To say no records were kept is a little misleading isn't it?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services got more than $9 billion from the sale of Taxpayer assets and other tax revenue streams to be used for construction jobs projects and other welfare programs inside the most severe economically depressed areas in the nation but now cannot document where $8.7 billion of those funds went, according to an inspector general's report published online.
The military's response in the report noted that the records probably exist, it's just that they're probably archived, and it might take a long time to track them down.
Would you be consistent and apply the same standard to one department of gov't that you apply to others?
Page 5. The first sentence reads, 'Weaknesses in DoD's financial and management controls leaves it unable to account for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion in DFI funds it received for reconstruction activities in Iraq.' This is a mischaracterization of the facts intended to support this finding. The report backs up the assertion by stating 'DoD did not establish deposit fund accounts within the Department of the Treasury for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion of the DFI funds it controlled.' The fact that deposit accounts were not established does not translate to $8.7 billion being unaccountable. The documents that would account for much of the $8.7 billion are likely archived at a stateside location," said the response.
.The military response recommended the following wording: "DoD did not establish deposit fund accounts within the Department of the Treasury for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion of the DFI funds it controlled. As a result, attempting to account for $8.7 billion of the DFI funds controlled by DoD would require significant archival retrieval efforts
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]$8 billion spent, no records kept[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Inspector general's report raises alarms about funds inside Defense Department[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]Posted: October 27, 2010[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]8:52 pm Eastern[/SIZE]
By Bob Unruh
[SIZE=-1]© 2010 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]
If you actually go to the link this is what you'll see.
I took the WND article headline as the thread title, and the secondary headline for the buried link, Again, don't like it, contact WND.
This situation occurred because most DoD organizations receiving DFI funds did not establish the required Department of the Treasury accounts and no DoD organization was designated as the executive agent for managing the use of DFI funds.
If you actually go to the link this is what you'll see.
.
This situation occurred because most DoD organizations receiving DFI funds did not establish the required Department of the Treasury accounts and no DoD organization was designated as the executive agent for managing the use of DFI funds.
Page 5. The first sentence reads, 'Weaknesses in DoD's financial and management controls leaves it unable to account for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion in DFI funds it received for reconstruction activities in Iraq.' This is a mischaracterization of the facts intended to support this finding. The report backs up the assertion by stating 'DoD did not establish deposit fund accounts within the Department of the Treasury for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion of the DFI funds it controlled.' The fact that deposit accounts were not established does not translate to $8.7 billion being unaccountable. The documents that would account for much of the $8.7 billion are likely archived at a stateside location," said the response.
The military response recommended the following wording: "DoD did not establish deposit fund accounts within the Department of the Treasury for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion of the DFI funds it controlled.