The Following is a snipet of my new book Procurement Dynamics
As long as I can remember, there has been an urban myth within the federal government having the ability to "write a rubber check" without any consequences. Of course, like many urban myths, this not true. You are probably wondering, why discuss specific governance, instead of adding some thoughts to the governance chapter? Anti-deficiency Act (ADA) violation has become commonplace over the last 30 years. In 1870, Congress enacted the ADA that prohibits all federal agencies from obligating or expending federal funds in advance or "writing a rubber check." ADA address restrictions on distributing and committing funds above the approved appropriation. In January and February 2003 issue, The Army Lawyer Journal noted, to violate the Anti-Deficiency Act is to “obligate funds without establishing a bonafide need.” Also, ADA, address many other aspects of Anti-deficiency rules, one of which is accepting voluntary services. Comparing ADA governance to ones home or business budgeting and expending places this dynamic in simplistic terms. ADA has four essential parts to the governance. First, nobody can obtain goods or services above allotted funds. For example, I would not try to spend three hundred dollars at the grocery store, when I only have two hundred dollars in the bank. The next element can be a little more complicated. Some call this part the "color money," so let us go back to the grocery store example to help explain. In my home budget, I have allotted three hundred dollars a month, which is Specifically for food and nothing else. If I use that money for something else, then I would brake ADA governance. To be more specific in the federal government, certain money is for the daily running of the agency each year, this called Operation and Maintenance (OM), according to financial management (DoD 7000.14-R).