Real Waste, Fake Waste, and Things Republicans Just Don’t Like
This is the fourth installment of my series on the Hillsborough County DOGE Committee Report.
To begin, the Hillsborough County DOGE committee does identify some genuine waste.
Unused software licenses are waste. A county vehicle that remains unused may be wasteful. Contracts awarded without competition can increase costs for taxpayers. Vague “miscellaneous” contracts missing clear purposes require scrutiny.
Those are proper subjects for an efficiency review. They involve questions that can be answered with records: What did the county buy? Did anyone use it? Was the price fair? Did the vendor deliver? Could the county get the same result for less?
The committee then moves attention to programs it seems to disfavor. That is where financial review can start turning into political theater.
The committee recommends reviewing or cutting $12.75 million in grants, including funding for nonprofits supporting Black businesses, Latino residents, youth, diversity programs, and fraternity and sorority alumni groups. It also targets $1.5 million for the Film Commission and approximately $500,000 for five community liaison positions. Community engagement, equity initiatives, and the Diversity Advisory Council are also scrutinized, though the report does not specify potential savings for all these areas.
Collectively, these programs with specified amounts represent at least $15.75 million in policy and values-related spending.
Not all of this spending should be considered ideological waste. Some concerns warrant review. Grants should have clear purposes, defined terms, measurable outcomes, and evidence of performance. Film incentives should yield public benefits. Community liaisons should have distinct responsibilities that do not overlap with other staff. The review standard should be consistent for every program: What service was purchased? What results were achieved? Was the price reasonable? There is still a considerable difference between requesting results and recommending cuts.
But there is a large gap between “show us the results” and “cut it.”
The report does not always stay on the right side of that gap. A software license assigned to an employee who left three years ago is waste. A nonprofit does not constitute waste simply because a committee member disagrees with its use of pronouns.
The committee questioned several organizations serving communities of color, including the Tampa Bay Black Business Investment Corporation, Men of Vision, Enterprising Latinas, and Community Tampa Bay. It also highlighted $5,000 allocated for youth diversity leadership training. The concerns cited include vague descriptions, unclear scopes, and missing performance measures. These are valid control questions, but they must be applied consistently to every organization.
But the test must remain the same for every organization.
What service did the county purchase? How many residents received it? Were the promised results achieved? Was the price reasonable? Could another provider do the work better?
The test cannot become: Does this organization serve people or promote values that Republican committee members find politically irritating?
The Film Commission presents another mixed case. The county allocated $1.5 million for the Film Commission in fiscal year 2026. The report questions whether these costs yield clear economic returns and notes the film commissioner’s compensation and travel. This is a valid area for review. Public incentives should deliver measurable public benefits, and the same financial criteria should apply to every project. However, earlier committee notes singled out an LGBTQ coming-of-age film by name and described other projects with open scorn. That is not economic analysis.
But earlier committee notes also singled out an LGBTQ coming-of-age film by name and described other projects with open scorn. That is not economic analysis. A film does not become a poor investment because a committee member dislikes its subject, genre, or audience.
A similar issue arises in the evaluation of community engagement and equity initiatives. The committee recommends eliminating five community liaison positions because their work “appears to overlap” with existing departments. “Appears to overlap” is a reason to compare duties. It is not proof that the positions serve no purpose. Use the same review standard here as for any other position: define duties, compare outputs, and then judge whether the work duplicates existing staff.
Community liaisons may connect residents with county services, help officials reach communities they often miss, address language or trust barriers, and relay local concerns. They also may duplicate work.
The county should find out which is true before firing people and booking the entire payroll as savings. That is the difference between real waste and fake waste.
Real waste requires evidence. Fake waste needs only a label.
That lack of separation matters.
A grant lacking performance measures should be subject to control review. A grant with strong results should not be criticized solely for supporting diversity. A film subsidy without measurable returns may warrant elimination. A film with an LGBTQ theme should be evaluated using the same financial criteria as any other production. Apply a consistent standard: measure results, compare costs, and then decide.
County government should not fund every worthy cause. It cannot solve every problem, support every nonprofit, or subsidize every cultural project. Officials must set limits and make choices, and those choices are political.
Those choices are political.
The committee is entitled to argue that Hillsborough County should stop funding equity work, cultural programs, community outreach, or certain nonprofits. Republicans can make that case. Democrats can oppose it. Commissioners can vote, and voters can judge them.
But they should have the debate honestly.
Do not label a program as waste simply because its goals conflict with your political views. Do not equate political objections with unused software and suggest they result from the same analysis. Maintain a consistent review standard: financial waste requires evidence, whereas policy disagreements should be identified as such. One is a financial finding; the other is a policy position.
One is a financial finding. The other is a platform.
If the DOGE committee wants to tell Hillsborough County what government should value, it should say so plainly.
A political agenda should not be concealed within an expense report.
