>to allow to be used inefficiently or become dissipated
So, why are we bailing out Argentina, or bombing the South American gulfs? We can't be efficient if we can't even explain our reasoning. I've heard very little reasoning from the administration.
The best I heard was "we're hitting drug dealers". Even if I believed that, pending hundreds of billions to attack boats with drugs on them sounds horribly inefficient. Drugs are not an immediate threat to people and we have many methods through negotiation to simply limit/stop such imports.
I've heard zero justifications anywhere on the Argentina issue. It seems even many republicans do not like this approach.
> We can't be efficient if we can't even explain our reasoning
You're confusing transparency with efficiency. Military and international politics decisions often need public lies or omissions for political reasons but that doesn't mean they're inefficient for their intended purpose. If you word it more honestly as "The government can't be efficient if it doesn't explain its reasoning to the public", then it obviously doesn't follow from the definition of waste.
They go hand in hand. Or is it fine that the government is openly lying about how it claims to want to be "America First"?
>that doesn't mean they're inefficient for their intended purpose.
And that's what I ask. What is the intended purpose? I fail to explain it, and even with my most cynical interpretations I don't see how this is an efficient route.
Transparency would help a lot in evaluating if they aren't being wasteful. But as is, it seems to be a bunch of special interests all clashing with one another in the White House. They don't make sense because there's no unified plan.
You're saying that just because you don't know the purpose, there must be no useful purpose.
> even with my most cynical interpretations
Of course if you're thinking cynically, you won't come up with anything good.
Anyway, the definition is stupid, it says "or become dissipated" which is probably meant to refer to waste energy from a machine but without that context you could consider social welfare spending to be dissipation of money, so the most efficient way for the government to spend would be on huge concentrated projects.
How about spending on things that will have no benefit to the average US citizen, and in fact might just make things worse without solving the stated problem?
How about they spend that fucking money on funding food stamps or any of the other programs affected by the shutdown? If they can illegally move money elsewhere then they can do so for making sure people can eat. I'm going to need to start sending money out of my savings to support my parents because this administration is so inept that they're taking away benefits that our tax dollars have already paid for.
