US Judge Orders DOGE, Musk to Produce Cost-Cutting Records

Oh, this could get interesting.

For example, an article I read earlier today ...

DOGE Makes Its Flubs Harder to Find. So Much for "Transparency"
www.vanityfair.com

... Elon Musk said last month that his Department of Government Efficiency was publishing cuts to federal spending online in an effort to be "maximally transparent." So much for all that.

Just one month later, the New York Times reports, DOGE has overhauled the way it reports supposed savings to make those cuts a lot harder to track"and makes mistakes a lot harder to find.

And there are apparently many. In the weeks since the DOGE "wall of receipts" launched, it has been riddled with errors. The group has claimed credit for purging contracts that ended decades ago and confused an $8 million ICE contract for an $8 billion contract, among other flubs. DOGE previously responded to the Times' reporting by simply deleting the claims, including five of the biggest purported savings.

Now, DOGE is no longer reporting exactly which programs are getting the axe.

Instead, the Times reported, earlier this month, the group claimed another $10 billion in savings from the elimination of 3,489 federal grants, without specifying which grants it was referring to. When the Times discovered federal identification numbers embedded in the website's source code and used that to identify some grants, DOGE reportedly deleted those too. ...

@#2 ... What?

Isn't Musk's word good enough? ...

Apparently, the evidence seems to provide an answer to your question. ...

A resounding, No

I note that, from what I've read, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan declined to issue a restraining order in this case.

@#1 ... So I have this straight, ...

Does your current alias "have this straight?"

... this judge has no issue that the DOD can't pass an audit on where the money was actually spent ...

That did not seem to be the gist of the case presented to the Judge.

... outraged that the guy cutting the spending that can't be tracked is not posting those cuts in a manner the judge likes. ...

Outraged? I don't see that. But maybe your current alias is overly sensitive?

The Judge seems to be asking that DOGE show the [legally justified] results that DOGE has said it has attained.

That's A Good Thing, no?

I'm sure your current alias would want to see the actual evidence of what DOGE has said it has accomplished. Am I wrong in that opinion?

@#13 ... I would rather have the judge asking the people spending the money (such as the NGOs and the DOD) to justify it ...

But, that was not the case presented to the Judge.

Maybe your current alias should start up a case for the Judge to decide upon?

I'd rather government employees, such as DOGE, are held accountable for what they say.

And that is what this case is about.

So, maybe, if your current alias does not like the gist of this case, maybe it should start a new one with the basis it prefers?

It's easy to criticize, more difficult to do.