If you've taken a taxicab in Boston, New York, or another metropolitan area in the past few years, you probably didn't think twice when, after you paid, the driver handed you a computerized receipt displaying the exact amount you paid. In the real world, this type of exact accounting - and accountability - is standard stuff.

But, if you've taken a taxi in Washington, DC over the same timeframe, you might have noticed something different. Rather than receive a computerized receipt, you are usually handed a blank receipt; a slip with blank fields that you fill out yourself. Oftentimes they hand you two, "just in case you lose one." Did the trip cost $10? Or $30? Did you make one trip? Or two? No accountability, except a person's integrity.

This anecdote is a small-dollar example of a big-dollar problem in Washington, DC. Whereas the private sector has an incentive to trim costs and efficiently allocate resources, the government often does not. This is not a new problem, but at a time in which sequestration, spending caps and deficits have become part of the national political lexicon, one would think Congress would at least deal with low-hanging spending fruit.

This fact should be especially true as it pertains to the Pentagon, a department hit particular hard by the sequestration cuts that took affect earlier this year. However, two high-profile, low-hanging fruit spending cuts have, in the past few weeks, demonstrated America's broken system of government when it comes to defense spending.

Nothing better illustrates this "blank check" than the continuing efforts in Congress to waste $381 million tax dollars on the Medium Extended Air Defense missile system (MEADS). To make a long story short, the Pentagon has stated for years that MEADS will never be built and that neither American troops nor our allies will never use it. In spite of this, political machinations by Senate leadership have thwarted efforts to end this dead-end earmark by means of backroom deals.

The situation is so bad with MEADS that it now requires separate legislation to specifically enforce a provision of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act; which was signed into law in January and prohibits the use of tax dollars for MEADS design and development. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) in the Senate and Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) in the House have crafted bi-partisan legislation to enforce the NDAA prohibition, that has - somehow - yet to become law. You heard me right; folks in Congress are trying to pass a bill to enforce other bills. Patchwork in practice, to say the least.

MEADS is billions over budget and years overdue, President Obama's FY 2014 budget contains no funding for the program, and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Carl Levin (D-MI) has called MEADS, "a waste of money." Yet, it survives. Why? It has powerful and well-connected backers fighting to revive it. This political reality obfuscates DoD's ability to spending that $381 million in smarter ways.

A similar "blank check" exists for the M1A1 Abrams Upgrade Program. The Abrams tank is a well-known piece of military hardware that has served us well for years. Unlike MEADS, few question the military or strategic utility of this tank. But for this program, Congress has consistently authorized more resources - meaning more tanks - than the Pentagon says it needs. During the last two fiscal years, Congress added close to $400 million dollars to the Abrams tab.

Army Secretary John McHugh described these tanks as being "far beyond our fiscal ability [and] far beyond our need." In other words, the Army needs Abrams tanks, just not this many. Limited DoD dollars are needed elsewhere (think air, sea, and cyber) and without eroding our land capabilities. The Army will already be experiencing considerable reductions in its end strength in the years to come and preventing deeper personnel cuts alone should serve as a glaring reason to defund unnecessary equipment.

Like MEADS, there is a reason why Congress continues to overfund the program even if the Army does not want the equipment; jobs, plain and simple. According to estimates the plant that builds the Abrams in Ohio employs 800 people. These people are producing a high-quality piece of military equipment. The problem is, in today's world, there is lower demand. The Army already has more than 2,300 deployed Abrams tanks and roughly 3,000 more in reserve. This fact underscores why DoD could spend this $400 million in smarter ways.

Sequestration has brought about an era in which school children may not tour the White House yet some in Congress still think it's okay to spend $381 million tax dollars for a missile system the Pentagon says it does not want, and $400 million tax dollars on additional tanks the Pentagon says is does not need.

In the short term, Congress should pass the Ayotte/Shuster bills to de-fund MEADS, saving $381 million. Likewise, they should de-fund the tanks the Army does not want, saving another $400 million. These two moves alone would save at least $781 million dollars; real dollars that could be more wisely spent elsewhere.

In the long term, Congress and the Pentagon must undertake serious weapons procurement reform to fix the way Pentagon funds and fields weapons systems. Only reform will prevent future dollars from being wasted.

Washington can no longer afford to hand out blank receipts, because while individuals may do the right thing with their cab fares, it's clear that Congress prefers to fudge the numbers for their political gain. We can't afford these games anymore.