"This book's conclusion on government corruption could not be more timely in light of"

@ThePatientAnarchist What DOGE has uncovered is that some Federal agencies spend monies in ways beyond their Congressional mandate ... and large sums.

In the US system of government, the Congress, and specifically the House of Representative (the "People's House") is supposed to control all spending. If a law is passed creating an agency and authorizing it to spend a sum of money on X ... even a penny spent on anything out of that agency on anything other than X is fraud and abuse of the system. And DOGE found TONS of such unauthorized spending. 🤷‍♀

Now, some people would look at that spending and say it was a good thing and it needed to be spent. But the fact remains if that particular spend was not authorized by Congress, then it was illegal, no matter how good or bad it was.

@sarabee1995 I have heard this argument before and it seems to be made in bad faith. How could Congress possibly exercise effective oversight of every item of spending? Governments delegate authority to departments and agencies who act with varying degrees of autonomy to help achieve the objectives of the givernment of the day. The alternative would be a bureaucratic nightmare in which very little gets done at all. Which I think may be the real intention of DOGE.

@SunshineGirl You are both right and wrong. Let me explain. You are right that Congress cannot manage every dollar spent in the entire budget. However, in their funding authorizations, they do list (sometimes in great detail and sometimes in not so much detail) what the dollars are to be spent on.

Then, the various cabinet secretaries and their department heads further further define those spending authorities. And the authority of the cabinet secretaries and their department heads is to narrow and further focus the spending priorities. It is very specifically NOT to broaden the spending authority.

The Department of Defense (who I worked for for two years) cannot decide to take leftover money and spend it on something unrelated to their specific authorities. I had a budget and I had to spend my money within that budget on the things I was authorized to spend money on. If I had extra money (which I did one year), I did not have the authority to spend that money on a pet project of mine no matter how much I wanted to and no matter how popular that spending would be with certain segments of our society. If that project was not authorized by Congress or the Secretary of Defense or the Director of my department, then I could not spend it in that way.

What DOGE uncovered is literally hundreds of examples of where money was spent on things (some of which I think were good things) that were not legally authorized. And that is the problem.

@sarabee1995 I can see the concern, but it seems like a stretch to call this "corruption", unless money was going directly into the pockets of those assigned to spend it.

@ThePatientAnarchist there is always corruption and waste to be found... Did DODGE find it though?
I think the whole exercise had been more of throwing the baby out with the bathwater more than anything else..

If they wanted to really find corruption they should have started at the top, but that was never going to happen

@ThePatientAnarchist

Directly into their pockets? No, that would be theft, not corruption.

Into their unauthorized pet projects? That is corruption, fraud, abuse.

@Convivial

Did they find some corruption? Yes, they did find. Of that there is zero dispute.

Were they over zealous and throw some babies out with the bathwater? For sure.

The example that is most well known is USAID. Absolutely one hundred percent with no doubt, USAID spent money in ways that were not authorized. A lot of money. That is corruption.

But, USAID also did a tremendous amount of good in the world that was authorized.

Whose fault is it that those authorized good projects got cut? I put the fault directly with the managers of the budgets at USAID. They knew exactly what they were doing and that some day it would be uncovered. 🤷‍♀

@sarabee1995 I think that is my objection. USAID has specific missions and objectives which were aligned to the broad policies of previous administrations and had therefore had a clear democratic mandate. If money was granted to a specific project to mitigate AIDS in Zimbabwe and that project was superseded by another, perhaps more effective, to achieve the same aims, is it really "corrupt" to divert money from project A to project B without fresh authorisation? Especially where time is of the essence in retaining the support and goodwill of all stakeholders. Isn't this more administrative oversight than harmful deception?

Corruption in my book is about fraudulently distorting the original intentions of a project, usually for personal ends. Which is why I find over-use of the term to be provocative and irritating. But I do recognise thay it has no precuse definition in statute law.

@SunshineGirl So if we extend "personal ends" to include "personal priorities" then we are in agreement (not all corruption results in money going into a personal pocket).

In the case of USAID, we have a few scenarios...

First, if the spending authorization is too general, then it is subject to the whims of each administration. And that was the case with much of the spending at USAID. This is not corruption. It is simply a new administration using their legally authorized descretion to redirect monies.

But then, there were many examples within the USAID case where it wasn't just a general "spend money to fight AIDS in Zimbabwe" being redirected from one AIDS project to another. It was money being spent on matters for which there was no Congressional authorization at all. And in a few cases, there were actual Congressional prohibitions on the kind of spending that was being done. That part is corruption.

@sarabee1995 @SunshineGirl The original sentence in the article was about how the book discussed the prohibition of bribery in the Bible. I didn't include that bit in the post, but would you say that the category of "bribery" applies to any of what DOGE has found? And what about to Trump's conduct?

@ThePatientAnarchist Don't get me started on Trump's conduct. 🙄

He is not only an embarassment to us internationally, he also threatens relationships that we have spent eighty years building. He is systematically dismantling a world order that greatly benefitted America for decades all because he wants things to say "made in America".

This is something I've posted on several times over my years here, going all the way back to his first presidential primary when I thought the reality TV star running for president was just a publicity stunt.

@sarabee1995 I read a disturbing article recently about how Trump is politicizing the US armed forces -- and not even so much politicizing as "personalizing", trying to make it his own army. I have been meaning to ask you whether that rings true to you. I know if it does, you would not be in favour!!

@ThePatientAnarchist I don't know if he is attempting to personalize the armed forces or not, but I am fairly confident in saying he wouldn't be successful if he tried. Everyone in the US military takes an oath to the Constitution, not to the President. We are obligated by that oath to obey all lawful orders and we are educated on what a lawful order is.

Now, can he relieve officers of command who do not share his political beliefs? Sure. But those replacements would still be trained on and committed to the Constitution.

@sarabee1995 idk. Our Canadian soldiers also receive clear instructions about their responsibilities, moral, legal, and constitutional, but a couple of active members of our military have just been arrested for participation in a terrorist plot (google "seize land near Quebec City") and reports say this is the tip of the iceberg :(

Here is the article I was thinking of.
https://www-nybooks-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/articles/2025/07/24/a-show-of-force-fintan-otoole/

IDK if you have access, so here is a disturbing excerpt:

@ThePatientAnarchist Bribery has a clear legal definition and is the first thing that springs to many peoples' minds when we talk about corruption in public life. Which is why I feel very strongly that whatever DOGE has "uncovered" in departmental spending must be differentiated qualitatively from the personal gain Trump has made and continues to make from his office.

@ThePatientAnarchist Yup, no access to the link so thanks for the exerpt.

I see the author's point (that following small illegal orders desensitizes someone to following illegal orders in general), but the US Military is a very professional organization with more training hours per person than any other military in the world. Do we have bad apples? Yes, of course we do. But overall, I don't see the US Army ever following an order to roll down American streets and occupy them.