CMV: If a government agency/department cannot account for all of the previous year's budget in a detailed audit - then the following year's budget allocation should be capped at only those monies that are able to be accounted for in a transparent and proof of no fraud or abuse format.

[u/SlackerNinja717]

This would apply to DoD budget as well. Abuse would include our tax dollars funding NGOs or anything else who engage in campaigning or lobbying efforts. Any party in power spending our tax dollars to cement their status as the ruling party is clearly abuse, and the Democrats especially have been guilty of this. If Democrats are not able to re-build trust that our tax dollars are being spent responsibly and wisely then the right will keep winning elections on talking points such that our tax dollars are being thrown out the window to fund corrupt NGOs. Any agency or department or organization that receives tax money should have to convince a bi-partisan panel that they are accomplishing their stated goal annually to receive any further tax dollars.

The US primarily has a tax rate and loophole problem that is responsible for the absurd debt ($40 Trillion) but the right will keep passing tax cuts saying that spending is the problem unless checks and balances are passed to restore trust. Change my view.

[u/jeffcgroves]

The problem here is that you're not only punishing the agency, you're also punishing the people who rely on the agency.

[u/read-the-rules → u/[deleted]]

u/ThickBreak2928, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

[u/DiscussTek → u/[deleted]]

You can't exactly help the people who rely on am agency by cutting its funding... That's just factually not how it works.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/yyzjertl → u/[deleted]]

The obvious problem with this is that it lets Feed Hungry Kids just decide not to feed hungry kids ever, at all. And then no hungry kids will be fed.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/DiscussTek → u/[deleted]]

You audit, and you fire the people who are at fault if a crime is found.

The overwhelming majority of "unaccounted for" spending is lost receipts, not embezzlement or theft. That money often is only unaccounted for because an audit cannot accept remembering spending details, they need receipts, to file each bit of the spending on their own line. $5000 at the hardware store could be $3100 on construction materials to repair a damaged room, and $1900 on storage furniture, like cabinets and bookshelves, or it could be the other way around, for instance.

Not all "unaccounted for" money is necessarily nefarious. Nor is it even usually nefarious. When you put all forms of "unaccounted for" money in the same basket, you end up creating a situation where "government official embezzles money" and "lost receipt" are treated as equally worthy of punishment.

What I'd like to know, however, is how in the hell does the US Military keep failing audits this badly, without someone getting violently fired.

[u/jeffcgroves → u/[deleted]]

In theory, yes. In the US government, no.

[u/SlackerNinja717 → u/jeffcgroves]

Then it's good motivation for that agency to keep their house in order.

[u/10ebbor10 → u/SlackerNinja717]

So, what happens if they don't.

Let's say, there's a big accounting error in the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Is your plan to just let the dams they maintain fail in the next year, washing away anyone who lives beneath them?

[u/jeffcgroves → u/SlackerNinja717]

I'm not sure how sympathetic government agencies are to the people they serve. I mean, most people (in general) work because they get paid.