> In the private sector, these kinds of numbers would not lead to a 50 percent cut in budget. Instead, you’d clearly invest further with that kind of return. Considering the ambitious goals set out in the President’s Management Agenda, the Trump Administration should double down on better support for the public, our troops, and our veterans. The best way to do that is clearly through investments like USDS.
Why would you halve the budget of a team that's yielding a more than 400% ROI (in terms of cost savings)?
Because that goes against the official doctrine that the state is wasteful? Why do it inhouse when it could be outsourced to someone for twice the price that will return the money in kickbacks as campaign contributions?
More data makes hiding corruption harder, so I'm not sure if it really gives 400% to the decision makers.
https://www.usaspending.gov (Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Obama, McCain, Carper, Coburn)) has more fine-grained spending data, but not credit-free immutable distributed ledger transaction IDs, quantitative ROI stats, or performance.gov and #globalgoals goal alignment. We'd need a metadata field on spending bills to link to performance.gov and SDG Goals, Targets, and Indicators.
"Transparency and Accountability"
IIRC, here on HN, I've mentioned a number of times -- and quoted in the full from -- the 13 plays of the USDS Digital Services Playbook; all of which are applicable to and should probably be required reading for all government IT and govtech: https://playbook.cio.gov/
There are forms with workflow states that need human review sometimes. USDS helps with getting those processes online in order to reduce costs, increase cost-efficiency, and increase quality of service.
It is easy to achieve success with a fat budget like that. It is only natural that if that team does well, then some of its resources should be transferred to a team that doesn't so that it can get the opportunity to improve.