Officials Announce First DoD-Wide Audit, Call for Budget Certainty about darn time IMO

For some reason I doubt this would have happened under any other current/past Presidential wanna be but Trump. This is long over do and should have been a yearly endeavor IMO.
U.S. Department of Defense web sight

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7, 2017 — The Defense Department is starting the first agencywide financial audit in its history, Pentagon officials announced today.

Defense Department Comptroller David L. Norquist and chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White spoke during the Pentagon news conference, in which they also addressed the possibility of a government shutdown when the continuing resolution that has been keeping the government running expires tomorrow.

Norquist said he received the DoD Office of Inspector General's notification that the financial statement audit begins this month.

Taxpayer Confidence

The audit is massive. It will examine every aspect of the department from personnel to real property to weapons to supplies to bases. Some 2,400 auditors will fan out across the department to conduct it, Pentagon officials said.

www.defense.gov...

a reply to: 727Sky

Remember when Rumsfeld, a day before 9/11, came on the TVs to announce some pathetic amount of money in the trillions was unaccounted for in the Pentagon / DoD coffers?

Always struck me as mindblowing that neither Bushes, Clinton, Obama G.A.F about addressing this clearly ongoing issue - the black hole black projects and the consequential siphoning of taxpayer money to suit same.

This is the treasury of the swamp - audit time is LONG overdue.

Also found here
Audit of DOD

But do carry on, if you are able, it's important that this is known to as many as possible as it genuinely is a rather big deal.

It is amazing that they can lose more money than their entire allocated budget. I guess this farce is easy to get away with when they deal with money that is simply 0s & 1s on a monitor.

a reply to: 727Sky

I don't want to be a downer, I was looking forward to giving Trump some love for a change, but it looks like this has been planned since 2014 at least; this was posted in the other thread. So, it predates Trump by a few years, but nice none the less.

I haven't been in the US army but if I can generalize at all from my personal experience then they probably have some pretty horrible bureaucratic issues. And I don't even dare speculate about the black stuff.

The first time in decades we elect someone who isn't a career politician and we finally start seeing some accountability in government.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

What will an audit accomplish?

What will it tell you that you don't already know?

IF the audit actually happens, what do you really think is going to result from it?

I'll tell you:

Jack S#

Because you put up with it before and they know you'll put up with it now. They'll rub their corruption in your face and not a damn thing will be done.

And you all know it.

a reply to: Konduit

......The call for this audit began in 2009/2010 by Senator Tom Coburn who has since left due to Cancer and was mandated by Congress.

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: Konduit

......The call for this audit began in 2009/2010 by Senator Tom Coburn who has since left due to Cancer and was mandated by Congress.

I understand you are saying that this audit process started years ago.
However, given the state of the government under the previous regime, I would not doubt that this preparation period of the audit would have continued for a few more years if not for the present administration.

That is a possibility right?

a reply to: WhatTheory

No, it's not......just google it instead of jumping to conclusions. Or go visit my original thread on the topic, it would have happened either way thanks in large part to this man.

Tom Coburn on DOD Audit

The crazy part is that this order to audit the dod was given in 2014.
It took this long to get it all ready for the audit!!

www.asmconline.org...

Friday, May 16th, 2014 Department of Defense (DoD) Comptroller Robert F. Hale told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs this week that the department is “on track to achieve audit readiness for all our financial statements by 2017.”

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: WhatTheory

No, it's not......just google it instead of jumping to conclusions. Or go visit my original thread on the topic, it would have happened either way thanks in large part to this man.

Talk about jumping to conclusions......
I did read your link.

That is why my point is valid. Saying it would happen either way is YOUR faulty opinion.

originally posted by: ClovenSkyIt is amazing that they can lose more money than their entire allocated budget. I guess this farce is easy to get away with when they deal with money that is simply 0s & 1s on a monitor.

They didn't "lose" it. That people think they did is hysterical. It's all been put to good use, though it is doubtful many here would think so.

a reply to: WhatTheory

Look, if you need it to be a Trump victory then no amount of facts or opinions will change your mind.

The problem of waste at the Pentagon goes back decades. DOD remains the sole federal agency that has not achieved a clean audit under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. In 2010, Congress established September 2017 as the deadline for a review by independent financial auditors.

It's not like this is going to change your opinion despite that it's a fact.

Obama signed the Budget Control Act, which "is a resurrection of a much older law, known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings," into law on August 2, 2011, Harrison writes. The BCA placed budget caps on the federal government for a decade (ending in fiscal year 2021). And while nobody spends money on defense like the U-S of A, the BCA takes roughly $1 trillion (over a period of 10 years) away from what the president had requested for the defense budget.

See.

As reports and news articles about waste and abuse at the Pentagon pile up, prominent voices from across the political spectrum – from Bernie Sanders to Ted Cruz to Grover Norquist – are expressing support for a full audit of DoD. In a 2013 video message to the whole of the defense department, then secretary of defense Chuck Hagel told employees that the department’s non-compliance was “unacceptable”. During this past election cycle, both the Democratic and Republican platforms called for the Pentagon’s audit.

This is a result of years of CR's issued by the Pentagon coming to attention of the mainstream media and Congressional calls for action. This is your government doing what it should have done along time ago, so if that's not enough for you then nothing anyone says will change that.

Since the BCA was enacted, both sides have attempted to blame the other. For example, during this election season, both parties have included statements on the BCA in their party platforms. The Republican Party Platform for 2016 says, “We support lifting the budget cap for defense and reject the efforts of Democrats to hold the military’s budget hostage for their domestic agenda.” And the Democratic Party Platform for 2016 says, “We support a smart, predictable defense budget that meets the strategic challenges we face, not the arbitrary cuts that the Republican Congress enacted as part of sequestration.” In truth, the BCA passed with bipartisan majorities in both chambers. In the House,174 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted for it; in the Senate, 28 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted for it; and President Obama ultimately signed it into law. Without bipartisan support, this bill would not have become law. Both sides share responsibility for enacting the BCA—and finding a way out of it.

Preliminary information on the audit was available to both candidates prior to the election. Not that it will matter to you.

But despite broad support, the issue has remained stagnant in Washington. “I really can’t figure it out,” Democratic party representative for California Barbara Lee told the Guardian. When legislators get around to tackling waste, they “go after domestic agencies and community organizations, but they never go after the Pentagon,” she said. Since 2013, she has introduced bipartisan legislation that would financially penalize DoD for not receiving a clean audit. “Quite frankly, they should have been audit-ready decades ago, after Congress passed the initial audit law in the early 90s,” Republican representative for Texas Michael Burgess, co-sponsor of the Audit the Pentagon Act along with Lee, told the Guardian. People have “accepted that the Department of Defense is expensive and that that’s how business has to be done. But I don’t accept that.”

This is the Audit the Pentagon act.

This bill establishes consequences if the Department of Defense (DOD) fails to obtain an audit with an unqualified opinion of its financial statements.

The bill provides additional authorities and flexibility if DOD obtains an audit. If DOD obtains the audit, the bill provides that the financial statements are no longer covered by specified reporting requirements.

The bill also authorizes DOD to transfer and reprogram specified funds. If DOD fails to obtains an audit for FY2016, the bill establishes additional qualifications for the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and other specified DOD financial management officials. The bill also permits the Deputy Secretary of Defense to prescribe additional duties and powers for the officials.

If DOD does not obtain an audit for FY2018, the bill: (1) cancels the transfer authority provided by this Act, (2) establishes a Chief Management Officer to be responsible for the management and administration of DOD, and (3) transfers jurisdiction of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service from DOD to the Department of the Treasury.

For failing to obtain an audit for fiscal years after FY2017, the bill cancels the reprogramming authority provided by this Act and prohibits DOD from using funds for certain weapons, weapons systems, or platforms being acquired as a major defense acquisition program. The bill requires DOD to amend acquisition guidance to place specified restrictions and limitations on the procurement of certain Enterprise Resource Planning business systems.

So believe what you want, Liberals and Conservatives are amazingly adept at ignoring anything that doesn't support their own opinion.

a reply to: Thorneblood

This section from the "Audit the Pentagon" act may account for the sudden fire under the Pentagon's butt:

If DOD does not obtain an audit for FY2018, the bill: (1) cancels the transfer authority provided by this Act, (2) establishes a Chief Management Officer to be responsible for the management and administration of DOD, and (3) transfers jurisdiction of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service from DOD to the Department of the Treasury.

If I read this correctly, if the DOD doesn't complete this audit by the end of FY2018, they will loose control of their budget, which will then come under the stewardship of the Department of the Treasury.

In the current political climate, I'm not sure that's much better. But you gotta start somewhere.

Now they need to start auditing the management and procurement processes of major weapons systems like the Zumwalt destroyers and the F-35. Why is the US spending untold billions of dollars on cost overruns and schedule slips on these systems and still not getting the product they originally specified?

-dex

a reply to: 727Sky

what does that little innocuous phrase "budget certainty' mean? I don't mean what you and I might reckon it means, I mean what does budget certainty mean to those who first used this term, ie, the millitree?

For all we know it might mean 'auto minimum annual budget allocation + 'x' % each year. Budget certainty may not mean more efficient use of resources and reduced budgets to the tax payer. That's just what we conjure up in our minds which they may be quite happy for us to have and keep.

From the last information I saw approximately 2trillion, yes trillion dollars, that's a low estimate, is sent to black budget programs every year.

This is spread through various branches of the military and security services.

This money is funnuled not only through open military branches but also through more public branches such as the fbi and even agricultural and environmental agencies. In fact name an agency and it is likely they mostly unknowingly help funnel money. It's a very complicated web.

Think of this way of literally laundering money as onion browsing for money manipulation. Mostly untraceable in the mountains of paper work.

So unfortunately apart from maybe a few scapegoats accused of corruption nothing will come of it.

I too like the op wish this was a move forward.

But remember there has always been things within the military that no one in public office government, even the president, are allowed to know about. This will never change.

Will this "official audit" include all those brand new Toyotas™ ISIS™ get to use?

a reply to: DexterRiley

Here's the thing about the Zumwalt (and the Seawolf-class SSNs, and the F-22, and a dozen others): the initial budget figures presented are for an order of X units. For the Zumwalt-class, it was going to be 32 ships. But due to cost overruns and a desire to chase savings, that was cut to 3 by congressional meddling and Navy mismanagement. But the issue there is the less units made, the more each costs because of 1) lack of economy of scale and 2) R&D costs being concentrated. So you get 3 ships (not enough to make any significant difference) at a price tag of $4 billion each, not counting R&D costs. Which is nearly double the price of a Virginia-class SSN, and exceeds even the hugely expensive (and incredibly advanced) Seawolf-class.

Military procurement is a real edge to walk, because on one hand, if the brass get their way every harebrained concept that'll be "an absolute game-changer" gets funded (ICSR and OICW say hi), but when it's put through Congress, you've got guys with no relevant knowledge wildly cutting away while also forcing pork-barrel spending like the infamous General Dynamics M1 Abrams plant in Ohio.

Obviously we can't go back to the old blank check days of the Cold War, when expense was no object as long as it beat what the Soviets had, but something really needs to be done to straighten out this whole nightmare.

a reply to: 727Sky

Good--the worst thing about this is that it's the first one IN THE HISTORY of the agency.

Government agencies should be audited every four years at a timing that makes the results available for the president at or soon after inauguration.

I mean, how the hell can we budget when we don't even know how much we really need/spend? Goddamit!!!