DOGE Catch-All | DOGE ledger “riddled with errors”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 20K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
I'm not saying I support all of the methods used by Elon/DOGE, but does anyone really believe that there is no fraud and/or no waste in the Federal Government? We're talking about an entity that essentially has no true budget constraints and, presumably, little inherent desire to streamline, save money, etc.
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever claimed that there's no fraud or waste in the federal government? Of course not. We're talking about an organization that employs millions of people and handles trillions of dollars. It would be literally impossible to create an organization of that size and scope that eliminated the possibility of fraud and waste. That's an impossible and foolish ideal. I do expect that given the size and scope of the government, the amount of fraud and/or waste is likely much smaller in scale than conservatives like to imagine. In part because of the presence of lots of checks in place to deter, investigate, and address fraud and waste - things that Trump and DOGE are now conspicuously eliminating, further driving home that eliminating "fraud and waste" is not their goal.

It would be similarly silly to say that there was no fraud or waste occurring in, say, Amazon or Alphabet or any similarly large company. it is not possible to achieve perfect efficiency or completely deter fraud in any organization of significant size. But at least the people who work for the federal government are sworn to public service, while the people who work for private companies are not.
 
Silence Dogood said:
Wait, your mad DOGE is just getting started and 55 billion isn't enough for you to think why something wasn't done sooner? Do you hear yourself? Tax cuts don't just increase the deficit. Why are you brainwashed that big govt is our savior? Tax cuts promote economic growth.
So far there isn't any concrete evidence. You're playing gotcha games knowing full well its hard to prove that. Even if they did you would still say they lied about the proof. Why isnt anyone inside the govt providing any rebuttal evidence? Again its weird you love defending the status quo and broken systems.
Click to expand...
You getting tired shoving the goalposts around?
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not saying I support all of the methods used by Elon/DOGE, but does anyone really believe that there is no fraud and/or no waste in the Federal Government? We're talking about an entity that essentially has no true budget constraints and, presumably, little inherent desire to streamline, save money, etc.
Click to expand...
Sure there is some, but it’s certainly less than the fantastical numbers being thrown around by DOGE. The question is how much is acceptable and what practicable steps can be taken to reduce it.
 
Hey you guys remember when Elon claimed we spent $58 million on condoms for Gaza?

Then it turned out the "Gaza" in question was a region in Africa, not the one in the Middle East?

Then it turned out that we didn't spend $58 million on condoms just for that one region, but that was actually the amount we spent worldwide?

Then it turned out that the $58 million spent worldwide wasn't just for condoms, but in fact was the total worldwide spend for all forms of contraception?

Elon and DOGE have no credibility and literally everything they say should be treated with skepticism until it is backed up with proof. Treating their claims in any different way is illogical and dishonest.
 
rodoheel said:
Has anyone ever claimed that there's no fraud or waste in the federal government? Of course not. We're talking about an organization that employs millions of people and handles trillions of dollars. It would be literally impossible to create an organization of that size and scope that eliminated the possibility of fraud and waste. That's an impossible and foolish ideal. I do expect that given the size and scope of the government, the amount of fraud and/or waste is likely much smaller in scale than conservatives like to imagine. In part because of the presence of lots of checks in place to deter, investigate, and address fraud and waste - things that Trump and DOGE are now conspicuously eliminating, further driving home that eliminating "fraud and waste" is not their goal.

It would be similarly silly to say that there was no fraud or waste occurring in, say, Amazon or Alphabet or any similarly large company. it is not possible to achieve perfect efficiency or completely deter fraud in any organization of significant size. But at least the people who work for the federal government are sworn to public service, while the people who work for private companies are not.
Click to expand...
My experience is that there's little waste within the government itself. Elon thinks this is the first "find government inefficiency" rodeo. It very much is not. These things pop up every few years, where some politician says he will go "line by line" through the federal government. That's in addition to the ordinary inspection/audit processes.

What happens in the realm of federal contracting is a completely different story. I know little about the details. I summered at Covington and Burling, which at the time had a very robust federal contracting practice. Boy, did I hear some stories. But again, that's outside the government and the government has little insight as to how to control that. And of course, most of it is in the defense contractors.
 
superrific said:
In the non-DOD federal government? There's essentially no fraud, and little waste. The agencies that spend money absolutely do have budget constraints, and they are often constraining. I can testify to that with personal experience. What people like you just don't understand is that streamlining, in the first instance, *consumes* money. And the agencies rarely have money to spare for that sort of thing. The next thing is that *streamlining* doesn't solve any problems, because most of this isn't "waste." It's public services.

Now, in the world of federal contracting, I don't know but I'd imagine there is quite a bit of fraud and waste. That, of course, is not what DOGE is looking at. They can't. It's not something you can find in a payment system. In defense contracting, there absolutely is tons of waste but they ain't gonna be looking at that, for reasons that surely you can understand.
Click to expand...
I work in the world of fed contracting. The number of reviews that a defense contract goes through before any money is paid is staggering. There are 7 or 8 independent sets of eyes looking at every single defense contract and I review their reviews for data and accounting accuracy EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. If fraud does occur it's on the private side when contractors over inflate their costs and it goes unnoticed bc it's not super obvious.
 
rodoheel said:
The federal government has websites that detail all the spending the government engages in. That's where Musk is getting this supposedly "secret" information.

You may want to reconsider which side is "transparent" and which is not in this circumstance.
Click to expand...
they need to reconsider using silence dogood as their screen name bc they are neither as smart as Franklin nor stand for the same democratic values as he did.
 
There is absolutely fraud, waste, abuse and inefficiencies in government and the US Government is no exception. This is why Trump is benefitting from DOGE politically. Because whether it's a scalpel, a knife or a sledgehammer - attacking fraud or waste (or being perceived to do so) is popular. So, regardless of the merits of the "cuts" or the chaos engendered by it, he and Elon are on the popular side of the ledger here. Why do you think USAID was targeted first? Because it was uniquely wasteful or corrupt or represented a genuinely meaningful portion of the budget .... or because foreign aid, generally, is not very popular with voters (and particularly his base).

If folks were serious, you would be having a genuine forensic audit happening. Not Elon live-tweeting for ***** and giggles. And, as we've seen, at times making erroneous or wild claims. But all that feeds the beast and is a calculated approach.

I'd also note that one role of government should be to safeguard against market efficiencies that have external costs for society. Medicare and Medicaid (in large part tho far from perfectly) are examples of this.

I think Dems have been poorly prepared to deal with DOGE. Instead, they've gotten cornered into defending the status quo (or so it feels). The defense of institutions can't necessarily be a defense of those institutions as they are. But the importance of institutions as they should be.
 
NOVAHEEL13 said:
I work in the world of fed contracting. The number of reviews that a defense contract goes through before any money is paid is staggering. There are 7 or 8 independent sets of eyes looking at every single defense contract and I review their reviews for data and accounting accuracy EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. If fraud does occur it's on the private side when contractors over inflate their costs and it goes unnoticed bc it's not super obvious.
Click to expand...
I did not know that about the defense contracts. That's a lot of oversight. I wonder if it's new -- my stint at C&B was a long time ago, and I'm sure I was hearing war stories from the 90s.

But I think we agree that the private contractors are by far the primary source of fiscal mismanagement.
 
Igs149 said:
I think Dems have been poorly prepared to deal with DOGE. Instead, they've gotten cornered into defending the status quo (or so it feels). The defense of institutions can't necessarily be a defense of those institutions as they are. But the importance of institutions as they should be.
Click to expand...
That's right, but I think the Dems are going to get there. First, they are trying to stop the bleeding.

The best strategy, politically, will be for Dems to just let them break everything and then the people who depend on that stuff might realize they've been conned all this time. Some of them, at least. Like the forest rangers who lose their jobs for no reason, or the people who buy houses based on government employment and then they got canned.
 
superrific said:
My experience is that there's little waste within the government itself. Elon thinks this is the first "find government inefficiency" rodeo. It very much is not. These things pop up every few years, where some politician says he will go "line by line" through the federal government. That's in addition to the ordinary inspection/audit processes.

What happens in the realm of federal contracting is a completely different story. I know little about the details. I summered at Covington and Burling, which at the time had a very robust federal contracting practice. Boy, did I hear some stories. But again, that's outside the government and the government has little insight as to how to control that. And of course, most of it is in the defense contractors.
Click to expand...
It also depends on how you define waste. The Fourth Circuit courthouse in Richmond is massive and beautifully ornate. I can’t imagine how much it costs to maintain, heat and cool it. Most of the time, the building is largely empty. But a few weeks every year, it’s packed with lawyers and judges. The hearings held there could surely be spread out among other smaller courthouses if necessary.

Is that building a waste? I’d say not, but from a purely financial perspective, I could see the argument that its cost outweighs its benefits.

Lots of things like that in the federal government, which is why those decisions are best made by our elected representatives in Congress and not by a neo-Nazi billionaire who runs his social media company like a chop shop.
 
superrific said:
In the non-DOD federal government? There's essentially no fraud, and little waste. The agencies that spend money absolutely do have budget constraints, and they are often constraining. I can testify to that with personal experience. What people like you just don't understand is that streamlining, in the first instance, *consumes* money. And the agencies rarely have money to spare for that sort of thing. The next thing is that *streamlining* doesn't solve any problems, because most of this isn't "waste." It's public services.

Now, in the world of federal contracting, I don't know but I'd imagine there is quite a bit of fraud and waste. That, of course, is not what DOGE is looking at. They can't. It's not something you can find in a payment system. In defense contracting, there absolutely is tons of waste but they ain't gonna be looking at that, for reasons that surely you can understand.
Click to expand...
"The next thing is that *streamlining* doesn't solve any problems, because most of this isn't "waste." It's public services."

There's a joke about union workers. One guy digs a hole and another guy comes by immediately and fills it. The union guy, who normally places the tree in the hole is off today, but the other two guys still do their technical jobs.

It seems to me that the fact that the work being done is "public services" doesn't mean a) there is the right number of people performing the work, b) there isn't a person who's job, like the guy who places the tree in the hole, can't be absorbed by someone else and c) there's a regular look at efficiency. How often does the federal government downsize?

I've worked at a large company since 2008 and have gone through at least 3 significant downsizes. That's the cycle. We add people at all levels and we spend money and then we realize that there are too many managers, too many support people in specific jobs, too many unused tools, underutilized buildings we're paying for, etc and then we downsize. Then the cycle starts over again.
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
I did not know that about the defense contracts. That's a lot of oversight. I wonder if it's new -- my stint at C&B was a long time ago, and I'm sure I was hearing war stories from the 90s.

But I think we agree that the private contractors are by far the primary source of fiscal mismanagement.
Click to expand...
The oversight has increased over the years with several FAR & DFARS provisions being added in the last decade along with several additional CFR requirements since 2008ish

All that said, indeed it's the private sector that's the true issue. Particularly when they get creative with their numbers that make it difficult to tell if it's fraud or not.
 
ZenMode said:
"The next thing is that *streamlining* doesn't solve any problems, because most of this isn't "waste." It's public services."

There's a joke about union workers. One guy digs a hole and another guy comes by immediately and fills it. The union guy, who normally places the tree in the hole is off today, but the other two guys still do their technical jobs.

It seems to me that the fact that the work being done is "public services" doesn't mean a) there is the right number of people performing the work, b) there isn't a person who's job, like the guy who places the tree in the hole, can't be absorbed by someone else and c) there's a regular look at efficiency. How often does the federal government downsize?

I've worked at a large company since 2008 and have gone through at least 3 significant downsizes. That's the cycle. We add people at all levels and we spend money when times are good and then we realize that there are too many managers, too many support people in specific jobs, too many unused tools, underutilized buildings we're paying for, etc and then we downsize. Then the cycle starts over again.
Click to expand...
1. That's a joke, not reality. I hope you realize that.
2. I think what you don't understand is that agencies do that type of right-sizing *every single year as part of the appropriations process.* Maybe that's fallen off since we've been keeping the government open with continuing resolutions for years now (thanks, Pubs!) but for the most part, everything an agency asks for has to be justified. If they want to add capacity, they either need more money (which Congress is reluctant to give) or shift priorities.

When I was clerking, appellate judges had four clerks and district court judges two. I think that now district courts get more than two clerks (as well they should!). That's right-sizing.

3. The point about "public services" is that what seems like waste is actually part of the service. For instance, I don't know how national park rescue operations work exactly, but for the sake of discussion, let's say the park has a team of rescue operators ready at all times. Most of the time, they are not doing much. But if you cut the number of teams, replacing "on site" with "on call," you're not eliminating waste. You're compromising the service. If someone needs to be rescued, there isn't always time to wake the team up, have them drive to the office, gear up and then go. They need to go right away. I don't know if this is literally true about national parks, but it absolutely is true about parts of the government.

Also consider that personnel management is important. If there are 10 people doing a job, and you cut three of them with the expectation that the other 7 will just take 30% more work . . . I think you can see what's likely to happen there. There will be burnout and pretty soon there will only be three left.

Musk doesn't understand this because he had captive labor at twitter (i.e. h-1B visa holders). The government doesn't. So when Musk determines that a skeleton crew will suffice to cover full staffing . . . that might be correct for a few months (might). But it's not going to save money even in the medium term. When everyone quits due to overwork, institutional knowledge walks out the door. Training walks out the door.

4. The other thing you appear not to understand is that the government is generally staffed with smart people. Ramrouser would never be hired by the DOJ. The technical staff at EPA is top-notch. That's because a lot of people seek education in part for the moral satisfaction of making the world better, or at least serving a goal larger than themselves.

And when a lot of smart people get together and establish policies, those policies are likely to be at least pretty good (unless they are acting in bad faith). Again, what outsiders see as "waste" is more likely a policy that responds to situations outsiders don't even know about -- in part, perhaps, because the policies prevent those situations from occurring. It's like when the W administration (and Greenspan's federal reserve) started dismantling financial regulations. They said, "nothing bad has happened in 70 years." Yeah, nothing bad happened because of those policies. You saw what happened when the policies disappeared.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top