The _government_ might not have a "hard" budget, as you mean it, but you can bet the IRS does. Congress decides what they get, and you can be sure it's barely enough to keep running as-is, let alone enough to put into future investments like say, an upgraded IT infrastructure, which then necessitates emergency measures like paying MS for XP support.
Work with government long enough and you'll find the majority of "waste" comes not from spendthrift government layabouts, but insane auditing and transparency requirements (which require oodles of paperwork and three people to review it to make sure you're not wasting taxpayer money), hamstrung budgets (renting the same building at exorbitant rates because Congress will give you the money for that, but not to buy it outright, which would be far cheaper; paying for continued XP support because you couldn't get the funding for an upgrade), hiring contractors for decades-long jobs, and a legion of other controls in place to save us from government excess.
I'm by no means saying that we should let them run around doing whatever they want, damn the cost, but keep in mind that auditing and transparency have a cost, and we need to look at what's cheaper in the long run and not just in the short term.
>Congress decides what they get, and you can be sure it's barely enough to keep running as-is, let alone enough to put into future investments like say, an upgraded IT infrastructure, which then necessitates emergency measures like paying MS for XP support...I'm by no means saying that we should let them run around doing whatever they want, damn the cost, but keep in mind that auditing and transparency have a cost, and we need to look at what's cheaper in the long run and not just in the short term.
I sincerely doubt that the IRS, a revenue department, is running efficiently and is underfunded. I did a cursory search to see if I'm making up crazy claims and it seems like the lack of funding is largely self-reported.[1]
I sincerely believe that this is due to a lack of planning and just 'kicking the ball down the field.' Why go through all the annoying conversations about upgrades when you're going to retire or leave before it matters?
Microsoft first set the end of support for 2011. As a nod to their massive XP user-base, they pushed EOS to 2014. You're suggesting that the IRS is rational in paying for emergency patches to something that they received a 3 year extension on? Windows 7 was released EOY 2009 -- it's not as if they were stuck for lack of options.
This is crap planning and I really doubt that consequences exist.
Work with government long enough and you'll find the majority of "waste" comes not from spendthrift government layabouts, but insane auditing and transparency requirements (which require oodles of paperwork and three people to review it to make sure you're not wasting taxpayer money), hamstrung budgets (renting the same building at exorbitant rates because Congress will give you the money for that, but not to buy it outright, which would be far cheaper; paying for continued XP support because you couldn't get the funding for an upgrade), hiring contractors for decades-long jobs, and a legion of other controls in place to save us from government excess.
I'm by no means saying that we should let them run around doing whatever they want, damn the cost, but keep in mind that auditing and transparency have a cost, and we need to look at what's cheaper in the long run and not just in the short term.