ShareThis Page
HUD’s accounting flagged |

HUD’s accounting flagged

| Tuesday, December 6, 2016 4:24 p.m

Its books have been such a mess for years that nobody — not even its own inspector general — knows whether the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development handles public money properly.

The HUD inspector general’s latest audit “found 11 ‘material weaknesses,’ seven ‘significant deficiencies’ in internal controls, and five instances of ‘noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations,’” according to The Daily Caller. The website also says the IG has reported “the same conclusions … for three straight years” and “officials refuse to explain why they haven’t fixed poor accounting practices and useless financial books.”

The IG even reported that for three years running, HUD subsidiary Ginnie Mae, which helped inflate 2008’s disastrous housing bubble, “could not bring its material asset balances” related to some loan assets “into an audit-able state.”

Bill Bergman, research director for the Chicago-based nonprofit government watchdog group Truth in Accounting, says the private sector wouldn’t put up with HUD-style accounting. And a Citizens Against Government Waste spokesman says “HUD’s failure to properly maintain basic financial documents calls into question (its) commitment to safeguarding taxpayer dollars.”

It sure does. And there’s no acceptable excuse for such slipshod record keeping — which the incoming Trump administration must keep in mind as it revamps HUD from top to bottom.

Categories: Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.