3 ms·

The pentagon's budget is only[1][2] about 600 billion dollars a year, over the 17 year period. This is saying they can't account for over 35 years of budget. I

The pentagon's budget is only[1][2] about 600 billion dollars a year, over the 17 year period. This is saying they can't account for over 35 years of budget. I don't understand how this number can possibly be correct in the sense that it's being presented. The article doesn't really explain it, can someone explain how the numbers add up? Is the Pentagon running a hedge fun in the background along with it's funding from congress? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... [2] I don't typically use the word 'only' to describe the US military budget.

rosser 8y ago
Opening paragraph of The Fine Article's linked Forbes source: > On July 26, 2016, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report “Army General Fund Adjustments Not Adequately Documented or Supported”. The report indicates that for fiscal year 2015 the Army failed to provide adequate support for $6.5 trillion in journal voucher adjustments. According to the GAO's Comptroller General, "Journal vouchers are summary-level accounting adjustments made when balances between systems cannot be reconciled. Often these journal vouchers are unsupported, meaning they lack supporting documentation to justify the adjustment or are not tied to specific accounting transactions…. For an auditor, journal vouchers are a red flag for transactions not being captured, reported, or summarized correctly." [1] This isn't actually necessarily money that's been spent illegitimately or secretly, or something. It sounds more like sloppy bookkeeping. Note also that the author also writes for RT. It doesn't make him wrong, but it does invite scrutiny into the underlying narratives this piece was penned to support; they probably aren't just on the level of "Army bad at accounting." [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#134b46da7aef https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-go...
exergy 8y ago
Except that it does. He mentions that the budget is the official budget, ie the on paper budget. The unaccounted for spending is 54 times that amount. It's just not on the papers
DavidSJ 8y ago
It appears this just comes down to inadequate inter-departmental accounting, not necessarily a net loss of any total amount of money, much less $21 trillion. The original source appears to be https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-go..., which explains the situation better. For example: The report indicates that for fiscal year 2015 the Army failed to provide adequate support for $6.5 trillion in journal voucher adjustments. According to the GAO's Comptroller General, "Journal vouchers are summary-level accounting adjustments made when balances between systems cannot be reconciled." In other words, far more money goes in and out of the Army, or between its various departments, than its total net cost to the government, as one might expect for any large bureaucracy.

rosser 8y ago

Opening paragraph of The Fine Article's linked Forbes source: > On July 26, 2016, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report “Army General Fund Adjustments Not Adequately Documented or Supported”. The report indicates that for fiscal year 2015 the Army failed to provide adequate support for $6.5 trillion in journal voucher adjustments. According to the GAO's Comptroller General, "Journal vouchers are summary-level accounting adjustments made when balances between systems cannot be reconciled. Often these journal vouchers are unsupported, meaning they lack supporting documentation to justify the adjustment or are not tied to specific accounting transactions…. For an auditor, journal vouchers are a red flag for transactions not being captured, reported, or summarized correctly." [1] This isn't actually necessarily money that's been spent illegitimately or secretly, or something. It sounds more like sloppy bookkeeping. Note also that the author also writes for RT. It doesn't make him wrong, but it does invite scrutiny into the underlying narratives this piece was penned to support; they probably aren't just on the level of "Army bad at accounting." [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#134b46da7aef https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-go...

exergy 8y ago

Except that it does. He mentions that the budget is the official budget, ie the on paper budget. The unaccounted for spending is 54 times that amount. It's just not on the papers

DavidSJ 8y ago

It appears this just comes down to inadequate inter-departmental accounting, not necessarily a net loss of any total amount of money, much less $21 trillion. The original source appears to be https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-go..., which explains the situation better. For example: The report indicates that for fiscal year 2015 the Army failed to provide adequate support for $6.5 trillion in journal voucher adjustments. According to the GAO's Comptroller General, "Journal vouchers are summary-level accounting adjustments made when balances between systems cannot be reconciled." In other words, far more money goes in and out of the Army, or between its various departments, than its total net cost to the government, as one might expect for any large bureaucracy.