6 ms·

Why isn't all government budgetary information public to begin with?

stonogo 2y ago
The majority of it is. The parts that aren't tend to be personal information, which is where most of the concern comes from about this crew bypassing data controls. This work could have been done without this slash-and-burn approach. It could have been done, in fact, without involving the government at all. The people involved did not actually care before, or they would have known this.
frankharv 2y ago
I totally agree. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. It seems our Continuing Resolution method of funding the government is a failure. Sorta like cost plus last year.
- c-cube 2y ago
  Where do you see sunshine? Are the "audits" public at all? It's indistinguishable from just having Musk kill every agency he dislikes with no further proof, while siphoning data to some unspecified server. The timeline also hints at no serious audit taking place.
Aurornis 2y ago
Much of it is! Journalists are already using it to debunk some of Elon’s claims like the one they only 10% of USAID reached intended targets (which appears to be based on his complete misreading of a breakdown) The real question now is where is DOGE’s evidence of all of this corruption? There are massive claims of rampant corruption, such as calling the USAID corrupt to their core, but literally zero evidenced has been revealed to anyone. The interviews I’ve caught have been Elon giving definitive statements and refusing to elaborate on anything, as if we’re supposed to trust his private judgment and ask no questions.
- ketlag 2y ago
  Yup, ask no questions. That's it. That's their entire game plan. That no one will dare question their intellect. What's the point after seeing what happened with the USAID spending and news subscriptions? As the kids say, "we're cooked."
- default-kramer 2y ago
  > where is DOGE’s evidence of all of this corruption? Presumably this was published by DOGE: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/at-usaid-waste-and-abuse-runs-deep/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/at-usaid-wast... I encourage everyone to follow the links and determine the accuracy of the claims being made.
  - rawgabbit 2y ago
    The linked Breitbart article had this: “Between 2005 and 2008, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) devoted at least $330 million in funding to failed ADP projects intended to deter farmers and traffickers from cultivating and trafficking opium.” The article actually said the money was intended to STOP opium production. But the Whitehouse Fact sheet (last bullet point) twisted the facts to say the complete opposite.
    - pests 2y ago
      I’m not too sure if that quote you used is even an accurate depiction of what happened. The following paragraph: “the chief at SIGAR, learned that the agricultural development programs — namely those used to rehabilitate canals that have rendered an area more than three times the size of Washington, DC, fertile— have “inadvertently” fueled the cultivation of the poppy crop.” Was it to deter farmers and poppy production, or was it doing what was intended - developing agriculture - with the unfortunate downside of being used for poppy production.
      - rawgabbit 2y ago
        The truth is of course more nuanced but that doesn't make good sound bites. Was it to deter farmers and poppy production? The answer lies in the word "deter" in the quote I copied. Deter means slow/stop. The USAID OIG report I quote below also says the same thing. "The purpose of the program is to counteract...". "was it doing what was intended - developing agriculture"? This is where the reader needs context and Breitbart provided none of that. The Taliban were removed from power in Afghanistan in 2002. It wasn't until 2020, the US withdrew all troops. The period of "corruption" mentioned was in the early 2000s. To address your question, I refer to the IG report https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/5-306-10-011-p.pdf https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/5-306-10-0.... If you read the quote below, it was intended to do both. The IG report actually blasted the execution of the plan, and it said it was half-assed. I would argue the whole US adventure in Afghanistan and Iraq was half-assed, ad hoc, and hurt US prestige. Not to mention the deaths and tragedies inflicted on all sides. Trump is right in that Afghanistan is a shameful episode in US history. Was USAID's intention to stop opium production? The answer is yes. OIG report on page 7, "Summary. The purpose of the program is to counteract illicit poppy cultivation by providing alternative livelihood programs, improved economic opportunities, and diverse regional economic growth in selected provinces. Furthermore, a key pillar of the U.S. Government’s counterinsurgency strategy involves economic development of areas secured by the U.S. military. Although gains have been made in some targeted southern and western provinces to reduce poppy cultivation, these gains may not be sustainable because (1) no follow-on alternative development activity has been approved beyond March 2011; (2) a critical southern province is not included in the current program; (3) access to markets for cereal crops (such as wheat) is not guaranteed, nor is stability of commodity prices; (4) success of programs outside the mission’s control may affect poppy cultivation and harvest; and (5) the availability of water is uncertain. The impact of not having a follow-on program can be measured in terms of (1) loss of program investment in long-term projects totaling $7 million, (2) loss of economic gains for Afghans including jobs, (3) potential increase in poppy cultivation, and (4) a negative effect on the U.S. Government’s counterinsurgency policy."
throwaway292910 2y ago
Public information can't be made more public when it is already public. Congress passes the federal budget, which is public. Contracts are public. Bid processes are public. The only exceptions are things that are considered PII and things that are classified. USAspending.gov contains public spending data thanks to the bipartisan bill Obama, Coburn, McCain, and Carper passed two decades ago. It's one of many places to start.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  When was the last budget passed?
culi 2y ago
It is already. And you can access anything not readibly accessible with a Freedom of Information Act request

The majority of it is. The parts that aren't tend to be personal information, which is where most of the concern comes from about this crew bypassing data controls. This work could have been done without this slash-and-burn approach. It could have been done, in fact, without involving the government at all. The people involved did not actually care before, or they would have known this.

frankharv 2y ago

I totally agree. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. It seems our Continuing Resolution method of funding the government is a failure. Sorta like cost plus last year.

c-cube 2y ago
Where do you see sunshine? Are the "audits" public at all? It's indistinguishable from just having Musk kill every agency he dislikes with no further proof, while siphoning data to some unspecified server. The timeline also hints at no serious audit taking place.

Aurornis 2y ago

Much of it is! Journalists are already using it to debunk some of Elon’s claims like the one they only 10% of USAID reached intended targets (which appears to be based on his complete misreading of a breakdown) The real question now is where is DOGE’s evidence of all of this corruption? There are massive claims of rampant corruption, such as calling the USAID corrupt to their core, but literally zero evidenced has been revealed to anyone. The interviews I’ve caught have been Elon giving definitive statements and refusing to elaborate on anything, as if we’re supposed to trust his private judgment and ask no questions.

ketlag 2y ago
Yup, ask no questions. That's it. That's their entire game plan. That no one will dare question their intellect. What's the point after seeing what happened with the USAID spending and news subscriptions? As the kids say, "we're cooked."
default-kramer 2y ago
> where is DOGE’s evidence of all of this corruption? Presumably this was published by DOGE: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/at-usaid-waste-and-abuse-runs-deep/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/at-usaid-wast... I encourage everyone to follow the links and determine the accuracy of the claims being made.
- rawgabbit 2y ago
  The linked Breitbart article had this: “Between 2005 and 2008, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) devoted at least $330 million in funding to failed ADP projects intended to deter farmers and traffickers from cultivating and trafficking opium.” The article actually said the money was intended to STOP opium production. But the Whitehouse Fact sheet (last bullet point) twisted the facts to say the complete opposite.
  - pests 2y ago
    I’m not too sure if that quote you used is even an accurate depiction of what happened. The following paragraph: “the chief at SIGAR, learned that the agricultural development programs — namely those used to rehabilitate canals that have rendered an area more than three times the size of Washington, DC, fertile— have “inadvertently” fueled the cultivation of the poppy crop.” Was it to deter farmers and poppy production, or was it doing what was intended - developing agriculture - with the unfortunate downside of being used for poppy production.
    - rawgabbit 2y ago
      The truth is of course more nuanced but that doesn't make good sound bites. Was it to deter farmers and poppy production? The answer lies in the word "deter" in the quote I copied. Deter means slow/stop. The USAID OIG report I quote below also says the same thing. "The purpose of the program is to counteract...". "was it doing what was intended - developing agriculture"? This is where the reader needs context and Breitbart provided none of that. The Taliban were removed from power in Afghanistan in 2002. It wasn't until 2020, the US withdrew all troops. The period of "corruption" mentioned was in the early 2000s. To address your question, I refer to the IG report https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/5-306-10-011-p.pdf https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/5-306-10-0.... If you read the quote below, it was intended to do both. The IG report actually blasted the execution of the plan, and it said it was half-assed. I would argue the whole US adventure in Afghanistan and Iraq was half-assed, ad hoc, and hurt US prestige. Not to mention the deaths and tragedies inflicted on all sides. Trump is right in that Afghanistan is a shameful episode in US history. Was USAID's intention to stop opium production? The answer is yes. OIG report on page 7, "Summary. The purpose of the program is to counteract illicit poppy cultivation by providing alternative livelihood programs, improved economic opportunities, and diverse regional economic growth in selected provinces. Furthermore, a key pillar of the U.S. Government’s counterinsurgency strategy involves economic development of areas secured by the U.S. military. Although gains have been made in some targeted southern and western provinces to reduce poppy cultivation, these gains may not be sustainable because (1) no follow-on alternative development activity has been approved beyond March 2011; (2) a critical southern province is not included in the current program; (3) access to markets for cereal crops (such as wheat) is not guaranteed, nor is stability of commodity prices; (4) success of programs outside the mission’s control may affect poppy cultivation and harvest; and (5) the availability of water is uncertain. The impact of not having a follow-on program can be measured in terms of (1) loss of program investment in long-term projects totaling $7 million, (2) loss of economic gains for Afghans including jobs, (3) potential increase in poppy cultivation, and (4) a negative effect on the U.S. Government’s counterinsurgency policy."

throwaway292910 2y ago

Public information can't be made more public when it is already public. Congress passes the federal budget, which is public. Contracts are public. Bid processes are public. The only exceptions are things that are considered PII and things that are classified. USAspending.gov contains public spending data thanks to the bipartisan bill Obama, Coburn, McCain, and Carper passed two decades ago. It's one of many places to start.

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
When was the last budget passed?

culi 2y ago

It is already. And you can access anything not readibly accessible with a Freedom of Information Act request