I have a strong disdain for hypocrisy, particularly in professional settings.
During my tenure at a prominent law firm, I often found it frustrating that there was no budget allocated for business development aimed at supporting less prominent partners. Yet, when it came to the firm’s Management Committee, funds were readily available for lavish retreats in exotic destinations, luxurious five-star hotels, and expensive wines priced at $100 a bottle. This stark contrast in spending priorities left me feeling disillusioned and irritated.
This pattern of financial disparity is not unique to law firms; it is prevalent across corporate environments as well. You frequently hear directives mandating a 5% reduction in workforce across all departments. However, the upper echelon of corporate executives, often numbering around 300, can still afford to jet off to Europe for three days. Their itinerary typically includes fine dining and networking at upscale cocktail receptions, all while other employees face job insecurity.
Can someone please pass the shrimp?
Currently, I am witnessing a similar scenario unfold at the federal government level.
It appears that the federal government is experiencing a severe financial crisis. Recently, it was deemed absolutely essential for Elon Musk and his team to virtually eradicate foreign aid, which will have dire consequences for tens of thousands of individuals, potentially leading to illness or even death. Domestically, we are witnessing cuts to Medicaid, which will strip health insurance from millions of Americans. Meanwhile, Congress is engaging in political maneuvering to persuade the public that maintaining low taxes will magically alleviate the budget deficit.
In stark contrast to these budget cuts, the U.S. Army has projected that we will spend a staggering minimum of $25 million to $45 million for a military parade. This parade is intended to honor either the Army or the 79th birthday of our president, depending on whom you ask. I emphasize “minimum” because this multimillion-dollar estimate only accounts for the participation of 6,700 soldiers, 28 Abrams tanks, 28 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 28 Stryker vehicles, four Paladin self-propelled howitzers, eight marching bands, 24 horses, and two mules. Once we factor in additional costs, it’s reasonable to assume that the expenses will escalate significantly.
The last time we hosted a military parade was to commemorate our victory in Iraq back in 1991. Personally, I, along with virtually every other American, would prefer to forgo a parade, especially in an era where the government is facing such financial constraints. It would be fascinating to see if an organization—let’s call it “DOGE”—could discover a way to save $25 million to $45 million without jeopardizing lives abroad or cutting essential medical insurance for those at home.
We see a similar situation with the potential deployment of Marines to Los Angeles. Regardless of your opinion on the trustworthiness of the governor and mayor—both elected officials—the local police chief has asserted that there’s no necessity to involve the Marines in managing demonstrations in Los Angeles. If police assistance were genuinely required, we would expect an honest assessment from the chief. Therefore, the decision to send Marines, which is estimated to cost $134 million for a 60-day deployment, seems excessive and unwarranted.
Where is Musk when you really need him? On average, the fully loaded cost of employing a federal government worker is just under $157,000 per year, factoring in a salary exceeding $100,000 along with benefits such as insurance. If we take the $134 million figure and divide it by $157,000, we discover that we could hire 853 federal employees for an entire year for the same cost as this unnecessary military deployment.
Now, if we multiply that figure by other wasteful military deployments anticipated in the coming months, we start to see the potential for significant savings.
Consider Donald Trump’s nearly weekly golfing trips to Mar-a-Lago. Each excursion costs the government—meaning taxpayers—around $800,000 per trip. Why not stay at the White House for a few weekends? This change could save approximately $800,000, which equates to the salary of five federal employees, for each trip. Alternatively, golfing at Camp David, which features a single adjustable hole with multiple tees for varying driving distances and an available driving range, would not incur the same exorbitant costs. The Secret Service would not need to spend $800,000 each weekend to provide security for Camp David, given that it is already a secure venue. Or consider golfing at your own resort in Bedford, New Jersey. While that option isn’t free, it would at least shorten the travel time.
But no.
For the average American, it’s austerity measures all the way. We are told we cannot spend a single dime.
However, when it comes to political theatrics and presidential golf outings, there seems to be an endless supply of funds available.
Can someone please pass the shrimp?
Mark Herrmann brings 17 years of experience as a partner at a leading international law firm and later managed litigation, compliance, and employment matters at a large global corporation. He is also the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and <em>Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy</em> (affiliate links). Feel free to reach out to him via email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com<em>.</em>
For the latest insights on litigation, regulation, deals, and trends in financial services, subscribe to Finance Docket, a collaborative effort between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
