I think you responded to the wrong post in the thread if you are concerned about someone making something political.
EDIT: You may be able to read my other post on this thread. It was flagged almost immediately, probably by someone whose feelings were hurt. Maybe their self-confidence suffered, I don't know. The truth can be like that sometimes, really challenging everything you thought you knew.
I come into the conversation from the standpoint of someone whose spouse is an auditor for an OIG in a federal government agency. Having spent several decades with an inside view, I have an understanding of how things work when they are done legally.
Existing career auditors have been ineffective for whatever reasons. New people taking a look at things seems reasonable. Whether DOGE is part of the answer remains to be seen.
Existing career auditors are not the problem. The problem is that changes in department audit priorities occur whenever a new department head comes aboard. That person, in many cases especially over the last couple decades, has no prior exposure to department programs, experience in that domain, and only received the appointment as a payback for their support of a candidate who ended up in a position to dole out perks to supporters. Check a few bios for department head appointees to any federal agency over the last few decades.
These people come aboard with skillsets in different domains and need to be brought up to speed by the people that they are expected to lead in all the agency programs, directives, initiatives, etc and the rules governing each. They also are beholden to the one who appointed them and expected to prioritize the agency mission based on that benefactor's objectives for their own administration.
Add to that the inevitable desire to put a personal stamp on an agency while you build your resume that you hope will place you in a situation where you can run successfully for an elected office now that you have built some name recognition. Your party needs you, blah, blah, blah.
Career auditors know all the rules, regulations, congressional mandates and guidelines and if they are ineffective it is only because they are held back by those above them who have a different, variable agenda.
If career auditors had full say over which audits to conduct, and if there was no one immune to the consequences of an audit, then we would not have the levels of fraud that are so easily documented and so rarely prosecuted. These people love their jobs and they take it all seriously.
The only question DOGE is part of the answer to will end up being the question about who took the fall for all the criminality conjured by the current administration as they assisted in looting federal resources.
EDIT: Remember that in order to become an auditor you need to reach a certain educational level, for example you need to pass the CPA exam and then hit all your training targets during the year to maintain that CPA status. They likely get training and certs as a CIA, Certified Internal Auditor. They may also be a CFE, Certified Fraud Examiner which also is a professional position requiring training and recertification. They also have to have ethics training to maintain their certifications.
From current news reports, it sounds like DOGE got ethnics training which clearly is not the same thing.
It's really hard to take people seriously when you know they are not arguing in good faith and offering data to try to prop up their misconceptions.
Is it so hard for y'all that composing more than one sentence while posting a reply in a thread meant to generate a useful discussion leaves you mentally exhausted and unable make a coherent rebuttal?
We have all likely heard the old saying that if you aren't part of the solution then you must be part of the problem.
It's also frustrating to see people "rationally" telling us to "wait and see" what DOGE will deliver. Sure, I have preexisting biases against DOGE. I guess I shouldn't ask who has preexisting biases for DOGE, but I don't know if I need to. But I don't think it should take partisanship to conclude that even if DOGE is doing some good, it's also throwing the baby out with the bathwater (e.g. NOAA, NNSA [which maintains our nuclear weapons], DoD, IRS). Is there bureaucratic waste? Sure, I don't doubt it. But DOGE is just slashing jobs without a care in the world. And that's without considering its clear political agenda. So I guess some people will take the middle ground all the way until we "somehow" end up at a terrible outcome. They're not actually taking the middle ground and making a stand, although even that is questionable; you're walking (knowingly or not) towards a side. Rationality is not achieved solely through platitudes. Look at the world around you and make an honest assessment, as unblinded by your biases as you can. Especially since we here tend to be very privileged.
You own a store that has a reputation for being dirty. People make memes about it, have for decades.
Firing the cleaners and replacing them is proportional and reasonable response. You might be able to reform them but frankly it getting this bad in the first place is a sign reform isn't going to work.
You should just accept that your gaslighting has stopped working.
Making these walls of text bigger won't hide the simple truth: "your people" say all the right words. They still failed, out of either incompetence or corruption.
EDIT: You may be able to read my other post on this thread. It was flagged almost immediately, probably by someone whose feelings were hurt. Maybe their self-confidence suffered, I don't know. The truth can be like that sometimes, really challenging everything you thought you knew.
I come into the conversation from the standpoint of someone whose spouse is an auditor for an OIG in a federal government agency. Having spent several decades with an inside view, I have an understanding of how things work when they are done legally.