It has been said that if the water is warmed slowly, the frog boils to death in the water without realizing it is in any danger. I rather think the heat has been turned up fast enough lately, that the frog knows.
I have to admit that I am not surprised that international monies have been used for purposes as DOGE has uncovered. What I do have to admit surprises me, is that the average taxpayer is also surprised at discovering this.
Firstly, to try and explain it in quasi legitimate terms- in larger bureaucracies, there is a great deal of fog at the top of the mountain. US Department of State, and USAID have to use boundaries, or regions, or countries, and those regional managers have great sway in which projects are funded. At the top, they allocate funds to region, and then walk away satisfied that the money is going to a noteworthy purpose.
Of course, the budget is large enough, that the validity of the mission is of secondary importance to actually spending the money, as strange as this sounds. Under execution of the tax dollar is something that is a sin once Congress has appropriated it. If a fund traditionally under executes, Congress will decide that they do not need such a budget and spend it elsewhere.
I have been on the other end-the bottom- of this funding/ execution cycle. With the Counter-Drug program, or the guard, the projects essential to the mission were historically funded at a percentage of what was needed for the year. While those allocated funds were directed to essential and priority programs, contingency plans were drawn up for “September Money”, or unfunded projects, which benefited from other agencies that could not execute their budget before the end of the physical year, the funds ultimately being turned in for emergency reallocation and execution. So, if there is more money left at the end of the fiscal year, which normally there is, a smart man knows how to get ahold of it and spend it.
Literally, those at the top just want to spend the money. We at the bottom of the fiscal budgeting pole, have a project ready, price forecasted, the contract prepared, and the big shots are relieved when we take that money for these projects, turn around the contract, and execute the money. Both of my agencies at the bottom of the federal pole have benefited from this expediency.
I was able to fence a training area, of roughly 13,000 acres, with September money. Let us be clear that such an expenditure was not wasteful as we had dangerous incursions of interlopers on the unfenced space that normally used our land to further the drug trade. September money is not a bad thing, when common sense is applied.
That said, “spend it or lose it”, has its consequences. Namely projects that do not pass the smell test, and in the case of providing monies to study cattle flatulence in Argentina, which has been reported, I do not think it will past the smell test; neither metaphorically, or in the literal sense.
An honest broker, armed with common sense, needs to determine if these funds further US Interests, and I can state my opinion firmly that if the report was legitimate, and the money was spent in South America for this cow study, it does not. If this study is legitimate, and important, I would imagine that the cattle in the US are as gassy as the ones in Argentina.
The next thing that I have an opinion on, and it is just an opinion, is that there are some of these funds that do not end up supporting the effort and are covered only by the title of expenditure. Plainly, not all the money can make it to the project and spent outside of how or why it is intended.
There is governance in these countries that must get involved, and if a magistrate or regional governor, or department head, or whatever fellow there in Argentina is going to see the study enabled, then he will want funds to manage his portion of the responsibility. It is not too much of a supposition to imagine that some of those funds, or all of them, end up in this foreign manager’s personal bank account with a Swiss number attached.
My experience in Afghanistan supports this directly. An Afghan Lt. General was relieved for depositing half of his agency’s budget into his own account in Dubai. The very next day, he was promoted, reassigned to a position of greater responsibility, and the cycle continued- his Dubai account unmolested.
With politics, there is grease. One can speculate how far the grease manages to climb back up the line, with that amount of money that is spent in this manner, especially before the end of the federal fiscal year. This notion has merit, likely- at least in doses, not likely as much as we would be led to believe- but those that have interests, have a very good way of seeing that their interests remain interesting.
A nod here, and wink there, and the grease gets greasier. The Arabs called this “backsheesh”, and it was just the common order and method of doing business. Someone, at the top, has to get paid, if you want to do what you want to do on my turf.
So, the main question is, are our lawmakers availing themselves of benefits of this backsheesh? Directly, not likely, but indirectly, through campaign contributions, I would think certainly. If USAID is connected through second or third, or fourth level connections, it would certainly be hard to track, and I think this is by design. Money that just shows up, without a trace to anything that defies common sense, and can be loosely tied to interests, does not simply disappear- it is going somewhere.
The question is a real one. There can be little doubt that being a member of Congress is certainly lucrative, members with modest fortunes suddenly see their opportunities, and within the confusion, the fog, the backsheesh, the grease, suddenly the speculation seems real indeed.
It all is close enough to appearing unethical, that it would wise to remain well placed on the high ground, looking down on it so there cannot be questions. The fact that there are questions, that fortunes are made, generate a attitude that it cannot only be speculation.
I am hopeful certainly that this is not the case, and it is at best conspiracy fueled speculation that has jaundiced my position in regrettable fashion. I am hopeful that I can still place my trust in our elected officials, and this suspicion in misguided. I really want to think the best of people, Left and Right. BUT, we are hearing news of this or something similar, every single day.
Recently, it was reported by the incoming director of the EPA, that a $2 Billion dollar grant was awarded to an environmental group linked to Congresswoman Abrams. This is a group founded in 2024, reported as having a budget of $100 in its two-month lifetime, now has $2B in its coffers. Is this rags to riches story possible without Ms. Abrams influence both on the EPA, and the “Non-profit”? Uh, yeah…..sure it is, but I do not see a world where it is truly possible. Is there backsheesh that will make it to her in some secretive form? Uh……well……likely.
The next question is does this culture of backsheesh cross the isle? Uh……well……
I know that it takes a bit of faith to connect the dots, and speculation is dangerous. Maybe, just maybe- these are all good faith donations, without any backsheesh. But, in the real world, chances are slim that there isn’t grease making its way back up the line, which if absent no such money would flow.
The main indicator of this, is that I do not see hearty denials, or any facts that show that this grease money is not ending up where it is speculated to have been banked. If you or I were accused of such misconduct, I would expect that we would be aggressive in setting the record straight. As there is nothing but silence specific to the allegation, and bombastic rhetoric about the accusers’ methods and character. The silence speaks volumes, the yelling much less.
All said, it just smells. If we want to have confidence in the people that literally control our legislative futures, they individually or collectively must address the smell.
Until they do, I happen to know of a security company in Kentucky, name of TAG- that could use a couple billion, Ms. Abrams? Ma’am?……Anybody?