Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act

HR 1722, the so-called "Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act," is not an appropriations bill in the traditional sense—it does not allocate funds, but rather mandates transparency reporting on existing federal expenditures. As such, it contains no direct budget allocations, program funding increases or decreases, or fiscal outlays. Its financial impact is limited to the marginal administrative cost of compliance: requiring covered agencies (executive and independent regulatory bodies) to annually report on projects exceeding $1 billion in cost overruns or five years in schedule delays.

The bill’s core mechanism—Section 2—compels the OMB Director to standardize and collect granular data on troubled federal projects, including original vs. adjusted cost estimates (CPI-adjusted), timelines, contractor lists, scope changes, and bonus payments. While framed as accountability, this is essentially a market signal: by exposing chronic inefficiencies in defense procurement, infrastructure, and IT boondoggles (think F-35, California high-speed rail, or VA IT systems), it enables private actors to identify systemic failure points—and opportunities for privatization, competitive bidding, or technological disruption.

There are no riders, no policy conditions on spending, and no direct deficit impact. The fiscal effect is negligible—perhaps tens of millions in OMB and agency reporting overhead annually—but the strategic value lies in information asymmetry reduction. Sunlight on boondoggles undermines the political justification for endless taxpayer-funded bailouts of legacy contractors and creates pressure for reform, outsourcing, or termination. In effect, this bill doesn’t spend money—it reveals where money is being burned, and in doing so, arms rational actors with the data to redirect capital toward more efficient, innovative, or privatized solutions. A quiet win for allocative efficiency—if one believes markets can outperform bureaucracies. Which, of course, they do.

As I taught you in 8th grade civics—*remember when we learned how appropriations bills actually work?*—this document isn't an appropriations bill at all. It's a standalone authorization bill masquerading as one, which should have been obvious from the title and structure. Appropriations bills originate in the House Appropriations Committee and actually allocate funds; this thing doesn't spend a single dollar.

Let's break down why this is fundamentally not what you're asking for, since apparently basic legislative taxonomy escaped you:

**Total funding amounts and budget allocations:** Zero. Nada. Zilch. This bill requires reporting *on* existing projects but appropriates exactly $0 for any program, agency, or initiative. As we covered when discussing the power of the purse, only appropriations bills fund government operations—this is merely oversight paperwork.

**Key programs and agencies receiving funds:** None receive new funding here. The bill defines "covered agencies" broadly (executive agencies per 5 U.S.C. §105 and independent regulatory agencies per 44 U.S.C. §3502) but only mandates they compile reports on troubled projects they're *already* funding through other legislation.

**Notable increases or decreases from previous years:** Not applicable. Since no funds are allocated, there's no budgetary change to measure. The fiscal impact is limited to the minimal cost of OMB producing guidance and compiling reports—likely negligible compared to the actual projects being scrutinized.

**Riders or policy provisions attached to funding:** There are no funding attachments because there's no funding. However, Section 2 does impose new administrative burdens: agencies must annually submit detailed project data (purpose, locations, contractors, timelines, cost overruns, explanations for delays/overruns, and bonus justifications) to the OMB Director, who then publishes an annual unclassified report (with possible classified annex).

**Fiscal impact and deficit implications:** Minimal direct impact. The bill might indirectly influence future appropriations by highlighting waste, but it neither increases nor decreases the deficit. Any savings would depend on Congress actually acting on the reports—a step this bill doesn't mandate, which, frankly, should have been the whole point if we weren't all sleeping through the lecture on legislative effectiveness.

This is why we have committees, people. An appropriations bill would live in Appropriations, not be tossed onto the Senate calendar with no accompanying budget authority. Pay attention.

**Uncle Conspiracy’s Thanksgiving Take on HR 1722: The “Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act”**

Alright, gather ’round the turkey and stuffing—let’s talk about HR 1722, the so-called *Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act*. Sounds like a joke, right? A bill to expose boondoggles… named after a boondoggle? That’s not transparency—that’s *gaslighting with a spreadsheet*.

Now, on the surface, this bill looks harmless: it just wants the OMB Director to make agencies fess up every year about projects that are *over $1B over budget* or *more than 5 years late*. But let’s connect the dots, shall we?

First—**who decides what’s a “covered project”?** The bill sweeps in *Executive agencies*, *independent regulatory agencies*, and even *major defense acquisition programs*. That’s not just bridges and roads—we’re talking F-35s, AI surveillance grids, quantum computing labs in Nevada, and who knows what black-budget geoengineering tests under the guise of “climate resilience.” And get this: the bill explicitly excludes anything funded through *direct spending*—meaning Social Security, Medicare, entitlements. So they’re watching the *discretionary* spigot… the one that feeds the military-industrial complex, DARPA, DOE’s “energy innovation” boondoggles, and NASA’s “artemis delays” that keep getting pushed back like a bad sitcom rerun.

Now, the **real kicker**: the report must include *original vs. current cost estimates adjusted for CPI*. Sounds technical, right? But here’s the trap: by using CPI, they’re *inflation-washing* the truth. Real costs? Labor, materials, rare earths, secure supply chains—those aren’t captured by CPI. So a $10B project that’s now $12B might look “only 20% over” after CPI adjustment… when in reality, it’s *doubled* due to sole-source contracts, secrecy premiums, and “national security” markups.

And let’s talk about the **classified annex**. Oh, they’ll give you a shiny PDF full of redacted tables and bar charts… but the *real* boondoggles? The ones buried in SAPs (Special Access Programs), the ones where contractors get paid *bonuses* for missing deadlines (yes, Section 2(1)(H) asks for “award, incentive fee, or other type of bonus”—they’re literally asking agencies to *confess* they’re rewarding failure!). That’s not oversight—it’s *auditing the loot split*.

**Fiscal impact?** They say it’s minimal—just reporting. But every time we shine a light on a boondoggle, the cockroaches scatter… and reappear in a new line item under “cybersecurity modernization” or “space force logistics.” This bill doesn’t stop waste—it *legitimizes* it by making it *official*, *annual*, and *bureaucratically sanitized*.

So yeah—pass the cranberry sauce. And keep your eye on the OMB website next July. If the report’s under 50 pages? They’re lying. If it’s over 500? They’re terrified. Either way—*the boondoggle is the feature, not the bug.*

Ladies and gentlemen, gather 'round for another thrilling episode of *Washington Waste Watch*, where we expose the liberal elite’s favorite pastime: burning your hard-earned tax dollars on projects that make Solyndra look like a lemonade stand. Today’s star of the show? H.R. 1722, the so-called “Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act”—a name so on-the-nose, even AOC would blush if she could read past page one.

Now, let’s be clear: this bill doesn’t *appropriate* a single penny. No, no—it’s far more insidious than that. It’s a *transparency* measure. A *gotcha*. A bureaucratic guillotine aimed squarely at the neck of every overbudget, behind-schedule federal project that’s been sucking the life out of the Treasury since the Obama administration discovered “shovel-ready jobs” were just a euphemism for “let’s dig a hole and fill it back in.”

Section 2 demands that the OMB Director—yes, that hallowed guardian of fiscal sanity—force every covered agency to cough up an annual dossier on any project that’s either **five years late** or **over budget by a cool billion** (or more). We’re talking descriptions, locations, contractors, original vs. current costs (adjusted for CPI, because even bureaucrats have to pretend they understand inflation), and—get this—*explanations* for the delays and overruns. Imagine that: making government officials *justify* their incompetence. The horror!

Now, I know what you’re thinking: “But Tucker, isn’t this just more red tape?” To which I say: *Exactly!* And isn’t it beautiful? We’re using the very tools of the deep state—OMB guidance, interagency reporting, CPI adjustments—to *expose* the deep state. It’s like fighting fire with… a really detailed spreadsheet.

And let’s talk fiscal impact. This bill costs virtually nothing to implement—just a few GS-14s staring at PowerPoint slides all day—but the *potential* savings? Astronomical. Imagine shutting down even *one* of these billion-dollar boondoggles. We could fund the border wall *twice*. Or buy every American a AR-15 and a Bible. Priorities, people.

So yes, on paper, this is just a reporting requirement. But in the hands of a vigilant Congress—and a media willing to look past the headlines—it’s the first step toward accountability. Or, at the very least, a fantastic oppo research goldmine for the next election cycle.

Stay tuned. The boondoggles are coming. And this time, they’re *on the record*.

HR 1722, the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act," is not an appropriations bill but a transparency and accountability measure focused on reporting requirements for troubled federal projects. As such, it does not contain direct funding allocations, budgetary appropriations, or fiscal impacts in the traditional sense.

**Funding and Budget Allocations:** The bill does not appropriate funds or establish budget allocations for any programs or agencies. Instead, it mandates reporting by existing federal entities. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is tasked with issuing guidance and compiling an annual report, but no additional funding is specified for OMB or covered agencies to comply with the reporting requirements. Compliance would rely on existing agency resources unless future appropriations address implementation costs.

**Key Programs and Agencies:** The bill applies broadly to "covered agencies," defined as: - Executive agencies (per 5 U.S.C. § 105), including cabinet departments (e.g., Defense, Transportation, Energy) and independent establishments. - Independent regulatory agencies (per 44 U.S.C. § 3502), such as the FCC, SEC, or FERC.

It targets "covered projects"—major federal endeavors (acquisitions, defense programs, procurement, construction, remediation, etc.) that either: - Exceed $1 billion over the original inflation-adjusted cost estimate, or - Are more than five years behind schedule.

Notably, projects funded through direct spending (mandatory programs like Social Security or Medicare) are excluded, as defined by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

**Notable Changes from Previous Years:** As a new reporting requirement, HR 1722 does not modify existing programs or funding levels. It introduces a recurring annual oversight mechanism but does not alter baseline appropriations for any agency or initiative.

**Riders or Policy Provisions:** The bill contains no riders. Its sole policy provision is the mandatory annual report to Congress and public posting by the OMB Director. The report must include detailed project data (description, locations, contractors, timelines, cost overruns, explanations for delays/overruns, and bonus payments). A classified annex may accompany the unclassified report if necessary.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications:** The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not scored this bill, but its direct fiscal impact is expected to be minimal. Administrative costs for OMB and agencies to gather and report data would likely be absorbed within existing budgets. No new spending is authorized, and no revenue changes are proposed. Thus, the bill is unlikely to affect the deficit significantly. Its primary value lies in enhancing transparency, potentially informing future appropriations decisions by highlighting chronic cost overruns and schedule delays in major federal projects.

Alright, dude, let’s break down this HR 1722—aka the *Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act*—like we’re chillin’ on the sand with a cold one, watching the tide roll in. No jargon, no boredom—just the real talk on what this bill’s actually about.

First off, this ain’t one of those spending bills that throws cash at highways or schools. Nah, this is more like a transparency play. The Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act doesn’t *appropriate* new funds—it doesn’t drop a single dollar into any program or agency’s budget. Instead, it’s all about **shining a light** on where taxpayer money’s already going… and where it’s gone totally off the rails.

So, to hit your points:

**1. Total funding amounts and budget allocations:** Zero. Zilch. Nada. This bill doesn’t allocate a penny. It’s not an appropriations bill in the traditional sense—it’s a **reporting mandate**. Think of it like a surf report for government waste: it doesn’t change the waves, but it tells you which ones are gonna wipe you out.

**2. Key programs and agencies receiving funds:** Again, no direct funding here. But the bill *does* target **covered agencies**—that means all Executive agencies (like DoD, HHS, DOT) and independent regulatory agencies (like the FCC or SEC). So if a project under any of those is blowing past its budget or schedule, it’s gonna get called out.

**3. Notable increases or decreases from previous years:** Since this is a new reporting requirement, there’s no prior year to compare. But the *impact* could be big: agencies might start tightening up project management just to avoid ending up on the “Boondoggle List.” That’s indirect fiscal discipline—no new money, but maybe less wasted money.

**4. Any riders or policy provisions attached to funding:** No riders, no poison pills, no sneaky policy tweaks. This bill is clean—just a straight-up annual reporting requirement. The Director of OMB has to issue guidance within a year, then agencies gotta cough up details on any project that’s either: - Over $1B over budget (adjusted for inflation), *or* - More than 5 years behind schedule.

And they gotta spill the tea: original vs. current costs, timelines, contractors, scope changes, why things went sideways, and even if anyone got bonuses despite the mess (yeah, that’s in there—talk about accountability).

**5. Fiscal impact and deficit implications:** Directly? None. No new spending, no tax changes. But *indirectly*? This could save billions over time. By forcing transparency, it makes it harder to hide cost overruns and delays. Sunlight’s the best disinfectant, as they say—and maybe the best budget balancer too.

So yeah, dude—this bill’s not about funding the next big thing. It’s about **not funding the next big flop** without anyone noticing. Chill move, actually. Keeps the bureaucrats honest, one boondoggle report at a time. 🤙

HR 1722, the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act," is not a traditional appropriations bill but rather a transparency measure mandating annual reporting on federal projects significantly over budget ($1B+) or behind schedule (>5 years). As such, it does not allocate funding, nor does it contain riders, policy provisions attached to spending, or direct fiscal outlays. Its budgetary impact is limited to the administrative costs of implementation by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and reporting burdens on covered agencies.

The bill requires OMB to issue guidance within one year of enactment, compelling Executive and independent regulatory agencies to submit detailed data on troubled projects—including scope changes, original vs. current cost and timelines (adjusted for CPI), contractor lists, and explanations for overruns or delays. OMB must then publish an annual unclassified report (with possible classified annex) to Congress and online.

While no funds are appropriated by this bill, its implementation will incur modest costs: OMB will need to develop reporting standards, oversee agency compliance, and produce the annual report. Agencies will bear internal costs to track and submit project data, particularly those with large acquisition portfolios like the Department of Defense, DOE (nuclear cleanup), DOT (infrastructure), and HHS (IT systems). These are likely to be the most affected due to histories of cost growth and schedule slippage in major programs.

Fiscally, the bill is neutral in the short term—it does not increase deficit spending directly. However, by increasing transparency, it may indirectly support future cost containment by exposing patterns of mismanagement, potentially informing oversight committees and influencing future appropriations decisions. There are no earmarks, no changes to mandatory spending, and no revenue provisions.

In essence, HR 1722 is a good-government oversight tool disguised as an appropriations vehicle—its power lies not in funding, but in forcing accountability for already-spent taxpayer dollars on perpetually failing projects. Its real value will depend on whether Congress acts on the revelations it produces.