NeuroTypical Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 I'm starting this thread in hopes that there will be much news for the department which hopes to make the US government more efficient. Here, a week before Trump's inauguration, is the first win for DOGE: Joni Ernst Scores Early DOGE Victory with Sale of Hardly Used Government Building - National Review Quote Senator Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) ... secured a requirement in the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 to have the General Services Administration sell off the Wilbur J. Cohen federal building, a facility with just 2 percent occupancy in downtown Washington, D.C. Quote Ernst is chair of the Senate DOGE caucus and released a report in December detailing how 90 percent of federal employees telework, while only 6 percent work in-person full time. Her investigation found that the government spends $8 billion maintaining and leasing federal buildings, and another $7.7 billion on energy to keep them running. Carborendum and zil2 2 Quote
Vort Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 Despite the unreliability of CBS News, this appears to be widely circulated and known. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vivek-ramaswamy-expected-to-depart-doge/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/19/ramaswamys-future-at-doge-is-in-doubt-as-he-prepares-to-announce-bid-for-ohio-governor-00199173 Funny how the news outlets see this as some sort of omen that the whole DOGE concept is in danger. NeuroTypical and Carborendum 2 Quote
Carborendum Posted January 20 Report Posted January 20 22 minutes ago, Vort said: Despite the unreliability of CBS News, this appears to be widely circulated and known. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vivek-ramaswamy-expected-to-depart-doge/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/19/ramaswamys-future-at-doge-is-in-doubt-as-he-prepares-to-announce-bid-for-ohio-governor-00199173 Funny how the news outlets see this as some sort of omen that the whole DOGE concept is in danger. Yup. It seems to me that this is the Republican party teeing up the presidency after Vance. (The current governor is term limited and the Lt. Governor is being appointed to the Senate to fill Vance's seat. While Vivek has experience in business and finance, he doesn't have much experience in politics. This is a way for him to get some experience and then make another bid for the White house. OR... it could be that he and Musk really didn't get along. NeuroTypical and Vort 2 Quote
zil2 Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 38 minutes ago, Carborendum said: OR... it could be that he and Musk really didn't get along. Whether they get along otherwise or not, two alphas in charge of the same organization never made sense to me. I am kinda sad to see Ramaswamy gone, though - he has a lot of good ideas. Hopefully they don't need him to run with them. NeuroTypical 1 Quote
Vort Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 33 minutes ago, zil2 said: Whether they get along otherwise or not, two alphas in charge of the same organization never made sense to me. I am kinda sad to see Ramaswamy gone, though - he has a lot of good ideas. Hopefully they don't need him to run with them. My understanding is that "DOGE" is not an actual government agency and that Musk is basically an advisor to the President, lacking any actual governmental authority. If that "advice" includes instructions on implementation, I can see how having both men might be problematic. In any case, I trust Musk's instincts and suspect that Ramaswamy's input and ideas can be provided at a distance. I still don't think that DOGE will amount to anything, though the fact that Musk is willing to put his name on the effort does suggest there is more than just hot air behind it. NeuroTypical and zil2 2 Quote
Vort Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 Quote Elon Musk has already achieved his first cut at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency: his co-leader Vivek Ramaswamy. That's just cold. NeuroTypical and zil2 2 Quote
Vort Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 Do my eyes deceive me? Is that Jeff standing there next to (almost next to) Elon? And is that Mark under Trump's arm? Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria! Carborendum and NeuroTypical 1 1 Quote
Vort Posted January 21 Report Posted January 21 3 minutes ago, mikbone said: If they do this, it darn well had better be more than eyewash. Banning Bud LIght from government functions won't fill the bill. Quote
NeuroTypical Posted January 21 Author Report Posted January 21 Right now the DOGE X account seems to be posting information describing the problem. "In FY2024, U.S. Congress provided $516 billion to programs whose authorizations previously expired under federal law. Nearly $320 billion of that $516 billion expired more a decade ago." "Federal government agencies are using, on average, just 12% of the space in their DC headquarters. The Department of Agriculture, with space for more than 7,400 people, averaged 456 workers each day (6% occupancy)." "The Department of Education spent over $1 Billion promoting DEI in America’s schools -$489,883,797 for race-based hiring -$343,337,286 for DEI programming -$169,301,221 for DEI mental health initiatives Source: https://defendinged.org/investigations/granted/" "Federal regulations cost Americans $1.9 trillion each year. If this regulatory cost was a country, it alone would be the 12th largest economy in the world. Sources: https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/10K_Commandments.pdf… https://worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/" Etc. zil2 and Carborendum 1 1 Quote
NeuroTypical Posted January 28 Author Report Posted January 28 A good place to do some homework. https://www.foreignassistance.gov/ Quote
NeuroTypical Posted February 1 Author Report Posted February 1 A billion dollars saved, just by canceling DEI spending within existing government agencies. Holy crap. A billion dollars. A thousand million. More money than I'll ever see in my life. All on stuff like training folks to see race and how to examine their unconscious bias. Carborendum and zil2 2 Quote
JohnsonJones Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 I'm more wondering what Congress is doing. Some articles imply Musk went over and beyond any authority he had and hooked up unapproved drives to government computers and is now taking control of Treasury (and computers that are independent of the Federal Government even, which is at least trespass) computers. Those in charge are supposed to be independent OR assigned by Congress from what I understand...and Musk is not that. So...why aren't our Congress members actually doing something...or are they going to be even more useless than normal which is why the Executive is tromping all over their hunting grounds? Quote
HaggisShuu Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 I'm so behind on US politics, I keep picturing the famous meme dog in reference to DOGE. NeuroTypical 1 Quote
Carborendum Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: I'm more wondering what Congress is doing. Some articles imply Musk went over and beyond any authority he had and hooked up unapproved drives to government computers and is now taking control of Treasury (and computers that are independent of the Federal Government even, which is at least trespass) computers. This is an exaggeration of what Musk has access to. In essence, he is an external auditor of the Treasury. We've had auditors of the Treasury before. We should have them much more often. And they should be external to the Treasury itself. DOGE has Read-Only access to the Treasury's system. They cannot make any changes to the system or any of the payments. But DOGE will be able to gather the payments and analyze where all the funds are going. Then he can provide recommendations to the President who will then review to determine which orders to give to the Treasury Secretary to implement. 2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: Those in charge are supposed to be independent OR assigned by Congress from what I understand...and Musk is not that. I don't know of any law that says that (please enlighten me). Either way, DOGE is independent of the treasury. 2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: So...why aren't our Congress members actually doing something...or are they going to be even more useless than normal which is why the Executive is tromping all over their hunting grounds? You have yet to state what DOGE is doing wrong. Is there something criminal going on? NeuroTypical and zil2 2 Quote
NeuroTypical Posted February 4 Author Report Posted February 4 (edited) In Trump’s last press conference, he specifically mentioned twice that Musk makes suggestions, and gets approval to move or not move on them. You show me someone who is yelling about this being where he shouldn’t, I will show you someone who is very uncomfortable with people knowing what they have been up to. There are people whose job it is to approve the spending, state they were ordered never to deny a request. They have spent their entire careers never having rejected or delayed a single bit of paperwork. $80 million for condoms in Gaza. $45 million for DEI scholarships in Burma. $53 million to EcoHealth Alliance, which then used U.S. taxpayer funds to support gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. There’s a couple of news stories of waste, overreach, funding terrorism hitting the news every day. Oh, and $3 million to the Palestinian Authority Security Forces (PASF), for “firearms and ammunition” training. Funding sent January 3, after PASF carried out Attacks against Israelis. https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-admin-quietly-funneled-3-mil-to-palestinian-government-security-forces-for-weapons-training-after-its-members-carried-out-attacks-on-israelis/ “What are you afraid of him seeing?“ That’s a fine question to ask anyone who is mad at Musk gathering data. Edited February 4 by NeuroTypical zil2 1 Quote
JohnsonJones Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 (edited) On 2/4/2025 at 5:58 AM, Carborendum said: This is an exaggeration of what Musk has access to. In essence, he is an external auditor of the Treasury. We've had auditors of the Treasury before. We should have them much more often. And they should be external to the Treasury itself. DOGE has Read-Only access to the Treasury's system. They cannot make any changes to the system or any of the payments. But DOGE will be able to gather the payments and analyze where all the funds are going. Then he can provide recommendations to the President who will then review to determine which orders to give to the Treasury Secretary to implement. I don't know of any law that says that (please enlighten me). Either way, DOGE is independent of the treasury. You have yet to state what DOGE is doing wrong. Is there something criminal going on? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is who controls the Federal Funds and who controls the money. As per the Constitution (I know, that funny little thing that people Should read and acknowledge as an important document for the US government) Quote No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. Which is also seen as giving the authority to Congress for control of the purse, or control of the Monies situated by the US government. Now...some things which people are assuming but do not understand. 1. Some say that Musk is not appointed nor elected, and that his office is not legal. DOGE is actually not a department that came out of nowhere. It is a renamed department that already existed. It's a renamed United States Digital Service. It means it is a legitimate office from the Executive and thus actually has certain powers granted to it. 2. However, Musk was Not approved by Congress, and none of those he has chosen has gone through approval in Congress. He does not have the mandate of Congress in this matter. He has not gone through the Vetting, and thus, in theory, Cannot touch the budget nor any financials, as that is Not an action of the executive, but a Congressional Action. He does not have the approval of Congress. 3. This is one reason why U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan has continued to place a hold on the Federal Funding issue, as the matters of the purse are Congressional, not Executive. 4. So, the question comes up, what power might Elon Musk have with his department. That's a good question. In theory, he MIGHT have control over Computer systems and anything dealing with the digital world (ala...why he may be able to claim control over the Federal Treasuries Computers??). The problem, once again, comes up that he does Not have the mandate of Congress. Even if the Republican Congressmen support his actions (and there are indications of some rifts within their ranks. Now, some of these are considered more Liberal in their stances, but with a limited control of Congress, meaning you have a majority, but not so massive that you can afford defections, any disruption can be harmful to these ideas that Republicans will simply approve what is happening, especially when some of these are ranking members. Though seen as less far right as others, these are still members of the Republican party. Quote Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, is raising alarms about the influence that billionaire Elon Musk is wielding inside the Trump administration and across federal agencies. “There’s no doubt that the president appears to have empowered Elon Musk far beyond what I think is appropriate,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I think a lot of it is going to end up in court.” ----------------- “I am concerned if the Trump administration is clawing back money that has been specifically appropriated for a particular purpose,” she said. More information from the Guardian Quote “The president is suggesting that [Musk] has authorisation. I think there is more than some question,” Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator for Alaska known as a moderate, told the Hill. Susan Collins of Maine, another Republican senator considered to be moderate and who is chair of the Senate appropriations committee – which oversees USAid’s funding – said it was “a very legitimate question” to ask if Musk had authority to close the agency. “There is a requirement in the law for 15 days’ notice of any reorganisation. We clearly did not get that. We got the letter yesterday,” she said. “[The law] also calls for a detailed explanation of any reorganisations, renaming of bureaus, shifting of centres — and again, we have not received that.” 5. So, as long as Republicans agree with Musk, and they retain control over their own party with No defections, Musk MIGHT be safe. However, whether it is legal or not... Whereas he may be able to access the digital footprint, does that actually give him the ability to dictate Funds and where they are going via that access? As per a reading of the Constitution (Once again, something that Conservatives SHOULD actually respect and love, but I think there are many that would wish to ignore it...and note, there are liberals who also wish to ignore it so Conservatives are not alone in this matter), there is nothing in there that gives him the power to do what he is attempting to do. 6. If Republicans have a rift in the party in Congress, he could quickly come up on charges or other items that will directly affect Musk. What's an even bigger possibility is what we see from the other side of the aisle. As much as some wish to disregard what Democrats are doing or saying, with how our government operates, eventually things go from one party to the other. When Democrats gain control of Congress once again, it may be that there will be a dire reckoning coming for Musk (more likely Musk than Trump, as Musk makes a convenient scapegoat in this instance). They feel his actions are illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It should be taken into account what they may do if they regain power in a few years, and it may not be that pretty. 7. That said, Musk is attempting to do what Conservatives SHOULD have been doing, but blatantly did the opposite of for many years. Th is is cutting down the size of the budget (something which, if you've paid attention to my posts, has been a main sticking point for my contentions against the Republicans of recent years as they have ballooned the debt even more the Democrats, and yet claim to be trying to do the opposite). I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it, but it does seem to be going further at trying to do something to cut the debt than what anyone else has done in the past decade or two. Edited February 5 by JohnsonJones Quote
Carborendum Posted February 5 Report Posted February 5 18 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said: Well, the first thing that comes to mind is who controls the Federal Funds and who controls the money. This tells me that you didn't even read my post. So, I won't bother addressing anything you said until you address what I said first. 18 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said: I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it, but it does seem to be going further at trying to do something to cut the debt than what anyone else has done in the past decade or two. Agreed. Quote
NeuroTypical Posted February 11 Author Report Posted February 11 Some statements from Pres. Biden's Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre: 2022: "So FEMA regional administrators have been meeting with city officials on site to coordinate to coordinate available federal support from FEMA and other federal agencies. Funding is also available through FEMA's emergency food and shelter program to eligible local governments and non-for-profit organizations upon request to support humanitarian relief for migrants." 2024: "No, Biden did not take FEMA relief money to use to use on migrants." (video can be watched here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/10/07/watch_karine_jean-pierre_in_2022_vs_this_month_on_fema_money_for_illegal_immigrants.html ) Feb 10, 2025: Elon Musk claims DOGE discovered "FEMA sent $59M LAST WEEK to luxury hotels in New York City to house illegal migrants." https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1888891512303263815 Feb 11, 2025: FEMA's CFO, two program analysts, and a grant specialist have been fired. The Division of Homeland Services released a statement calling them "deep state activists" News story: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fema-officials-fired-after-musk-claims-paid-house/story?id=118692963 DHS statement: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/02/11/statement-dhs-spokesperson-termination-4-fema-employees-who-made-payments-luxury Note for this thread: This is the most recent of dozens and dozens of stories about the under-the-table fraudulent crap DOGE is revealing. Posting all the news on this thread could be a full time job for me. The total discovered and stopped is in the hundreds of billions of dollars so far. Never forget how corrupt and wasteful the United States Federal Government had become. Vort 1 Quote
Traveler Posted February 12 Report Posted February 12 Today (Wednesday Feb 12) there was a news release showing Musk (and his mini me) in the Oval Office with President Trump – Trump wanted Musk to talk about misused funds, but Musk has something else to announce (not sure anyone even realized). Musk is more concerned with procedure than waist – pointing out many checks being sent out without any designation for applicable authorization for why the funds were being spent. I have a brother that was a corporate manager that was involved in corporate audits and another brother that spent two missions as an auditor for the Church in Eastern Europe. Brother 1 involved in corporate audits said that writing checks without a purchase order or project number for even 20 dollars could get someone fired. Brother 2 (that did audits for the Church) told me that writing church welfare or other church distribution checks, especially to individuals, without designation for purpose would likely end a church leader’s membership. Something for my good friend @JohnsonJones . It is my understanding that congress does have the power to allocate funds but that the expenditure of funds is over seen by the president AND HIS STAFF. As I understand, congress can allocate funds, say for foreign aid specific to a country and for a projece and that the executive branch can freeze or withhold those funds at their discretion. What is not allowed is for the executive branch to spend allocated funds for specific projects to other projects favored by the executive branch but not allowed by congress. Remember when Biden bragged about withholding funds for Ukraine to stop an interior audit for a company that his son was working for? Not a single Democrat complained about that, nor did any Democrat complain that it created a constitutional crisis. ???? It may seem strange, but the executive branch of government does have executive powers. I would say something about the weaponization of the judicial branch of our government. I did not know that the judicial branch (judges) can make any ruling without any reference to the applicable law for the judgement. I did not know that a judge could say that a president can or cannot do a certain action without a reference to a specific law. Ture that in such cases the improper ruling can be overturned by a higher court. But it seems to me that with a ruling being so overturned that, especially in political cases where a judge has judicial bias and should have recused themselves should be removed in the future from any political cases. I understand that to remove a federal judge requires a 2\3 majority of the Senate. In a politically divided country where party is favored over the rule of law and the liberty of it citizens, such will never happen. The Traveler Quote
NeuroTypical Posted February 12 Author Report Posted February 12 (edited) One note: 26 minutes ago, Traveler said: Brother 2 (that did audits for the Church) told me that writing church welfare or other church distribution checks, especially to individuals, without designation for purpose would likely end a church leader’s membership. I had to chuckle at the notion of a member of the bishopric getting excommunicated for a clerical error. This is what happens when you try to issue a church check and leave the "purpose" field blank: It's literally not possible to write a church check and leave the field blank. Probably has been that way for over a decade. Edited February 12 by NeuroTypical mirkwood 1 Quote
HaggisShuu Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said: One note: I had to chuckle at the notion of a member of the bishopric getting excommunicated for a clerical error. This is what happens when you try to issue a church check and leave the "purpose" field blank: It's literally not possible to write a church check and leave the field blank. Probably has been that way for over a decade. As a ward clerk. Church audits are my least favourite part. Everything is so unnecessarily anal. They want every scrap of paper to have the signatures of about 14 brethren on it, just to confirm that the relief society president did in fact, buy a £2 table cloth for her activity. There is always all sorts of stories which get floated around of Church members who have lost their membership for inappropriately dabbling with church finances. Which has always rubbed me the wrong way a little bit. Edited February 13 by HaggisShuu LDSGator and NeuroTypical 1 1 Quote
mirkwood Posted February 13 Report Posted February 13 41 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said: As a ward clerk. Church audits are my least favourite part. Everything is so unnecessarily anal. They want every scrap of paper to have the signatures of about 14 brethren on it, just to confirm that the relief society president did in fact, buy a £2 table cloth for her activity. Two signatures is all that is required. Two is the number and the number is two. Quote There is always all sorts of stories which get floated around of Church members who have lost their membership for inappropriately dabbling with church finances. Which has always rubbed me the wrong way a little bit. If someone lost their membership it would have been due to committing a crime with the church finances...as in stealing/embezzlement etc. The Folk Prophet 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.