How about a little waste, fraud or abuse?
Waste, fraud and abuse. There’s a fair share of it in government.
Take the MNsure website, Minnesota’s version of Obamacare, strongly supported by my opponent, Kevin Dahle. It has taken hundreds of millions of dollars to “fix” the site, and it still routinely fails to deliver what Kevin Dahle and its proponents promised over three years ago!
How about the $90 million Senate Office Building, a brand new building with brand new offices for politicians, that doesn’t provide more efficient service, better education or tax reform. Funding for that poster child for wasteful spending was also enthusiastically supported by Kevin Dahle.
Politicians routinely tout their plans to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in government, but nothing gets done. Of course, if a program is exposed in the media as being wasteful, or abusing taxpayer dollars, then the politicians appear before television cameras and demand accountability. But that’s always after the fact.
As a small business owner, Rich understands the need for efficiency, and how to keep spending under control while still delivering quality service. As the successful former owner of a restaurant, there is no greater customer service challenge. Now, as the owner of a real estate agency and an events center, delivering a quality product on time and on budget is a day-to-day undertaking for Rich.
Rich believes government is too big and tries to do too many things, often with poor results. When any large bureaucracy, either in government or the private sector gets too big and unwieldy, waste, fraud and abuse can more easily take root.
That’s why he will lead legislative efforts to undertake a top-to-bottom audit of state government. This won’t happen overnight. It will take time, and it will take persistence and diligence on the part of state lawmakers. And yes, the budget for the office of the legislative auditor will likely have to be increased.
However, if sufficient effort is dedicated to matching program goals to actual results, lawmakers can more readily determine if programs should be ended. At the end of the day, Rich believes programs that deliver measurable results should be preserved, and enhanced if necessary. Those that cannot show results will be ended and receive no future funding.