arises when you ask a voter to define what is "waste, fraud, and abuse." For example, a voter may think the funding VT receives to conduct its research on head injuries and/or concussions in football as being "waste" or "fraud" because the person doesn't like sports in general or think the govt shouldn't be funding any sports related activities. If a school wants to conduct research on something sports related, then it should be done on its own dime. While you may disagree with that person's view and don't consider that funding to be "waste" or "fraud." In that situation, who is "right;" you or the other person? My point for that example is to show the list that everyone agrees as being "waste" or "fraud" is probably very very small. I'm not saying it isn't worth pursuing. However, it may take a lot more work to come up with a final list which most people may conclude isn't worth the effort because the govt ends up spending more to create the list than what is gained by implementing it (metaphorically speaking).