DOGE finds over a billion-a-week in fraudulent SS payments

[T. A. Gardner]

Your math is off by a factor of 10. 2% of $1.4 trillion is $28 billion. So let's say with an extra $7 billion in spending on overhead(staff to track down the fraud) we can find $14 billion in fraud, that would be $7 billion in net savings. It sounds like a lot, but over 330 million people, that is about $21 each.

But it is something. We would have to ramp up hiring, and we could save some money. Sadly, we are going the opposite direction. trump wants less overhead, and more fraud.


Again, 10% of $28 billion is $2.8 billion. That would be about $2 per American.

I agree even that would be worth the cost in overhead. Sadly, trump and Musk disagree with us. They are all about cutting the overhead, and increasing the fraud.

Numerical dyslexia strikes again!

 

[Walt]

Numerical dyslexia strikes again!

We keep coming back to the point that even if we do raise overhead a bit to reduce fraud, we will still have nowhere near the savings that trump is promising. And he has shown every sign of decreasing overhead, and increasing fraud, so chances are we will be moving in the opposite direction.

Basically put, we are looking at either cutting benefits, or dealing with the cost of benefits.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

We keep coming back to the point that even if we do raise overhead a bit to reduce fraud, we will still have nowhere near the savings that trump is promising. And he has shown every sign of decreasing overhead, and increasing fraud, so chances are we will be moving in the opposite direction.

Basically put, we are looking at either cutting benefits, or dealing with the cost of benefits.

Savings are savings. Arguing it's not worth the effort is how we got where we are. It's like some vacuous blonde saying "There's still checks in the checkbook..."

 

[Walt]

Savings are savings. Arguing it's not worth the effort is how we got where we are. It's like some vacuous blonde saying "There's still checks in the checkbook..."

I actually think the savings in fraud reduction would be worth the extra cost in overhead, within reason. It is trump taking the opposite side of that one.

But the savings will not be enough to fulfill trump's promises. You cannot get 30% savings out of one or two percent savings.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I actually think the savings in fraud reduction would be worth the extra cost in overhead, within reason. It is trump taking the opposite side of that one.

But the savings will not be enough to fulfill trump's promises. You cannot get 30% savings out of one or two percent savings.

You can reduce fraud by 30% and realize those savings. That seems to me to be their position.

 

[Walt]

You can reduce fraud by 30% and realize those savings. That seems to me to be their position.

You can reduce fraud by 30%, and realize less than 1% savings, if you increase overhead. But you cannot realize 30% savings without reduce benefits.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

In the latest finding by DOGE, over $100 billion in payments a year are being made to persons--presumably--with no social security number, taxpayer ID number, or other identifying documentation on record. Of that, Treasury workers say that at least $50 billion--a billion a week--is paid out to fraudulent claims. This has been ongoing, and if it's even remotely true, first it's insane, and second, there are lots of people in government jobs that need to be fucking fired on the spot for letting it happen.

Elon Musk alleges US Treasury fraud costs Americans $50 billion a year-'$1 billion vanishes weekly!'

Elon Musk has voiced concerns about widespread fraud in US government entitlement payments, alleging that over $100 billion may be disbursed annually to individuals without valid identification. He has highlighted inefficiencies in the Treasurys payment system and pushed for reforms, including...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Elon Musk alleges $50B in fraud at Treasury after judge blocks DOGE audit

Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote a lengthy X post Saturday publicizing allegations of waste in the Treasury Department and outlining future goals after a recent court order.

www.foxbusiness.com

Meanwhile, over in the MSM, outlets like CBS are whining that Musk has access to the data on treasury accounts and how horrible that is.

Elon Musk's access to Treasury's payment system is raising alarms. Here's what to know.

Elon Musk's control of a federal payment system is raising concerns about funding for programs like Social Security and the safety of personal data.

www.cbsnews.com

Well, if $50 billion or $100 billion, or whatever the number is, of our tax money is being given away to persons unknown fraudulently and nobody up to now could figure it out at Treasury, I say fire the bastards. As for CBS et. al., they can fuck off.

Musk lies a lot as even he admitted. Musk has even acknowledged “some of the things that I say will be incorrect”

$50M in condoms? He works 120 hour weeks?

Elon Musk Makes Misleading Claim The Government Paid Reuters For ‘Social Deception’—The Biggest DOGE Hoaxes Spread On X

False claims about government spending have gone viral on social media, frequently boosted by DOGE leader Elon Musk.

www.forbes.com

Did The Government Pay Reuters For “social Deception?” NO​

Did Fema Spend $59 Million On Housing Migrants In Nyc Luxury Hotels? NO​

Are Anti-Doge Protests Funded By Ngos? NO​

Are Bureaucrats Making “tens Of Millions” On Taxpayer Money? No evidence provided.​

Is Usaid A Form Of “money Laundering?” No evidence provided.​

Did Samantha Power Earn $23 Million As Usaid Chief? NO​

Were Taxpayer Funds Used To Create ‘transgender Mice’? NO​

Did Chelsea Clinton Get A Big Paycheck From Usaid? NO​

Did Usaid Pay Celebrities To Visit Ukraine—including Ben Stiller And Angelina Jolie? No evidence provided.​

Did Usaid Fund Research That Caused Covid-19? NO​

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You can reduce fraud by 30%, and realize less than 1% savings, if you increase overhead. But you cannot realize 30% savings without reduce benefits.

That's far too simplistic.

You can reduce fraud 30% and realize big savings assuming you are using the correct tools to do it. As an analogy, if the government is currently using antiquated hand tools to make something (find fraud) and you bring in power tools and computer controls to do it instead, the process becomes faster, more efficient, and even more accurate.

A big part of the problem in weeding out fraud, waste, and abuse within the government is that the system as it stands has little incentive and few really useful tools to do this job. The workers have no incentive to eliminate it. The system in many cases actually encourages it.

I've seen this myself, and more than once. What DOGE is doing is substituting power tools for old fashioned, dull, hand tools.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Musk lies a lot as even he admitted. Musk has even acknowledged “some of the things that I say will be incorrect”

$50M in condoms? He works 120 hour weeks?

Elon Musk Makes Misleading Claim The Government Paid Reuters For ‘Social Deception’—The Biggest DOGE Hoaxes Spread On X

False claims about government spending have gone viral on social media, frequently boosted by DOGE leader Elon Musk.

www.forbes.com

Did The Government Pay Reuters For “social Deception?” NO​

Did Fema Spend $59 Million On Housing Migrants In Nyc Luxury Hotels? NO​

Are Anti-Doge Protests Funded By Ngos? NO​

Are Bureaucrats Making “tens Of Millions” On Taxpayer Money? No evidence provided.​

Is Usaid A Form Of “money Laundering?” No evidence provided.​

Did Samantha Power Earn $23 Million As Usaid Chief? NO​

Were Taxpayer Funds Used To Create ‘transgender Mice’? NO​

Did Chelsea Clinton Get A Big Paycheck From Usaid? NO​

Did Usaid Pay Celebrities To Visit Ukraine—including Ben Stiller And Angelina Jolie? No evidence provided.​

Did Usaid Fund Research That Caused Covid-19? NO​

This sounds like the same lame excuses you came up with for the Biden family corruption.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

In the latest finding by DOGE, over $100 billion in payments a year are being made to persons--presumably--with no social security number, taxpayer ID number, or other identifying documentation on record. Of that, Treasury workers say that at least $50 billion--a billion a week--is paid out to fraudulent claims. This has been ongoing, and if it's even remotely true, first it's insane, and second, there are lots of people in government jobs that need to be fucking fired on the spot for letting it happen.

Elon Musk alleges US Treasury fraud costs Americans $50 billion a year-'$1 billion vanishes weekly!'

Elon Musk has voiced concerns about widespread fraud in US government entitlement payments, alleging that over $100 billion may be disbursed annually to individuals without valid identification. He has highlighted inefficiencies in the Treasurys payment system and pushed for reforms, including...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Elon Musk alleges $50B in fraud at Treasury after judge blocks DOGE audit

Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote a lengthy X post Saturday publicizing allegations of waste in the Treasury Department and outlining future goals after a recent court order.

www.foxbusiness.com

Meanwhile, over in the MSM, outlets like CBS are whining that Musk has access to the data on treasury accounts and how horrible that is.

Elon Musk's access to Treasury's payment system is raising alarms. Here's what to know.

Elon Musk's control of a federal payment system is raising concerns about funding for programs like Social Security and the safety of personal data.

www.cbsnews.com

Well, if $50 billion or $100 billion, or whatever the number is, of our tax money is being given away to persons unknown fraudulently and nobody up to now could figure it out at Treasury, I say fire the bastards. As for CBS et. al., they can fuck off.

Hmm... That would seem to be proof that DOGE is illegally accessing SS numbers of people in violation of the Privacy act of 1974.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hmm... That would seem to be proof that DOGE is illegally accessing SS numbers of people in violation of the Privacy act of 1974.

That's not a violation of that act. Now, if they were accessing them for some frivolous reason, or accessing them and making them public, then you might have something. Accessing them to ensure payments being made are legitimate is a justifiable reason, and it doesn't matter if it's a private entity.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes there is evidence of this going on. First, Musk / DOGE has been going through Treasury's payment accounts and can see amounts and to whom the payments went. Second, Treasury staff and personnel are saying it is happening, and they should be the ones that know.

It's clear that there are people working at the Treasury Department that are allowing billions in payments to be made to questionable, and sometimes clearly fraudulent, recipients.

It's also clear that the MSM and Democrats are more upset that Musk and DOGE have access to these records than the FACT that billions are being paid out to unauthorized and fraudulent recipients.

It is illegal for someone not authorized to access the data in the SSA.
The authorized persons are listed in the regulations for SSA. DOGE is not a listed entity.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-01-04/pdf/2021-28490.pdf

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That's not a violation of that act. Now, if they were accessing them for some frivolous reason, or accessing them and making them public, then you might have something. Accessing them to ensure payments being made are legitimate is a justifiable reason, and it doesn't matter if it's a private entity.

Actually, it IS a violation of the Act. The regulations require written notification for any government agency and restricts to certain access for certain reasons.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It is illegal for someone not authorized to access the data in the SSA.
The authorized persons are listed in the regulations for SSA. DOGE is not a listed entity.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-01-04/pdf/2021-28490.pdf

...to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(5)

DOGE isn't looking at individual records or trying to identify the individual tied to any particular record. So, you are wrong.

If I accessed individual service records of personnel in the unit to which I'm assigned, for purposes of producing evaluations, recommending an award, or the like, and their social security number is on those records, it isn't a violation of the privacy act. DOGE is no different.

 

[Walt]

That's far too simplistic.

Math often is "simplistic", but I do not trust people who need impossible math to prove their point.

You can reduce fraud 30% and realize big savings assuming you are using the correct tools to do it.

Your problem is the low hanging fruit was plucked decades ago. There is not much fraud, and it is not easy to find. A 30% reduction in 2% fraud, that costs you an additional 0.5% in overhead gives you 0.1% reduction in waste... There is no "correct tool" that will change that math.

As an analogy, if the government is currently using antiquated hand tools to make something (find fraud) and you bring in power tools and computer controls to do it instead, the process becomes faster, more efficient, and even more accurate.

The overhead is about half a percent. You can get rid of all the overhead you want, and it will not even reduce costs by 1%. Again, that is just math. If anything, we have too low of overhead.

The workers have no incentive to eliminate it.

Other than it is the metric by which they are judged by... So the strongest incentive of any of their incentives.

I've seen this myself, and more than once.

Next time you go to an IRS audit, just wink at them and tell them there is no incentive for catching your fraud. I am sure it will go over... If not well, then at least interestingly.

 

[Walt]

DOGE isn't looking at individual records or trying to identify the individual tied to any particular record

And yet they claim they are... They just have not been able to find any fraud.... Other than the fraud they created.

 

[Diogenes]

And yet they claim they are... They just have not been able to find any fraud.... Other than the fraud they created.

Is that so?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

...to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(5)

DOGE isn't looking at individual records or trying to identify the individual tied to any particular record. So, you are wrong.

If I accessed individual service records of personnel in the unit to which I'm assigned, for purposes of producing evaluations, recommending an award, or the like, and their social security number is on those records, it isn't a violation of the privacy act. DOGE is no different.

LOL. Can you provide evidence of DOGE giving advance adequate written assurance?
Then you seem to ignore the fact that a SS# makes the record individually identifiable since SS#s are one per person.

In order for DOGE to claim that the payments are being made without a SS#, they must have access to the SS# of those payments. If they don't have access to the SS# then there is no way to claim there is no SS# on the payments.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

This sounds like the same lame excuses you came up with for the Biden family corruption.

This sounds like the same lame bullshit you've been increasingly spreading for the past two years, Terry.

The fact you can't refute a single item is proof you have nothing to offer but more bullshit. Sad.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

...to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(5)

DOGE isn't looking at individual records or trying to identify the individual tied to any particular record. So, you are wrong.

If I accessed individual service records of personnel in the unit to which I'm assigned, for purposes of producing evaluations, recommending an award, or the like, and their social security number is on those records, it isn't a violation of the privacy act. DOGE is no different.

When your neighbors find out you support an oligarchy, will you hate them when they burn your house down?