BusterAg said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Private companies have to be efficient because their shareholders will take their money somewhere else. They're heavily scrutinized. They make quarterly reports that get dissected and they'll be punished if they don't continually improve upon the last report. More revenue. More efficiency. More controls. More investment.

---

Here is the thing. There is much less accounting fraud today than there was in the 1990's. You know why?

Because SARBOX was pretty effective. The CEO, CFO, and auditor of a company can go to jail, not because there was fraud in their company, but only because they failed to enact the correct "internal controls" to prevent fraud. They have to attest that their accounting environment is up to industry standards to prevent fraud when they sign every quarterly report.

We need this accountability in the federal government. Agency heads should go to jail just for things like SSN databases with 200 year old records. Or treasury department payment systems with important accounting fields blank.

Thanks to SARBOX, if Facebook did something like this, just having a terrible database related to payments Zuckerberg would be in handcuffs.

If we bring personal responsibility to DC through threat of go-to-jail at gunpoint, a lot of this waste would go away, because you are just one lost election away from prison time when the next head guy of your administration decides to try and put you in jail.

---

Well run businesses, hell decently run businesses, did not need Sarbanes-Oxley to put in internal controls.

Back in my youth I worked on some of the very first projects to establish compliance and document the internal controls in a central and sensible manner. We did not go about inventing internal controls, just documenting them.

Robust, independent and risk-based internal audit departments are a keystone to well managed companies where fraud is almost non-existent. Sadly, the act from 20 years ago did little to influence these areas.

I get your sentiment but the main issue with government is complete lack of accountability by the manager and more importantly the owners.

The establishment. career officials have failed and shown they are not capable at running complex organizations well. This is not surprising. Smart, talented folks do not work in government. Spend any time with a career bureaucrat and its painfully, sadly obvious.

Congress could provide continuity in oversight but instead they want to sit on the dais and pontificate and bloviate for sound bites they can try and leverage to get re-elected.

tl;dr the system is completely and chronically ****ed. Let Elon, Trump and friends pull the bandages off and get to treating the patience, people's feelings about Trump and Musk personally be damned.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Hoyt Ag said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

I knew it was bad. But holy crap. 4.7 TRILLION dollars of likely fraud.

SMH

---

Thats not what this means.

---

So you're just going to go with "it's gross negligence and incompetence" as opposed to fraud every single time. I mean, what's the end goal of yours? If you're just trying to prove to us that government employees are mostly incapable of exhibiting basic job skills and intelligence, then we already know that. No one here needs convincing.

---

But but but it was just millions of fat fingered entries. Not Fraud!!

SMH.

---

Time will tell. Not that it matters. Everyone claiming it's all fraud will just move the goalposts when it's found that it's only some fraud. Which of course is still bad, but it's not what some here are claiming.

---

You seemed fixated on this distinction. I don't really care, Margaret. Cut it all.

Whether it is fraud or incompetence makes no difference to me except perhaps in determining if those in charge should be fired or incarcerated.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Private companies have to be efficient because their shareholders will take their money somewhere else. They're heavily scrutinized. They make quarterly reports that get dissected and they'll be punished if they don't continually improve upon the last report. More revenue. More efficiency. More controls. More investment.

---

Here is the thing. There is much less accounting fraud today than there was in the 1990's. You know why?

Because SARBOX was pretty effective. The CEO, CFO, and auditor of a company can go to jail, not because there was fraud in their company, but only because they failed to enact the correct "internal controls" to prevent fraud. They have to attest that their accounting environment is up to industry standards to prevent fraud when they sign every quarterly report.

We need this accountability in the federal government. Agency heads should go to jail just for things like SSN databases with 200 year old records. Or treasury department payment systems with important accounting fields blank.

Thanks to SARBOX, if Facebook did something like this, just having a terrible database related to payments Zuckerberg would be in handcuffs.

If we bring personal responsibility to DC through threat of go-to-jail at gunpoint, a lot of this waste would go away, because you are just one lost election away from prison time when the next head guy of your administration decides to try and put you in jail.

---

Well run businesses, hell decently run businesses, did not need Sarbanes-Oxley to put in internal controls.

Back in my youth I worked on some of the very first projects to establish compliance and document the internal controls in a central and sensible manner. We did not go about inventing internal controls, just documenting them.

Robust, independent and risk-based internal audit departments are a keystone to well managed companies where fraud is almost non-existent. Sadly, the act from 20 years ago did little to influence these areas.

I get your sentiment but the main issue with government is complete lack of accountability by the manager and more importantly the owners.

The establishment. career officials have failed and shown they are not capable at running complex organizations well. This is not surprising. Smart, talented folks do not work in government. Spend any time with a career bureaucrat and its painfully, sadly obvious.

Congress could provide continuity in oversight but instead they want to sit on the dais and pontificate and bloviate for sound bites they can try and leverage to get re-elected.

tl;dr the system is completely and chronically ****ed. Let Elon, Trump and friends pull the bandages off and get to treating the patience, people's feelings about Trump and Musk personally be damned.

---

The key to SARBOX working is that it puts the top brass's ass on the line for not following compliance procedures.

I agree that a well-run business does not need SARBOX. It was designed so that poorly run businesses in terms of internal controls results in jail time for the top brass.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here is a list of the top accounting scandals, written in 2022. All of the largest ones in the US are prior to 2005, just 3 years after SARBOX was passed.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/accounting/top-accounting-scandals/

American Hardwood said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Hoyt Ag said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

I knew it was bad. But holy crap. 4.7 TRILLION dollars of likely fraud.

SMH

---

Thats not what this means.

---

So you're just going to go with "it's gross negligence and incompetence" as opposed to fraud every single time. I mean, what's the end goal of yours? If you're just trying to prove to us that government employees are mostly incapable of exhibiting basic job skills and intelligence, then we already know that. No one here needs convincing.

---

But but but it was just millions of fat fingered entries. Not Fraud!!

SMH.

---

Time will tell. Not that it matters. Everyone claiming it's all fraud will just move the goalposts when it's found that it's only some fraud. Which of course is still bad, but it's not what some here are claiming.

---

You seemed fixated on this distinction. I don't really care, Margaret. Cut it all.

Whether it is fraud or incompetence makes no difference to me except perhaps in determining if those in charge should be fired or incarcerated.

---

I would like to change the system to where incompetence in detecting fraud automatically results in jailtime for agency heads. That is what we have in the public sector with Sarbanes-Oxley. We need Sarbanes-Oxley for the federal government.

Lehman? Madhoff? FTX?

Again, I get your concept of SOX for Government, but the folks running these departments and all of their workers take an oath of office.

So the legal tentacles are set at that point. But unions and congress critters have put in so many protections on federal employees none of them fear their job. If they get uncomfortable someone is telling them what to do, they get a segment on 60 minutes or a congressional committee hearing on how bad they have it.

Making fed employees at will and removing most if not all protections, you will get a more compliant employee population.

Many of the internal controls exist, but they are overridden, ignored, and navigated around with ZERO consequence. See Treasury money tag no longer required (though now required again).

American Hardwood said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Hoyt Ag said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

I knew it was bad. But holy crap. 4.7 TRILLION dollars of likely fraud.

SMH

---

Thats not what this means.

---

So you're just going to go with "it's gross negligence and incompetence" as opposed to fraud every single time. I mean, what's the end goal of yours? If you're just trying to prove to us that government employees are mostly incapable of exhibiting basic job skills and intelligence, then we already know that. No one here needs convincing.

---

But but but it was just millions of fat fingered entries. Not Fraud!!

SMH.

---

Time will tell. Not that it matters. Everyone claiming it's all fraud will just move the goalposts when it's found that it's only some fraud. Which of course is still bad, but it's not what some here are claiming.

---

You seemed fixated on this distinction. I don't really care, Margaret. Cut it all.

Whether it is fraud or incompetence makes no difference to me except perhaps in determining if those in charge should be fired or incarcerated.

---

You should care. Fixing them requires two entirely separate approaches and fixing one does not fix the other.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Lehman? Madhoff? FTX?

Again, I get your concept of SOX for Government, but the folks running these departments and all of their workers take an oath of office.

So the legal tentacles are set at that point. But unions and congress critters have put in so many protections on federal employees none of them fear their job. If they get uncomfortable someone is telling them what to do, they get a segment on 60 minutes or a congressional committee hearing on how bad they have it.

Making fed employees at will and removing most if not all protections, you will get a more compliant employee population.

Many of the internal controls exist, but they are overridden, ignored, and navigated around with ZERO consequence. See Treasury money tag no longer required (though now required again).

---

Again, SARBOX gives teeth to that oath of office so that when the internal controls are overridden, ignored, and navigated around, top brass goes to jail. You don't have to prove intent or fraud, just negligence to prevent fraud.

We are arguing for the same solution, but I am floating out an actual plan to get to that solution that is more in-depth than making employees at will.

As for your your exceptions:
Lehman wasn't really an accounting scandal. They were taking advantage of lax oversight and no accountability in mortgage due diligence.
Madoff and FTX were not publicly traded companies.

BusterAg said:

---

Again, SARBOX gives teeth to that oath of office so that when the internal controls are overridden, ignored, and navigated around, top brass goes to jail. You don't have to prove intent or fraud, just negligence to prevent fraud.

We are arguing for the same solution, but I am floating out an actual plan to get to that solution that is more in-depth than making employees at will.

As for your your exceptions:
Lehman wasn't really an accounting scandal. They were taking advantage of lax oversight and no accountability in mortgage due diligence.
Madoff and FTX were not publicly traded companies.

---

18 U.S.C. 1918 provides for imprisonment, fines and termination for violating the oath of office. Public company employees contain no such oath.

Meanwhile, the SOX rules have been used to jail fishermen and Jan 6th protestors and attempted incarceration of a former POTUS and presidential candidate.

Careful what you wish for.

One more time, the regs you seek exist. People have to follow and enforce.

Not sure your experience in the world of financial compliance, but SOX is widely viewed as a nothing burger outside of making the Big 4 accounting firms **** tons of money.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/sarbanes-oxleys-lost-promise-why-ceos-havent-been-prosecuted-idUS3512973425/

Quote:

---

As Sarbanes-Oxley marks its 10th anniversary on Monday, its promise of holding CEOs and CFOs criminally responsible remains unfulfilled. The law states that if top corporate executives knowingly sign off on a false financial report, they're subject to a prison term of up to 10 years and a fine of up to $1 million, with penalties escalating to 20 years and $5 million if their misconduct is willful. After accounting scandals at Enron, WorldCom and a host of other public companies, SOX's certification provisions, according to Seymour and other former prosecutors, seemed like a clean, simple way to tie CEOs and CFOs to corporate crimes.

But in practice, exceedingly few defendants have even been charged with false certification, and fewer still have been convicted. The most notorious SOX criminal case, against former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, ended in an acquittal in 2005. In 2007, the former CFO of a medical equipment financing company called DVI pleaded guilty to mail fraud and false certification and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. In a more recent case, a SOX false certification charge against former Vitesse CEO Louis Tomasetta was dismissed. (Tomasetta's trial on other charges ended in a mistrial in April.) The Justice Department doesn't directly track Sarbanes-Oxley prosecutions, so there may be another case here or there. Even four or five SOX criminal cases in 10 years, though, makes them as rare as a blue moon.

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Hoyt Ag said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

I knew it was bad. But holy crap. 4.7 TRILLION dollars of likely fraud.

SMH

---

Thats not what this means.

---

So you're just going to go with "it's gross negligence and incompetence" as opposed to fraud every single time. I mean, what's the end goal of yours? If you're just trying to prove to us that government employees are mostly incapable of exhibiting basic job skills and intelligence, then we already know that. No one here needs convincing.

---

But but but it was just millions of fat fingered entries. Not Fraud!!

SMH.

---

Time will tell. Not that it matters. Everyone claiming it's all fraud will just move the goalposts when it's found that it's only some fraud. Which of course is still bad, but it's not what some here are claiming.

---

You seemed fixated on this distinction. I don't really care, Margaret. Cut it all.

Whether it is fraud or incompetence makes no difference to me except perhaps in determining if those in charge should be fired or incarcerated.

---

You should care. Fixing them requires two entirely separate approaches and fixing one does not fix the other.

---

No, really? Fixing the problem is a legislative one. Cutting off the spigot isn't. This thread is about DOGE, not congress.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

So I guess Trump would have been A-OK if he would have had his accounting dept leave the "For" portion of Stormy's check blank.

---

Bingo. Beat me to it.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I think all they are saying is that the tweet from Elon is on point. It's not all fraud, but 20% of $4.7T is a lot of pennies.

---

Came here to post this comment, as I would say 20% to 25% is likely fraud which means over one trillion in fraud. The rest is lazy accountants not putting in data in a column for payments that was infrequently used.

Everyone should hand write one trillion, to get an idea just how much money that is:

1,000,000,000,000

American Hardwood said:

---

No, really? Fixing the problem is a legislative one. Cutting off the spigot isn't. This thread is about DOGE, not congress.

---

Musk is mostly finding the fraud at the spigot, and letting the DOJ and Trump fix the fraud.

The long term fix is legislative, but the laws in place to ax or jail these people exist if enforced.

taxpreparer said:

---

I believe there is a lot of fraud involved with leaving the "for" field blank. However, there is also a laziness factor. I had plenty of bookkeeping clients who left that field blank for recurring payments for telephone and utility bills. It was just assumed I would understand. Some of this may be similar thinking.

---

I domt understand how such a form could be executed without that field completed.

Shouldn't that be a a required step?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

I believe there is a lot of fraud involved with leaving the "for" field blank. However, there is also a laziness factor. I had plenty of bookkeeping clients who left that field blank for recurring payments for telephone and utility bills. It was just assumed I would understand. Some of this may be similar thinking.

---

I domt understand how such a form could be executed without that field completed.

Shouldn't that be a a required step?

---

I honestly do not either when we are talking about govt, ngos, other non-profits, and publicly traded companies. Sole-propietors, and small partnerships, or small S-corps, sure. I mean, a plumber who writes checks to Verizon, Atmos, Plumbing Supply Corp, it seems obvious to them what the expense is.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

I believe there is a lot of fraud involved with leaving the "for" field blank. However, there is also a laziness factor. I had plenty of bookkeeping clients who left that field blank for recurring payments for telephone and utility bills. It was just assumed I would understand. Some of this may be similar thinking.

---

I domt understand how such a form could be executed without that field completed.

Shouldn't that be a a required step?

---

Who is to stop them? YOU couldn't do it. I can't do it. The government? They're accountable to no one unless they want to be.

Tailgate88 said:

---

I knew it was bad. But holy crap. 4.7 TRILLION dollars of likely fraud.

SMH

---

Probably more waste than fraud. I expect we will find more abandoned mines somewhere pushing paper that everyone forgot about except the folks who have been milking their sweet little government job for 20 years. We will also find lots and lots of contracts for "consulting" and other projects that were completely useless but maybe sounded good to some bureaucrat that came up with it under LBJ but never bothered to see if they did anything.

The thing about government bureaucracy is it encourages compliance and not asking questions. You get no reward for pointing out waste but you can destroy your career if you aren't careful. The types of people that work in bureaucracy are risk averse so it's much safer just to turn a blind eye.

All this is well and good.

Now because of layoffs and aid stoppage, we have some cash freed up that we now won't spend on stupid stuff. What happens of that? I wish Trump/Musk would tell us.

I hope we use it to pay down some debt. Even a small dent in it is a morale booster. We can't be at 36T and hope to survive much longer.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

I believe there is a lot of fraud involved with leaving the "for" field blank. However, there is also a laziness factor. I had plenty of bookkeeping clients who left that field blank for recurring payments for telephone and utility bills. It was just assumed I would understand. Some of this may be similar thinking.

---

I domt understand how such a form could be executed without that field completed.

Shouldn't that be a a required step?

---

As of Saturday, the TAS field is now required. (The Treasury department changed it after DOGE discovered it was left blank for $4.7 trillion worth of payments.)

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

I believe there is a lot of fraud involved with leaving the "for" field blank. However, there is also a laziness factor. I had plenty of bookkeeping clients who left that field blank for recurring payments for telephone and utility bills. It was just assumed I would understand. Some of this may be similar thinking.

---

I domt understand how such a form could be executed without that field completed.

Shouldn't that be a a required step?

---

Who is to stop them? YOU couldn't do it. I can't do it. The government? They're accountable to no one unless they want to be.

---

I hear ya.


Its just crazy how the "what for" field could be left blank and the payment could still go through.

Try that with any other govt agency when getting whatever benefit you're trying to get. Try that with taxes.

Its just a little crazy govt workers thought that was acceptable or explainable

deddog said:

---

It means ineptitude that makes fraud easier.

The system didn't require you to identify who payments were being made to. That's now fixed. You have to identify who the payment goes out to

---

Seems this was a fix only by someone, working for DOGE, insisting it be done.(re: if I am wrong here point it out please)

I would hope there will be legislation enacted requiring this, and other measures, be passed with penalties for non-compliance.

No "WTH" slackers at DOGE!!

richardag said:

---

deddog said:

---

It means ineptitude that makes fraud easier.

The system didn't require you to identify who payments were being made to. That's now fixed. You have to identify who the payment goes out to

---

Seems this was a fix only by someone, working for DOGE, insisting it be done.(re: if I am wrong here point it out please)

I would hope there will be legislation enacted requiring this, and other measures, be passed with penalties for non-compliance.

---

See my post above. DOGE (in its advisory capacity) asked Treasury to fix it, and Treasury did the work.

G Martin 87 said:

---

richardag said:

---

deddog said:

---

It means ineptitude that makes fraud easier.

The system didn't require you to identify who payments were being made to. That's now fixed. You have to identify who the payment goes out to

---

Seems this was a fix only by someone, working for DOGE, insisting it be done.(re: if I am wrong here point it out please)

I would hope there will be legislation enacted requiring this, and other measures, be passed with penalties for non-compliance.

---

See my post above. DOGE (in its advisory capacity) asked Treasury to fix it, and Treasury did the work.

---

Thanks. Since this was done by the Treasury Department under a recommendation, couldn't it be undone by the Treasury Department under a different Administration.
Hence my comment it be passed as legislation in Congress making it harder to undo?

It would not surprise me if there is already a law / procedural requirement for the information to be entered into the Treasury system. It would also not surprise me they got some judge to waive the requirement along the way. It would further not surprise me the congress critters waved and nodded as this was done under the auspices of "government efficiency".

It is clear congressional oversight has not only been lacking but outright complicit, on both sides of the aisle.

Trump can achieve permanent change by putting all the dirty laundry out there. Re-establishing an independent press would also support permanent change and I am somewhat hopeful that is happening with X, Truth Social, podcasts, etc.

richardag said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

richardag said:

---

deddog said:

---

It means ineptitude that makes fraud easier.

The system didn't require you to identify who payments were being made to. That's now fixed. You have to identify who the payment goes out to

---

Seems this was a fix only by someone, working for DOGE, insisting it be done.(re: if I am wrong here point it out please)

I would hope there will be legislation enacted requiring this, and other measures, be passed with penalties for non-compliance.

---

See my post above. DOGE (in its advisory capacity) asked Treasury to fix it, and Treasury did the work.

---

Thanks. Since this was done by the Treasury Department under a recommendation, couldn't it be undone by the Treasury Department under a different Administration.
Hence my comment it be passed as legislation in Congress making it harder to undo?

---

Could someone in the future order Treasury to change the TAS field back to an optional field? Sure. They could try to justify it as part of a work simplification initiative. I spent a lot of years designing clinical content for the EHR software that the docs in my health system used to document patient care. There are always tradeoffs involved in making a field "required". One of those tradeoffs is efficiency. Every time a user encounters a required field, they get slowed down a little. Make everything required, and the docs will come looking for you with pitchforks. (Even worse, let's say none of the docs complain. That means they're either not using the system at all, or they're entering crap data to get past the required fields.) Make nothing required, and the medical record becomes unusable in other ways. But that's a balance that I had to make by working closely with my docs, shadowing them during patient visits to ensure that our joint UI choices weren't affecting their efficiency or patient care in negative ways. Absolutely do not want legislation enacted by outside entities dictating that.

ETA: HSAT, though, here's a good analogy to hopefully clarify my point. There are multiple diagnosis fields available when a clinician is documenting a patient visit. I'm simplifying a bit, but basically you must have at least one of the multiple diagnosis fields be "required". Why? Because you must have a reason for treating the patient, even if the reason is simply an annual checkup. Think of this as the equivalent of the TAS field for the Treasury payment system. What is the reason for this payment?

I am not sure how difficult nor how much more time it would take to require who received the money.

richardag said:

---

I am not sure how difficult nor how much more time it would take to require who received the money.

---

Me either. You'd have to know their workflow and what information is available at that point. They were leaving the TAS field blank a significant portion of the time. Is that because the user didn't have it? Or because filling out the field was a big hassle? Or because they'd been instructed to leave it blank? Lots of unknowns. Making the field required will surface user feedback, for sure.

G Martin 87 said:

---

richardag said:

---

I am not sure how difficult nor how much more time it would take to require who received the money.

---

Me either. You'd have to know their workflow and what information is available at that point. They were leaving the TAS field blank a significant portion of the time. Is that because the user didn't have it? Or because filling out the field was a big hassle? Or because they'd been instructed to leave it blank? Lots of unknowns. Making the field required will surface user feedback, for sure.

---

My understanding is the TAS field was for tying back to the congressionally approved budget item.

I work with HUD on CDBG programs and our invoicing includes a HUD activity number that correlates to the congressionally appropriated funds (as an example HUD Activity: [HOS[12X_Bobby]_HMID_LM]).

I have not idea if that is the sort of thing that would have been in the TAS field but it makes sense to me that it would be that or similar.

They know WHOM the funds were sent to at least at a high level as it would be apparent from the wire txfr to the recipient. Problem is that in our example without the TAS number they know $x went to xyz state agency I work for, but that state agency receives fed money for thousands of different projects.

What Musk & friends are saying is it makes it exceedingly difficult to know what the money was for and which appropriate / budget item funded it.

I use to have a nifty flowchart that walked our process from invoice submission all the way to Treasury and back to payment to us.

I simply can think of no valid reason for it to be blank outside of the information was not included in the payment submission to Treasury and rather than delay payment they left the field blank. Thats gross incompetence but not surprising.

Every funding appropriation I have seen includes claw back provisions should an audit determine the funds were misused. There should be a high pucker factor if you have been part of misuse of funds.

DOGE should also get into the SAM.gov system and start debarring a bunch of entities based on their initial findings.