Oh, Noes! DOGE Audits Aren't up to Government Snuff!

PJ Media ^ | 03/19/25 | Stephen Green

[SeekAndFind]

Of all the nonvital issues lefty rags like Wired would have me worry about, audits of government spending conducted by Elon Musk's Department of Government not measuring up to Washington's strict standards (cough, cough) is so far down the list that I ran out of witty metaphors.

Yet here we are.

Before I take you into that Wired report, let me share the latest news about what Musk calls Washington's "Magic Money Computers" because it's a story that the legacy dinosaur media seems to have somehow missed but that plays directly into Wired's story.

Appearing on Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Tex.) podcast earlier this week, Musk described "one of the biggest scam/fraud hauls we've uncovered — which is crazy — is that the government can give money to a so-called 'non-profit' with very few controls and there's no auditing subsequently of that non-profit."

That much you probably knew already, thanks to DOGE and Data Republican's online database. But then Musk detailed "a 'magic money computer,' any computer which can just make money out of thin air."

"It just issues payments. And you said there’s something like 11 of these computers at the Treasury that are sending out trillions in payments? They’re mostly at the Treasury. Some are at HHS, some—there’s one or two at State. There’s some at DoD. I think we’ve found now 14 magic money computers. They just send money out of nothing."

Sounds like something a government auditor might be interested in, yes?

Yeah, about them.

Wired's Vittoria Elliott found two anonymous federal auditors "with years of experience" who "say that DOGE’s actions are the furthest thing from what an actual audit looks like."

“Honestly, comparing real auditing to what DOGE is doing, there’s no comparison,” one of the auditors told Wired.

[SeekAndFind]

Allow me please to ask one simple question of Wired's anonymous inside sources: "How's that auditing been workin' out for ya?" I ask because based on DOGE's discoveries, a federal auditor wouldn't know a fraudulent payment if it ended up in his own wallet — not that I'm implying anything actionable in a civil court. I'm just having a little fun at the expense of the professionally incompetent.

[CodeToad]

The thing with federal auditors is that they cannot and do not ask if the money was spent properly, only that the books show it was spent.

[TornadoAlley3]

Nearly all government audits are ignored anyway. If an IG has audited any department prior to Musk, what department passed?

[Ann Archy]

Federal Auditors are probably still using ABACI! Plus, they don’t give a RAT’SASS HOW OUR MONEY IS SPENT!

[9YearLurker]

The federal auditor is no doubt correct. Undoubtedly that auditor was also, as planned, completely ineffective in identifying waste, fraud and abuse.

Those computers should immediately be impounded for the deepest forensic analysis ever conducted.

[Huskrrrr]

Unfortunately, it’s exactly up to government snuff.

[Blood of Tyrants]

DOGE doesn’t have an “APPROVED” rubber stamp like the government auditors.

[CodeToad]

Which is why is should be far more effective.

[Carriage Hill]

Now, they do:

[Soul of the South]

“Wired’s Vittoria Elliott found two anonymous federal auditors “with years of experience” who say . . . “

One thing I’ve learned over decades of watching so called journalists and media organizations. If it is an anonymous source, cited by the media, it has zero credibility. If someone has something to say, they should stand tall and take ownership of their words. Our founding fathers did so and many of them lost their fortunes and lives so we could have free speech.

I used to follow the axiom -”trust but verify”. After years of deliberate lies, distortion, and misinformation my current philosophy is “tell me who you are and show me the hard evidence proving what you say.” If you are nameless, and have no facts, then you have no standing.

[ridesthemiles]

THEIR ABILITY TO DO AUDITS SHOULD BE UNDER INTENSE SCRUTINY.

[Bob Wills is still the king]

“The thing with federal auditors is that they cannot and do not ask if the money was spent properly, only that the books show it was spent.”
____________________________________________________________

Not true. The auditors specifically examine the financial records to determine if/that the federal budget appropriations, passed into law by Congress with a president’s signature, are being used as Congress directed.

Just spending the money isn’t enough. It has to be spent on the items legally authorized by Congress.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: has to be spent on the items legally authorized by Congress.

So, money for all those programs ridiculed by Trump in his speech to Congress this month were all legally authorized by Congress? The same folks the Americans voted for?