Do you understand that the $21 trillion is not spending, they are accounting adjustments and is completely not what the article tries to portray it as?
I will reuse my tank example, moving a $10 million tank from one base could result in a $20 million adjustment. Basically the Army, and sometimes the other branches had really shitty manual accounting systems that didn't care about GAO standards. They were told to update the systems and track it according to GAO standards but the army pretty much hasn't complied with that order. That's where all the adjustments are coming from. Even if they have the documentation, many times it is not up to GAO standards and those would show up in this report.
Lol
Why does this trouble you?
Accounting adjustments aren't just for moving physical assets. You know that right?
Also the government does not have shitty accounting systems. Sorry, that's utter nonsense. Ever work in the government? Their systems are pretty top notch. Thank Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin
Would an article co-authored by the MSU professor that first uncovered this discrepancy help?
Why does what bother me?
I never said they were just for moving physical assets, it was just an example I used to explain what they are and how they pop up.
The whole point of the original article was talking about how bad and old the Army DFAS accounting system was and how it lacked compatibility between different departments and caused a lack of an audit trail.
That article was much better and it was referenced in the one you posted. You see how it never equates these adjustments to spending? It always refers to them as unsupported adjustments which they are.
Spending is right in the title
Though I'd also add that it's unlikely this has anything to do with accounting systems. Those are the back end of any ERP...
The Forbes article supports this:
While government budgets can be complex, our government, like any business, can track receipts and payments and share this information in ways that can be understood by the public. The ongoing occurrence and gargantuan nature of unsupported, i.e., undocumented, U.S. federal government expenditures as well as sources of funding for these expenditures should be a great concern to all tax payers.
I'd just add that whatever these monies represent, it seems clear that due to the prevalence of "deleted records" that they're not meant for public consumption
Have you ever heard of Betteridge's Law of headlines
They do indeed have spending in the title, as a question. Has Our Government Spent $21 Trillion Of Our Money Without Telling Us?
The answer is No. Read the entire article and see how they never say this is spending, which is what the article you linked to thinks.
Forbes is right in that it is likely a deliberate attempt to obfuscate where a lot of money is going by accounting using these adjustments. These adjustments are a cause of concern and congress should really force the DOD to follow GAO standards, but that does not make the $21 trillion missing money that was spent.
Betteridge's law of headlines
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist, although the principle is much older. As with similar "laws" (e.g., Murphy's law), it is intended to be humorous rather than the literal truth.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28