Apr 23, 2025
"Poverty plan hit for fraud, waste," reported the Associated Press in 1966. "Study says government waste is unbelievable,” insisted United Press International in 1983. "Beneath Trump’s Chaotic Spending Freeze: An Idea That Crosses Party Lines," announced The New York Times in January of this year.
It’s an argument that dates back decades, even centuries: Government is bloated, spending wastefully, and enabling widespread fraud and abuse. The only solution to this waste, fraud, and abuse is to root it out. Cutting salaries, personnel, or entire programs or agencies, it follows, will streamline government bodies, saving millions to billions of dollars.
But who gets to decide what’s “wasteful” in the first place? How
are these concepts routinely racialized? What effect does it have
on a public dependent on social programs and essential government
services like safety inspections? And why should governments be
expected to “save” money, when their job—at least in theory— isn’t
to make money in the first place, but—again in theory—improve the
welfare of its citizens?
On this episode, we detail the past and present of the “waste,
fraud, and abuse” framing, looking at how it’s long been used to
justify the degradation of essential social programs;
mischaracterize governments as businesses; and weaken protections
for workers, renters, and everyone else who isn’t a capital-owning
member of the elite.
Our guest is Death Panel's Beatrice Adler-Bolton.