It's an example of the tradeoff between type I and type II errors. The old system flagged almost nothing as waste/fraud/etc. and as such generated almost no false positives (inappropriate cuts).

A properly balanced system wouldn't have zero errors, which means it will generate more false positives, while reducing false negatives (things that should have been cut but weren't).

Undisciplined

science

Exclusive: NIH to terminate hundreds of active research grants

south_korea_ln

Very interesting. You clearly know more about it than I do~~

Are churches still tax-exempt in the US? 

By definition, those are not subsidies, but one could argue that they provide financial support akin to subsidies by not taking away some of their revenue.

But yeah, this specific example wasn't _my_ point, nor _your_ point. It's good to learn that DOGE is looking into everything. It's not going to be easy though to judge "objectively" what is waste (corruption is probably easier to define). Good that not every government money relates to controversial topics and it'll be easier to find and deal with waste and corruption in those non-controversial topics.