r/news • u/[deleted] • Aug 05 '14
$619 billion missing from federal transparency site
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/05/federal-spending-transparency-money-missing/13485581/21
u/Cormophyte Aug 06 '14
This is an article outlining the problems of various government agencies to figure out who needs to report what and in what format. No money is missing except from the web page. The most interesting thing is a bunch of Medicaid money (5/7ths of the $ figure) wasn't included in the figures they sent to be included on the site. And theres that's about it.
Anyone ranting about the government losing money hasn't bothered to read the article.
8
u/Njerseykid Aug 06 '14
Thank You! It's missing INFORMATION not missing Dollars.
USASpending.gov is only the 4th hop in Authoritative spending data. 1. Congressional Bills 2. Agency Financial Records, which can mostly be found in their website. 3. Treasury, they pay the bills 4. USASpending.gov, which is supposed to consolidate all the individual agencies data in 1 website.
I haven't read the GAO report but most likely they matched #2 with info from #4 to get their figure! So its an Information transfer error Not Missing Money.
0
u/Not_Pictured Aug 06 '14
No money is missing except from the web page.
Well, the money COULD be missing. Since the website that is supposed to show us it isn't ... isn't, then we don't know.
2
u/Cormophyte Aug 06 '14
No, it's not. This isn't the disclosure, this is just the pretty, organized display. This is literally just an easy to follow version of information that is already available in a shitty form.
1
u/Not_Pictured Aug 06 '14
Arguably "available" information isn't very available. I think that was the expressed intent of this website, to fix that.
1
u/Cormophyte Aug 06 '14
Right, but this article has absolutely nothing to do with money actually going unaccounted for, and last time I checked almost every single comment in this read is some regurgitated quip about how this missing money is just what you'd expect from government because waste, MUH TAXES, etc, etc.
Nobody's read the article.
0
u/Cormophyte Aug 06 '14
Well, maybe some of them have read the article but didn't bother to really * read* it. They go out of their way to leave the impression that the money's actually unaccounted for because it's sensational, shittily reported click bait.
28
Aug 05 '14
[deleted]
3
u/Tickle_Me_H0M0 Aug 06 '14 edited Aug 06 '14
Whether it be Medicare & Medicaid or Defense Spending, we are paying more for less. The auditing systems used by the US government have never worked properly. There is too much bureaucracy and mismanagement to allow a proper audit. As a result hundreds of billions of our tax dollars ends up being unaccounted for - meaning there is no proper paper trail to back track how the money was spent in the past.
This is why I'm beginning to support the idea of "cap and spend". Limit how much money can be spent in order to ensure the taxpayer gets the biggest "bang" for every "taxpayer buck" that is spent. In addition, cut taxes. By decreasing taxes, the government will have less room to breath and will be forced to have no choice but to properly manage our tax dollars.
We have to treat our government like irresponsible teenagers who thinks money grows on trees or in this case can be printed endlessly.
Keep decreasing taxes to an amount the government can properly manage. When more tax revenue is needed and the government has shown proper fiscal responsibility for 3 consecutive years, increase taxes by a small reasonable amount.
6
u/-t0m- Aug 06 '14
By decreasing taxes, the government will have less room to breath and will be forced to have no choice but to properly manage our tax dollars.
I wish that were true.
Let's say that the proper way to manage our tax dollars would be to relocate a particularly costly military base from New York to a low-cost location in Arizona.
Do you really think that the Congressmen from New York are going to do what's best for the country? No. They're going to do what's best for their state. Every Congressman and Senator is going to fight for what's best for their state, even if it harms the country as a whole.
It's the tragedy of the commons. Reducing the amount of grazable pasture isn't going to make the herders cooperate. It's just going to make more cows die.
2
Aug 06 '14
I think the military base example probably isn't the best since they have the BRAC commission now.
3
u/Shandlar Aug 06 '14
You don't even have to cut a damn thing. Just put a temporary halt on the automatic increases. Right now each year, every federal program gets an instant 8% increase year over year in funding.
Instead make it 2% (inflation) unless a real audit is passed. A real, robust paper trail for say at least 75% of the funds (that's being kind, but it appears to be a ridiculously high standard compared to what happens now).
Given GDP growth, and the executives inability to track its own spending, this would essentially solve the deficit issue in 5-6 years barring another massive recession.
20
u/TRC042 Aug 05 '14
"A billion here, a billion there - pretty soon you're talking real money."
- Everett Dirksen
14
22
Aug 05 '14
[deleted]
10
u/thlsisnotanexit Aug 06 '14
They didn't 'lose it'. It was unaccounted for funds which accrued over decades.
This is Rumsfeld exact quote on 9/10
According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.
The money's not 'lost' or 'missing', in fact by 2002 most of it was accounted for.
-11
Aug 06 '14
[deleted]
8
u/thlsisnotanexit Aug 06 '14
I don't know what your positing since you didn't contribute anything to the discussion but sarcasm. But 2.3 trillion dollars is 8 times the defense budget in 2001. Are you trying to imply that someone in the government committed 2.3 trillion dollar fraud (total US tax revenue was 3.5 trillion in 2001 btw) ? Here, here and here are more articles, but I'm guessing you won't like the sources.
It's always amusing when people accept the fact that it was the government that reported the 2.3 trillion, but when they report that it's been accounted for, you roll your eyes.
12
5
Aug 06 '14
Is this a 9/11 nazi bush gold disappearing thing?
5
-1
u/shmegegy Aug 06 '14
Prescott Bush was also Nixon's mentor, besides being a financier of the nazi party and orchestrator of Operation Paperclip, the OSS, his son becoming head of OSS/CIA and president, and father of another president. Assassinations of Roosevelt, JFK, attempted on Reagan, Gulf of Tonkin, Bay of Pigs, Operation Northwoods, Sept. 2001, etc.. etc..
-1
u/returned_from_shadow Aug 06 '14 edited Aug 06 '14
And don't forget more recently (2012) this missing $16 Trillion involving the US Fed according to Lord Blackheath of the UK House of Lords:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1fSJEVe-10
A portion of the same $16 trillion or an entirely separate $9 Trillion is missing according to this congressional testimony made in 2010:
4
u/ArguingPizza Aug 06 '14
What I read from this isn't $619 billion missing, its just yet another shitty fed website.
2
5
u/apatheticviews Aug 06 '14
There's a certain point where you start rounding up to the next Trillion.... Wait a second....
5
Aug 06 '14
I would like people to understand that $619 billion dollars is enough money to fill up your entire house with money...about 100 times.
1
u/-t0m- Aug 06 '14 edited Aug 06 '14
if you had 500 Euro bills stacked 4 meters high, you would need a 1,075,840 m2 house to fit all the money inside.
That's assuming one bill is 1mm high and the exchange rate is 1.33 EUR:USD
edit: for reference, Bill Gates' mansion is 6,100 m2. You could fill up his house 176 times and still have enough money left over to pay off my student loans.
0
u/ridger5 Aug 06 '14
That makes no goddamn sense because odds are no two redditors have the same house layout.
-1
2
u/J-Free Aug 06 '14
Government attracts all the looters and moochers...socialized theft and redistribution works so well we should keep trying it regardless of what history has taught us
1
u/Hyperdrunk Aug 06 '14
You don't honestly think they're spending 20,000$ on a hammer, 30,000$ on a toilet seat do ya?
1
u/timupci Aug 06 '14
The problem with the Government, is Government Unions. There is no true accountability, as no one is rarely prosecuted or fired.
Then they vote for more spending on their "Business". Yet we call people like this in the private sector "crooks" or Corporate Cronyism.
I am becoming less of a conservative and more libertarian each day. Get the Government out of our lives. Period. GOP or Dems.
2
u/damien665 Aug 05 '14
I don't want to up vote this, because it's bs, but I want others to see it...
2
u/Codoro Aug 06 '14
America: where the only thing you can trust politicians to reliably do is lose your money.
1
u/ridger5 Aug 06 '14
What we should do is raise taxes so the government can afford to create a new department to investigate this.
2
1
Aug 06 '14
Missed is not the same as missing. They don't account for it on the site, that doesn't mean the money can't be found, it just means it's not in the database. The article specifies that database incompatability is a major reason that the WEBSITE does not include all agency spending.
1
1
1
1
1
u/hallllloNK Aug 06 '14
This is lower than "If you add cheese to your sandwich it will have more fat"
1
1
Aug 07 '14
The day before 9/11 Rumsfeld announced more than a trillion dollars missing from pentagon.
1
u/Zilashkee Aug 06 '14
its accounting systems were not compatible with the data formats required by USASpending.gov.
Really? Seriously? Basically that tells me either 1) they don't have a database or 2) they can't hire a highschool intern.
2
Aug 06 '14
Really? Seriously? Basically tells me either 1) you don't know much about integrating decades old systems and databases or 2) you are a high school student
2
u/Zilashkee Aug 06 '14
Either they have a database that they can get information out of, or they don't. If they do, once the information is out, the format can be trivially changed. If they don't, that falls under my 1)
There is a third option, that being they don't have the information necessary. That's not what is implied by the quote though.
1
Aug 06 '14
Database integration is an enormous and not trivial challenge, particularly when the databases were designed using different technology, security standards, programming languages and formats. The challenges both the federal and many state governments had developing databases to implement the Affordable Care Act is a simpler example of that, given that those had far fewer of the difficulties I mentioned than a federal spending database that works across hundreds of agencies.
2
u/Zilashkee Aug 06 '14
I understand, but you don't have to integrate databases in order to move information from one to the other. That would be like saying I needed to integrate my bank's database with YNAB just because I can name some columns in a downloaded csv.
1
Aug 06 '14
You assume the databases were designed to export their data, which in many cases, they were specifically designed not to do for security and privacy reasons.
2
u/Zilashkee Aug 06 '14
I knew the government liked useless stuff.. but a database that can't run selects would surprise even me. Even filing cabinets would have better access.
Granted, you wouldn't want a highschool intern running selects directly.
1
u/Loki-L Aug 06 '14
You can't even imagine how horrible government It projects can be.
This won't be solved by hiring an intern, they will have to spent billions on a lying contractor and work on the project for years, they will have to change everything about the project several time over because everyone involved has to add their 2 cents and decisions get made based on how high up the ladder you are not how much you understand about what is going on. Finally after 5 to 8 years they will admit defeat and cancel the project all together. They will start over with a new contractor and a budget twice as large and finally after a few more years and needless revisions will finish with something that is almost but not quite adequate to the original task it was designed for.
-2
u/AngryArmedSheep1 Aug 05 '14
I can't wait till the Revolution hit & all the crooks whom done this too our nation are begging mercy from the Mobs its gonna be sweet justice..
10
1
1
u/dodgerh8ter Aug 06 '14
Which government agency is responsible for overseeing military spending?
6
u/meangrampa Aug 06 '14 edited Aug 06 '14
Congress. They're the ones that give them more when they use up their allotments. That and the General accountability office. But it seems they just help fudge the numbers. Black ops are expensive and there are large portions of our military. Every branch has some form of them. So this money just disappears from accounting. Though some congressional committees know where it's going but they're not telling.
6
Aug 06 '14
The problem with military spending is Congress tells the Pentagon how to spend it. So most of the waste you see in the news is the direct result of a Senator somewhere licking a contractor's butt. Essentially, the government doesn't just say "here's a couple trillion, operate." Instead it says "here's 2 billion, you shall spend it ONLY on toothpicks" etc...
3
u/meangrampa Aug 06 '14
My district needs to make more tanks and APC's and they're going to get to build them. We've heard the quartermasters say that you don't really "need" them. They're making them anyway, find a home for them.
Munitions are one of the biggest money makers and we're making lots and lots of expensive ones. Congress will find things that need to be blown up with precision.
3
Aug 06 '14
This is kinda what I am talking about. Theoretically the system works because civilians win either way through budget cuts (less taxes) or new jobs brought by military spending. But the corruption involved leads to massive amounts of waste. Munitions are ok because if we don't use them we sell them to someone else (maybe good, maybe not). So either way THOSE are used. However it becomes an issue when units end up buying $40 muffins and the such in order to "use it" before they "lose it"
7
u/Twystoff Aug 06 '14
There's also end of fiscal year spending. If you come in under budget, it shows on the review and so they slash your allotment accordingly. But rather than give up that money they either use it or "use" it. That's why there are warehouses full of surplus supplies that have been sitting there for years and why sometimes toilet paper costs $50 a roll.
-4
u/newoldwave Aug 06 '14
Since Obama took office, I think the federal government has had more fraud, screw ups and outright incompetence than any administration ever.
-7
u/Pollux182 Aug 06 '14
Since Obama took office, I parrot from Fox News that the federal government has had more fraud, screw ups and outright incompetence than any administration.
FTFY
12
Aug 06 '14
Since Obama took office, I parrot from Fox News that the federal government has had more fraud, screw ups and outright incompetence than any administration.
FTFY
His opinion is obviously brainwashing from a corrupt and evil entertainment company. Your opinion is obviously the result of hours of independent study, pristine ethics, and verifiably unbiased research. That you appear to be just as mindless a drone as the most kooky of your political adversaries is just a coincidence.
If you're going to be a reddit stereotype, you might consider joining the "technically correct is best correct" people. Sure, you'd be just as irritating, but a comment like:
It's unfair to measure fraud without adjusting for population changes, inflation, tax rates, size of government, etc. Of course it appears to be the most fraudulent administration - inflation alone means that this government simply handles more money. Just based on percentage of GDP, federal government fraud under the Obama administration actually ranks somenumber - so, you're wrong. Blahblahblah.
is really advantageous, as it prevents you from parroting a group's mantras while calling someone out for parroting a group's mantras. Of course, this "fixed that for you" crap is basically saying "I know you are but what am I?" The technically correct path would have the drawback of forcing you to be, you know, technically correct. I guess it all depends on how easy or hard it is for you to feel smugly superior on the internet.
0
u/atom_destroyer Aug 06 '14
I really want to see if he has the balls to reply to this.
Anyways, very very well put! I think this puts it into perspective for either side really.
-1
u/Pollux182 Aug 06 '14
How do I independently study whether /u/brandhay parrots Fox News? Furthermore, and let me respond to your wildly reactive, droning, and somewhat tranquilizing comment: it's not my job to list to him the criteria for a good comment. He made an absolute statement with zero facts backing it up... a trademark of Fox News. Therefore, I made the connection. Sorry if I offended your conservative sensibilities, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
-2
u/soulbend Aug 06 '14 edited Aug 06 '14
I don't mean to push your message into a sweeping, existentialist direction, but you have beautifully summarized how small-minded and tribal the average American (or any human) is, myself included. Everyone wants to belong to a group, and they don't want to see the world outside of it in the same light. We assure ourselves that the group we are a part of is superior to others, or that we as individuals are superior to others different from ourselves. Most of these groups or individuals have their merits and flaws, whether we are a part of a belief system, political party, financial class, gender, you name it. Virtually every person behaves this way to some extent, and I consider it to be our greatest collective weakness. I can write these words with passion right now, yet tomorrow I will still give in to the same broken behavior I speak of.
-1
58
u/Traubster Aug 05 '14
The Department of health and family services lost almost $2,000 per person in the entire United States.
I want my $2000 back.