Reevaluating Federal Spending: The Case Against Misdirection of Taxpayer Dollars

For over two decades, I have worked closely with federal agencies. Initially, I represented the state of Wyoming and small businesses as a private attorney. Currently, I serve as Wyoming’s sole representative in the U.S. House. My experience has equipped me with extensive knowledge of agency structures, terminology, procedures, and the mentalities that dominate bureaucratic processes, especially regarding congressional oversight and resource allocation.

Amid the ongoing discussions about President Donald Trump’s initiative known as DOGE to combat waste, fraud, and abuse within the executive branch, it is crucial to highlight how federal agencies have historically evaded accountability. This misallocation of resources often supports policies that the American people do not endorse, are not approved by Congress, and stray from the core missions of these agencies.

The Pink Bicycle Effect

I frequently refer to the phenomenon of agency misallocation as the Pink Bicycle Effect. Take the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as an example. Given a choice between spending $1 million on curing cancer or whimsically purchasing pink bicycles, they might choose the bicycles, albeit tongue-in-cheek. Why does this happen? The answer lies in the fundamentally different incentives that govern public fund allocation compared to those in the private sector.

Federal agencies often operate under the assumption that there are no limits to available funding for their programs, regardless of how frivolous or unnecessary these expenditures may be. This mindset stems from decades of deficit spending and a lack of accountability from Congress, which has never compelled these agencies to justify their spending decisions.

Incentives that Foster Misallocation

More concerningly, agencies often spend taxpayer dollars on questionable ventures because our appropriations process encourages such behavior. When agencies divert funds towards whimsical initiatives like buying pink bicycles, they frequently deflect responsibility by claiming that Congress did not allocate sufficient resources for their intended missions like curing cancer.

In an ideal system, Congress would respond to these malpractices by appropriating funds with precise directives to focus all financial resources on urgent health crises such as cancer research. Tragically, our current framework lacks this incentive structure. Year after year, Congress continues to allocate money for cancer research while agencies squander these funds on inconsequential initiatives or, as observed with NIH, engage in activities like gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, or animal testing that raises ethical concerns.

Accountability in Oversight

A stark example highlighting agency mismanagement occurred during a Judiciary Committee hearing on June 4, 2024, involving Attorney General Merrick Garland. I asked Garland about the actions the Department of Justice was taking to protect Native American tribes from the encroachment of Mexican drug cartels, a situation exacerbated by the current administration’s open-border policies.

When faced with issues like human trafficking and drug smuggling that devastate communities, Garland reverted to the familiar refrain that Congress had not provided sufficient funding. Unfortunately, this excuse underscores the dire implications of the Pink Bicycle Effect.

The DOJ has invested millions into undermining Trump’s election in 2016 and discrediting his administration. However, when questioning the lack of FBI protection for tribes against drug dealers and human traffickers, Garland again used the standard defense, overlooking the DOJ’s ample access to necessary resources, including urging President Biden to address the border crisis.

The Budgetary Antithesis of American Values

Consider some instances of financial misdirection revealed by DOGE. Examples include $250,000 for initiatives aimed at promoting Vegan Local Climate Action Innovation in Zambia, $74 million dedicated to fostering inclusive justice in Colombia, $52 million allocated to the World Economic Forum, $40 million aimed at enhancing the social inclusion of sedentary migrants, and ongoing financial support for terrorist organizations like the Taliban.

I anticipate DOGE will ultimately unveil the extent of global expenditures that contradict American values and reflect a colossal misallocation of assets. These misdirections undermine the foundational principles upon which our nation is built.

Congress did not appropriate money for such frivolous programs. Instead, Congress intended for agencies to manage these funds according to the specific objectives for which they were allocated. For instance, agencies like the NIH were expected to prioritize missions like alleviating poverty in the Congo, operating under the assumption that they followed through on their commitments.

A Call for Accountability

The public does not support agencies squandering taxpayer dollars on unnecessary items like pink bicycles. We rightfully expect our Forest Service to manage forests effectively, our Bureau of Reclamation to ensure the successful operation of federal water infrastructure, and our Department of Agriculture to safeguard American food producers against foreign threats.

Citizens must convey a clear message: we cannot tolerate the diversion of assets and resources to chase agendas that the American people do not desire and which fail to promote our national interests.

Congress now has a vital opportunity to reclaim its duty as the primary body responsible for appropriating funds. With the assistance of DOGE, we can steer federal agencies away from the pursuit of misguided expenditures, including unnecessary purchases of pink bicycles.