Andrew Mitchell Quotes

When money follows results - we will get more results for our money.

We design our own programmes; we take leadership. Of course the donors come in to support us, to complement our efforts. Our responsibility to the donors is about accountability: about how we use that money. If somebody gives you his money, definitely he will be interested in knowing how you spend the money.

It's easy to measure success by the number of dollars spent or by the number of programs initiated, without having too much regard for what was bought and how useful it was to the people who need it - the war fighter and the analyst.

Donors need to know what their money is being used for.

Our biggest single theme is trying to make the NIH work better with the same amount of money.

The Pentagon can't even audit its own books. It doesn't even know where its money is going. And we refuse to have the tough forces go on the Pentagon so that at least they are efficient with the money they're spending.

For too long it was assumed that you could completely separate out flows of money from responsibilities and accountabilities in service delivery. This flawed assumption is central to understanding many of the failures.

Cost effectiveness and effectiveness are not always the same thing in government.

Economy does not lie in sparing money, but in spending it wisely.

We cannot afford idleness, waste or inefficiency.

Goals and objectives are based on theories and foundations.

No, I was pleased that it is possible for somebody who makes full disclosure as I've done, not only of the contributors, but also how the money is spent.

I feel the audience has a right to know if some of the money they're spending is going to a certain cause, and reassuring them the money is going to where it's supposed to be going.

It is time for us to insist that we are accountable for the money that we are spending.

And, we have no such thing as a budget anymore. Our manager freaks when we show him the bill. We're lavish to the bone, but all our money goes back into the product.

The State should have made sure the money given to the NGOs was used according to a global plan for Haiti; not doing whatever they want. They should be supervised and have to report and make sure the money is being used properly. They are here, but we are seeing no results.

The perverse presumption that places the burden of proof on the challenger of spending must be inverted, back to the rule that applies elsewhere in life: 'Prove to me why we should.'

If you're going to be successful, you better have a goal, you better find really good people, better understand where all the money's coming from. And you better measure the living daylights out of it.

I'm not one of those who thinks the only way to fix what's wrong with American education is to throw more money at it. We also need to do it much better.

I firmly believe that the most important feature of spending the people's money is complete transparency.

If my company spends money, it should be disclosed to the shareholders and how it was spent. With my personal money, I can do anything I want. But company money should be disclosed.

We have a responsibility to make sure that the limited resources we have are spent efficiently and effectively and that programs achieve their mission.

And I believe in having an administration that has clearly defined goals, objectives and time lines such that it and its people can be held accountable.

Congress, the press, and the bureaucracy too often focus on how much money or effort is spent, rather than whether the money or effort actually achieves the announced goal.

If somebody gives you his money, definitely he will be interested in knowing how you spend the money.