this is the result of a one party state. They cover for each other, we need balance, an auditor should be the opposite party, I know we tried that in 2010, be some people just don't get it.

Anyone who has followed the shadow-cloaked trail of State Auditor Joe DeNucci can't be surprised or disappointed by the revelation that one of his 'audits' actually covered-up the fraud and dishonesty it uncovered. Mot of the audits I'm familiar with—one of them from very close-up—were filled with headline grabbing accusations and very little evidence. When going up against the politically well-connected Sail Boston, DeNucci abruptly stepped back from whatever flimsy accusations his office had made and bowed to a superior force on the political landscape. In fact, the only honest and non-politically motivated publicity campaign that involved our former auditor was packed with negative publicity, the Boston Globe spotlight team, if I remember correctly, reporting DeNucci's extremely lax work schedule, which had him handling state business on the golf links most of the time he was supposed to be in his office. Thank goodness we no longer have Joe DeNucci watching after our interests!

This "shame" the Globe has discovered about the tenure of DeNucci is ironic because the "Ideas" section is lead by an article that posits that both wealth and power tend to make people less "altruistic". In other words, whether you accumulate money or power you soon don't need others or care as much about them. So DeNucci was in power for decades and ran a department that could destroy (or make) any number of political careers. Arguably, the auditor's office is a hub of power. It can investigate all manner of spending choices anywhere it likes. It can emphasize, publicize, ignore or bury something, some agency or some politician even if it merely reveals an "investigation". Yet the Globe cannot connect the dots here. DeNucci had tremendous power in that office on Day One; power that grew exponentially as he dispensed favors, learned of "issues" and cut deals year after year. Yet the Globe cannot imagine mentioning the simple solution; TERM LIMITS. As the "Why it matters that politicians are rich" story points out, power has the same, desensitizing effect as wealth. In a free society we can't (and shouldn't try) to keep people from being rich and ungenerous. However, we can EASILY contain the ugly effects power has over time with virtually every political office. Limit the time in office and you contain corruption. Simple.

How could anyone be surprised by this? It's the same old story - Democrats taking care of Democrats in Massachusetts, the most corrupt state in the country.

Shameful - indeed, but actually this is politics as usual in Massachusetts. It never ceases to amaze me that so many state employees are incompetent and will turn a blind eye to obvious corruption to appease their Democrat-connected managers. Many state employees can tell you stories of managers being laid-off, or let go and replaced with Democrat-appointed managers who behave like jerks and have very little knowledge of the department they are brought in to over-see. The stories in this state could fill a book! However, what is just as bad are the voters who choose to ignore the corruption and continue to elect the same people over & over & over, on the basis of their political party. Strange.

Ok so now years later the quality of audits is reviewed? Come on. I can't remember the auditors finding anything of value in a state where is should have been so easy. Is it a waste of our money?