Drops in a very big bucket

Posted at 2:08 PM on July 29, 2009 by Than Tibbetts (9 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

Remember when President Obama ordered federal agencies to shave $100 million from their budgets? Well, The Wall Street Journal reports they did it with $2 million extra on top.

With the budget deficit soaring toward $2 trillion, the Department of Justice has figured out how to play its part: double-sided photocopying.

There are other acts of national sacrifice. The Forest Service will no longer repaint its new, white vehicles green immediately upon purchase. The Army will start packing more soldiers onto R&R flights. The Navy will delete unused email accounts.

The Journal, it seems, could barely hide its contempt for the initiative, calling it a “savings shocker” in the headline and calling out “Front-and-Back Copies, Other Wonders” in the subhead.

That is 0.006% of the estimated federal deficit.

Still, a penny saved is a penny earned, right?

Update: It seems the Minnesota Senate is getting into the cost-cutting act as well. The AP says the Senate is cutting $2.2 million from its budget by spending “less on everything from employees to Kleenex.”

---

Comments (9)

Every little bit helps. I'm still trying to train my dad to print double-sided -- or better yet, NOT print every funny forward he receives. If a dog as old and stubborn as the government can learn new tricks, maybe there's hope for other old dogs ;-)

Posted by Rachel | July 29, 2009 2:46 PM

---

But that's not the point, my friend. (From "Evita")

It's about the continuous pursuit of improved quality and efficiency. Most of us can reduce waste if we would Think and Seek it out, but we tend to ignore it because we perceive waste as inconsequential.) It was NOT about the $100M. It is about Process. It is about Thinking. It is about avoiding habitual waste. The energy that created that first drop will create more drops, too.

We might consider when phrasing our questions the possibility that what is immediately obvious may not be the actual goal. (Consult with a Myers-Briggs type NT.) Ask what was the real goal, and why. Don't be quick to make fun of minor influences. Remember when they made fun of Obama when in the campaign he asked people if their tires are properly inflated? Get used to the way he thinks, and avoid being quick to poke fun if you don't get it.

Posted by Garitaar | July 29, 2009 3:13 PM

---

I'm personally impressed with Obama that instead of a vague promise like "reduce wasteful government spending" he made an objective testable goal and met it. That's a much better way to approach policymaking, wherever we can manage it.

Posted by Ryan | July 29, 2009 4:28 PM

---

So why is it that people complain so much when the administration tries to change the bucket?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/

People like to complain about how much stuff costs. Change will cost money. Change is needed to save money. We need to spend to save in the long run-- to change the ridiculous impact healthcare is having on our country.

We have bigger fish to fry than double-sided copies-- and so does the media. I think the media is too overwhemled to cover as complex as healthcare reform, so they turn to covering double-sided copies, birth certificates, Palin, and Michael Vick.

Posted by Chad | July 29, 2009 4:58 PM

---

Very bad idea. Using a laser printer to do double-sided printing will contaminant the drum and will over time severely degrade the print quality, not to mention making it harder to recycle the the toner drum. This is a pennywise pound foolish solution.

A better solution would be to replace printed memos with emails. After, of course, tightening up email protocols so each employee has no problem accessing key emails.

Any move towards making our a paperless government would create huge savings well in excess of $100 million.

Posted by Mark Gisleson | July 29, 2009 9:49 PM

---

The double sided copying is a silly, albeit stupid move....Where I work (gov't) they have gone to this. The problem is that we often need to FAX paper documents we have received two sided. We don't have a 2 sided printer, so we wind up having to copy the documents again. Any idea how much extra labor this takes?????

Posted by Lily | July 30, 2009 7:57 AM

---

God forbid having to do any extra labor.

Posted by Rowsdower | July 30, 2009 8:10 AM

---

Rowsdower, extra labor means Lily could be doing something more constructive with her time at work. Instead, she is re-copying documents, which means other tasks aren't completed as soon as they could, it takes longer for a document to actually be faxed to the recipient, etc. It's not efficient and isn't saving any money because of the re-copying.

Posted by Teresa | July 30, 2009 3:51 PM

---

Given scanners and email, fax machines seem fairly outdated... more a situation of not being able to give them up because someone else still uses them, but they should go.

Posted by J Smith | July 30, 2009 9:26 PM

---

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories