4 ms·

I get that, but if an agencies remit is to root out fraud and abuse, it would seem their function demands access to certain data?

by refurb 1y ago

anigbrowl 1y ago
DOGE isn't an agency, a fact which has been extensively publicly discussed. They don't have a Congressional mandate or any of the institutional infrastructure (inspectors general, well-defined rules and procedures etc.) that qould qualify them as an agency. 'Waste fraud and abuse' is a collection of emotionally activating buzzwords with which to score rhetorical points, not an objective standard of the sort employed in auditing. I am sure you can think of situations where arbitrary and capricious decisions are made and sold to the public or staff at a business in the name of 'security' or 'economic necessity' or whatever, and that these terms are designed to limit discussion and establishment of consensus by creating a false sense of urgency. We should be cautious about letting unknown persons inspect our wallets just because they insist its urgent without clearly specifying how or why. Here's an example (from the last century) of such rhetorical techniques being proposed specifically for their effectiveness in swaying opinion rather than developing policy: https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html
- refurb 1y ago
  DOGE absolutely falls under the Dept of Digital Services agency. No different than an office within the CDC like HIV Care Iniative. “Waste, fraud and abuse” is defined by the OIG well before Trump. Just because you don’t like him means it doesn’t exist or they are “emotional buzzwords”. https://oig.usaid.gov/node/221 https://oig.usaid.gov/node/221 Hence why the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 DOGE can have access - clearly across ideological lines.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    We both know you're over-simplifying or outright eliding the reality here, while ignoring points you don't have an answer for. Don't waste my time with such BS.
    - refurb 1y ago
      I directly answered your questions with actual facts that contradict each of your points. I even provided sources.

I get that, but if an agencies remit is to root out fraud and abuse, it would seem their function demands access to certain data?

by refurb 1y ago

I get that, but if an agencies remit is to root out fraud and abuse, it would seem their function demands access to certain data?

anigbrowl 1y ago

DOGE isn't an agency, a fact which has been extensively publicly discussed. They don't have a Congressional mandate or any of the institutional infrastructure (inspectors general, well-defined rules and procedures etc.) that qould qualify them as an agency. 'Waste fraud and abuse' is a collection of emotionally activating buzzwords with which to score rhetorical points, not an objective standard of the sort employed in auditing. I am sure you can think of situations where arbitrary and capricious decisions are made and sold to the public or staff at a business in the name of 'security' or 'economic necessity' or whatever, and that these terms are designed to limit discussion and establishment of consensus by creating a false sense of urgency. We should be cautious about letting unknown persons inspect our wallets just because they insist its urgent without clearly specifying how or why. Here's an example (from the last century) of such rhetorical techniques being proposed specifically for their effectiveness in swaying opinion rather than developing policy: https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html https://users.wfu.edu/zulick/454/gopac.html

refurb 1y ago
DOGE absolutely falls under the Dept of Digital Services agency. No different than an office within the CDC like HIV Care Iniative. “Waste, fraud and abuse” is defined by the OIG well before Trump. Just because you don’t like him means it doesn’t exist or they are “emotional buzzwords”. https://oig.usaid.gov/node/221 https://oig.usaid.gov/node/221 Hence why the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 DOGE can have access - clearly across ideological lines.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  We both know you're over-simplifying or outright eliding the reality here, while ignoring points you don't have an answer for. Don't waste my time with such BS.
  - refurb 1y ago
    I directly answered your questions with actual facts that contradict each of your points. I even provided sources.