Software At A Standstill: The Budget Rule Keeping Washington In The Digital Dark Ages

Imagine a government agency still running its core operations on a punch-card system. Absurd? Not quite. While we’ve largely dispensed with the physical artifacts of mid-century computing, the bureaucracy still labors under their ghost. This haunting is not due to a lack of software talent or political will, but rather a budgeting convention so obsolete it functions like a digital albatross. As Howard Lutnick recently explained in a wide-ranging podcast interview, the federal government continues to treat long-term IT contracts as if they were 1970s defense hardware purchases—requiring the full cost to be budgeted in Year One. The result? Modernization projects are killed not by bad engineering, but by bad accounting.

This problem isn’t new. But Lutnick’s plainspoken exposition has cast a fresh light on it. In the interview, he recounted the simple reality: when a federal agency signs a $10 million software contract to be paid out over ten years, it must still request the entire $10 million in its first-year budget. As he put it, “No one who’s here for four years wants to take that hit.” The logic is airtight. The incentives are perverse. The result is paralysis. Agencies limp along with outdated systems because the optics of responsible modernization are politically radioactive.

The roots of this budgetary rigidity lie in the Antideficiency Act, with its post-Watergate amendments and 1980s scorekeeping rules designed to prevent runaway commitments. In principle, these measures serve fiscal transparency. In practice, they transform software into a kind of budgetary landmine—capable of detonating an entire year’s discretionary planning.

Consider the irony. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), software developed for internal use can be amortized, just like bridges or office buildings. But budgeting rules—specifically those enforced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)—demand full upfront appropriation for multi-year contracts. As a result, agencies are more likely to secure funding to maintain legacy systems than to replace them.

This is not a hypothetical complaint. In 2016, the Government Accountability Office found that federal agencies devoted over 75% of their IT budgets to operations and maintenance—not modernization. Some agencies were running core systems that dated back to the Johnson administration. The IRS, for instance, still relies on assembly-language code for its master taxpayer database. The Department of Veterans Affairs operates benefits systems cobbled together from pre-internet components. Even the Department of Defense, until recently, was using floppy disks to manage nuclear weapons control.

These are not merely artifacts of government inertia. They are products of an accounting rule that rewards the status quo and punishes ambition. To understand the magnitude of the problem, one need only observe the pathologies it produces: modular projects abandoned for lack of upfront funds; transformative cloud migrations deferred; critical systems duct-taped rather than rebuilt. Every year, the government spends billions to maintain technical debt it cannot afford to retire.

Some defend the current system on the grounds of prudence. Full upfront funding, they argue, prevents agencies from entering long-term contracts they cannot complete. But this assumes that Congress is too naive to understand phased investments or that oversight mechanisms are incapable of guarding against waste. Neither is true. What is true is that the current system internalizes all the political risk in Year One while externalizing all the operational pain for years thereafter.

Solutions exist. Congress could authorize multi-year appropriations for major IT programs, aligning budget authority with actual expenditure. The Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) is a modest example of this principle: it allows agencies to borrow from a central fund and repay out of future savings. It was funded in part by the 2017 Modernizing Government Technology Act and expanded in the American Rescue Plan of 2021. Yet its scale remains insufficient relative to the size of federal IT operations.

Alternatively, OMB could revise its guidance to support more aggressive modular contracting and multi-year project planning. Agencies could break modernization efforts into separately funded modules, each delivering usable capabilities. The Clinger-Cohen Act and FAR Part 39 already encourage this, but budget enforcement often renders it impractical. A system that encourages agile development in theory but punishes it in budget scoring is not a coherent system at all.

Howard Lutnick’s indictment is trenchant because it captures the absurdity in human terms. “The last time we bought software was 1975,” he quipped, exaggerating only slightly. His point is not that engineers have failed, but that policymakers have failed to clear the fiscal underbrush in which modern technology must take root. Agencies cannot modernize on a schedule if their budgets cannot.

The answer, then, is not to merely lament the backlog of legacy code or the fragility of government systems. It is to rewrite the rules of engagement. Let agencies fund software the way they build highways: over time, in stages, with oversight. Let Congress see not just the cost in Year One, but the savings in Year Five. Let us replace budgetary puritanism with budgetary realism.

The United States leads the world in software innovation. There is no reason its government should trail it by half a century. If we do not modernize the rules that govern how software is funded, we will never modernize the software itself. We will remain, in Lutnick’s phrase, frozen in time—not because we lack talent, but because we cannot think past the first fiscal year.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Middle Eastern Loophole: USAID Quietly Funding Controversial Groups HERE?