an unfunded liability.

If the government is saving this 10 billion by failing to set aside money that will be required in the future, or failing to spend it now on things like repairs to avoid future payments, then it is false savings. It is a fake surplus being presented as one, in order to make the government look better today, when it will come back in the future as a deficit.

So it's important to know how the money has been "saved", to ensure that it really is savings, and not just smoke and mirrors.

Ummm, ok. Thanks for the lecture, professor. But, you're talking out of your ass. It's not about unfunded liabilities.

Your point was whether a "fake" liability had been set up in order to make the government look better when the surplus was "discovered".

If that was the case, why would funding matter? It's a FAKE liability (no intention of ever incurring the cost in the first instance).

Secondly, the point of the story was that the budget office was investigating why an appropriated (approved and FUNDED) budget amount had not been spent.

The accounting/financial management concept that you're trying to articulate is "budgetary slack" - when managers deliberate pad the budget with excess resources so as to allow for "shit happens" or to look like heroes when they come in under budget.

 

[fuji]

I never suggested there were any fake liabilities?

I am saying that these savings may not be real, and if not there is a risk that in the future we are going to get a big bill. Government ought to be able to explain where ten billion in savings were found so that we can be sure there are no unpleasant surprises coming.

 

[Lovehobby]

Top 10 evil businessmen. Hard to top

http://listverse.com/2012/07/23/top-10-evil-businessmen/

 

[red]

Just because $2 billion is spent, how do you know it is done properly? maybe it is still done cheaply and extra money went to corruption?
To see if the bridge is done properly, send an inspector, regardless how much is spent. the less money spent the better.

well i agree to a point but the bridge still needs to be built. so if the money was allocated to it, why isn't it spent?

if a public company raises cash through IPO for an expansion of the business and never expands the business - wouldn't you question that?