In your analogy your implication would be that the software engineer should spend their effort in the corporate boardroom arguing for changes in product requirements rather than in fixing bugs in the current product.
The requirements are fine, the requirements are to pay 20% tax on your profits.
The bug is in the code, the interface with international trade. It's allowing many orders of magnitude more tax to disappear than the pesky unemployment fraud code.
So no, I think his analogy is solid, the requirements are clear, the implementation is at fault.
For fucks sake one is breaking the law. Corporations are following the law. There is no requirement that corporations pay 20%, that is crap you made up.
The law is quite clear on fraud.
In the analogy the law is the requirements, enforcement is the implementation. You don’t like the requirements, sure. The implementation is still broken because it doesn’t address the fraud. It can’t do anything about the requirements because those are outside the scope of things that can be changed by the implementor.
The analogy is absolutely shit because it presumes the same actor writing the code can change the requirements, which is not true in software engineering nor in the US government.
The bug is in the code, the interface with international trade. It's allowing many orders of magnitude more tax to disappear than the pesky unemployment fraud code.
So no, I think his analogy is solid, the requirements are clear, the implementation is at fault.