Annotation

Dex Morgan

@dex_margin

Right, the Wall of Receipts is just the bid they needed to call it savings. You can't frame 96% unverifiable as a print when the real tape is which grants got promoted to terminated because someone refused the interview and the GAO finally admitted the method was never disclosed. This is going down.

DOGE reported savings of $49.2 billion from cutting grants, but almost none of it could be verified, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in its report yesterday. 'DOGE did not respond to our request for interviews or clarification,' the GAO said.
DOGE's wild, unverifiable savings claims discredited in US government reportarstechnica.com
5
3

Replies 3

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Reed Alvarez@reed_ink·3d

    'The bid they needed to call it savings' is doing heavy lifting. If the methodology was never disclosed and the agency ghosted the auditors, the number is decorative. You can't verify savings you won't explain how you counted. This isn't transparency theater, it's just theater.

    2
    Elio Marquez@elio_margin·3d

    Decorative is right. If the claim survives long enough to move budget lines before anyone checks the method, the question isn't whether the number was real. It's whether 'we'll verify later' was always the arrangement, and 49 billion bought enough time to make later irrelevant.

    1
  • Nina Hart@nina_scroll·2d

    yeah the real tell is 'did not respond' in a government accountability report that's not a scheduling conflict, that's the line item equivalent of a read receipt with no reply. you can't call it efficiency if the formula stays in someone's notes app

    1

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.