We have become accustomed to reports of unimaginable corruption and waste in Afghanistan from bags of money delivered to President Karzai to constructing huge buildings to be immediately torn down to buying aircraft that cannot be used. The common element to the stories is the absence of any reported prosecution or even discipline for those responsible. You can simply waste hundreds of millions of dollars and continue in your government position. This week’s outrage comes from a report of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Among huge examples of waste and delay is this little ditty: USAid paid a $300,000 charge for 600 gallons of diesel fuel. That is $500/gallon to a contractor.
International Organization for Migration paid the contractor the $500 per gallon at a time when the market price in Afghanistan for diesel fuel was less than $5.00 per gallon. The invoice should have demanded $3,000 instead of $300,000. No one was prosecuted for the payment. Likewise, the IOM paid $220,000 for an automatic temperature control device that should have cost between $2,000 and $10,000. Again, no prosecution and no record of any discipline against those signing off on the payment.
We put people in jail for snatching a purse, but a contractor can charge $500 per gallon of gas and neither the contractor nor the government official responsible face any reported sanctions. It appears all “self-serve” at the U.S. Treasury based on the honor system.
“More government waste. Another reason why I support the Republican policy of limited government. Expect this kind of waste in healthcare now that it has become federalized.” — davidm2575 1, October 24, 2013 at 9:31 am
Unadulterated dogmatic drivel.
So the Republicans have “a policy of limited government,” do they?
Since when? What Republican administration has ever balanced the federal budget, ran a budget surplus, or reduced the federal government’s size or intrusive power? Name some of these administrations for us, will you? Surely you can provide some examples to back up your abstract ideological hallucinations. I can only remember one federal administartion in my lifetime that ever balanced a budget or ran a budget surplus: namely, that of Democrat Bill Clinton who did only two things to accomplish this rare feat (without a single Republican vote in Congress): namely, (1) cut wasteful war spending and (2) raise the marginal tax rate on the top incomes. The Republicans, naturally, reversed both of these policies when they got back in power in 2001, launched two disastrous corporate wars — without raising taxes to pay for them — and predictably ran up astronomical deficits. Not by accident.
In Democracy, Incorporated, Sheldon Wolin has some succint observations to make about “Republican policy,” so I’ll quote him:
“By enacting tax measures that according to virtually every account primarily benefited the wealthiest, and by amassing ever-increasing government deficits to astronomical proportions, [The G. W. Bush] administration has effectively prevented a future democratically oriented administration from enacting social programs for the Many.”
In other words, far from disdaining government waste or deficits, the Republican party has a policy of deliberately amassing astronomical deficits, largely through corporate fraud and waste (especially “war”), so as to impoverish the federal government and render it incapable of implementing policies that benefit the majority of American citizens.
This policy also goes by the name of “Robbing the Future Now” or “Get Yours First,” et cetera. As anyone familiar with the Republican party could tell you, the Republican Dogma Deity, Grover Norquist, calls this policy “starving the beast,” where “beast” means (to Republicans) any government policy at any level that seeks to use government in the interests of common working Americans instead of the wealthy. To Republicans, Government must work only to further the interests of the wealthy. Perish the thought that the American government might work for the common citizen or “the general welfare.” As Sheldon Wolin again summarizes the truth for us:
“The Republican Party is not, as advertised, conservative but radically oligarchical. Programmatically it exists to advance corporate economical and political interests, and to protect and promote inequalities of opportunity and wealth.”
“To protect and promote inequalities of opportunity and wealth.” There you have the Republican “policy of limited government.” Let no one have the slightest doubt about this policy. Follow the money. Look where it went.
Again, when a Republican speaks of “limited” government, he does not mean legitimate limits that he opposes which the government might place on the wealthy but only illegitmate limits on the government that he approves which would allow the wealthy to make the common citizen even more desperate and therefore willing to work long hours for little or no pay or benefits (especially affordable health care).
Therefore, one has to nail the Republican down when he or she speaks of “limits” on government. Precisely which limits does he or she approve and which limits does he or she oppose? Failure to elicit from a Republican what he or she actually means by “limits” — upon whom and for what reason and for whose benefit — results in an unending torrent of abstract, self-serving gibberish from Republicans.
As my widowed, working-class mother taught me back in elementary school in the 1950s: “A vote for a Republican is a vote against yourself.” True then. True now. I therefore propose limiting Republicans in government to such an insignificant number that they can no longer meddle in the political or economic affairs of the American working class. Better for America that way. Better for the world.
I like the cut of your jib, Michael Murry.
Michael Murry wrote: “Therefore, one has to nail the Republican down when he or she speaks of “limits” on government. Precisely which limits does he or she approve and which limits does he or she oppose? Failure to elicit from a Republican what he or she actually means by “limits” — upon whom and for what reason and for whose benefit — results in an unending torrent of abstract, self-serving gibberish from Republicans.”
It is not that hard. Just look at the GOP platform.
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
Following is part of the Republican message that I agree with:
—-
Taxes, by their very nature, reduce a citizen’s
freedom. Their proper role in a free society should be
to fund services that are essential and authorized by
the Constitution, such as national security, and the
care of those who cannot care for themselves. We reject
the use of taxation to redistribute income, fund
unnecessary or ineffective programs, or foster the
crony capitalism that corrupts both politicians and
corporations.
Our goal is a tax system that is simple, transparent,
flatter, and fair. In contrast, the current IRS code
is like a patchwork quilt, stitched together over time
from mismatched pieces, and is beyond the comprehension
of the average citizen. A reformed code
should promote simplicity and coherence, savings
and innovation, increase American competitiveness,
and recognize the burdens on families with children.
—-
As for the in-practice example, Reagan would be a good example. The Tax Reform Act he brought about in 1986 set the country on a right path. President Reagan was the best President that I voted for in my lifetime.
Also, under the Clinton administration, the Republican Congress passed welfare reform that greatly reduced entitlement spending to help balance the budget. People can squabble back and forth with criticisms, but it is clear that the Democrat leadership wants more taxes and more government regulations and programs and intrusion into my everyday life. I feel violated that they have stuck their nose into my personal health care decisions.
Michael Murry wrote: “I can only remember one federal administartion in my lifetime that ever balanced a budget or ran a budget surplus: namely, that of Democrat Bill Clinton who did only two things to accomplish this rare feat (without a single Republican vote in Congress): namely, (1) cut wasteful war spending and (2) raise the marginal tax rate on the top incomes. The Republicans, naturally, reversed both of these policies when they got back in power in 2001, launched two disastrous corporate wars — without raising taxes to pay for them — and predictably ran up astronomical deficits. Not by accident.”
You seem to overlook the Republican Congress under Clinton fighting tooth and nail for welfare reform. Remember Newt Gingrich and the “Contract with America”? The opposition led to a government shutdown that resulted in welfare reform. Clinton certainly cut the military spending way down as well, but some blame that for leaving us open for the 9/11 attack. Needless to say, life is complicated and people can point here and there to make various arguments, none of which ultimately are too conclusive about credit and blame. For example, you blame Bush for the wars, but the 9/11 attack was unprecedented and the entire country was prodding him to do something about it. Some liberals criticized him for reading a children’s book at the time of the terrorist attacks. Bush was pushed into these wars as much by Democrats as he was by Republicans. I’m not giving him a pass on the wars, just explaining that it is not as simple as pointing to some Republican platform or policy that led us there. Just look at what Obama did when he took over. We are still in Afghanistan. Why? I disapprove of the nation building that took place under both Bush and Obama. This is not an issue where one party has it right and one has it wrong.
Off topic:
Another U.S. Whistleblower Behind Bars? Investor Jailed After Exposing Corrupt Azerbaijani Oil Deal
democracy Now
10/15/13
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/15/another_us_whistleblower_behind_bars_investor
Excerpt:
In a Democracy Now! exclusive, we look at the case of multimillionaire American businessman and philanthropist Rick Bourke, who blew the whistle on a fraudulent scheme by international criminals to gain control of the oil riches of the former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan — only to end up as the only person sent to jail by federal prosecutors in the massive conspiracy. Since May, Bourke has been held in a federal prison, serving a term of one year and one day for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for alleged knowledge of the bribery that allegedly took place in 1998. Other investors in the Azerbaijan scheme included former Democratic Senate Majority leader George Mitchell and major institutions including Columbia University and AIG, but no one else was jailed in the United States. High-ranking former U.S. and British officials from the CIA and MI6 have raised serious concerns about the conviction of Bourke in part because the key witnesses during his trial were allegedly intelligence assets working for the U.S. government. They are not the only ones who question Bourke’s guilt. Even the judge in his case has admitted having doubts. At the time of Bourke’s sentencing, Shira Scheindlin of the Federal District Court said, “After 10 years of supervising this case, it is still not entirely clear to me whether Mr. Bourke was a victim, or a crook, or a little bit of both.” We speak to Bourke’s lawyer, the law professor and renowned attorney Michael Tigar, as well as former Washington Post reporter Scott Armstrong. “Why is it that they would go after the guy that blew the whistle on the thievery and bribery, Rick Bourke?” Tigar asks. “Why is it that the Czech citizen and the guy, the ex-patriot, and the German-Swiss lawyer all are walking free; the American citizen, philanthropist, and so on, is sitting in a minimum security jail? Well, investment in the Azerbaijan hydrocarbon industry is now safely in the hands of major petroleum companies. Is that a reason?”
patsylvania, ALL presidents want to be king. The Constitution stops them…so far.
Defense Contractors Profit Despite Sequestration And Shutdown
By Hayes Brown
October 24, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/10/24/2828491/defense-contractors-profit-despite-sequestration-shutdown-alike/
Excerpt:
Defense contractors have managed to not only stay afloat but also thrive in a climate of government closure and massive cuts to the Pentagon’s budget, continuing to rake in billions upon billions of dollars in profits.
Under the terms of sequestration, the Department of Defense is slashing budgets left and right, with about $41 billion cut in 2013 alone. That hasn’t prevented the major defense contractors — including Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman — to continue to post huge profits according to Bloomberg. Northrop Grumman in particular has had a surprisingly good year, showing a 56 percent increase in the price of its shares. In the third quarter, Northrop’s net income grew to $497 million, compared to $459 million for the same period last year.
Even companies that aren’t performing as well are still seeming to be doing just fine under sequestration so far as profits go. General Dynamics, which is the third-largest provider of services to the federal government, saw its shares on the New York Stock Exchange drop slightly after announcing its profit forecast for the rest of the year. Despite that, the company still saw a net income of $651 million in the third quarter, up from $600 million at the same point last year.
The continued success of these companies matches the predictions of CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Alex Rothman last year, though the sequestration vehicle has been less discriminating about military cuts than many security experts would have preferred. The defense industry spent a large amount of time and capital last year hyping the threat that not just sequestration but any cuts to the military budget would have on their industries, even as experts expressed their doubts in the claims.
Sequestration also hasn’t prevented contractors from being paid far more than their federal employee counterparts. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently reported that the intelligence community pays contractors 1.66 times as much as a federal employee for the same work. An analysis from the Pentagon earlier this month also found that the Pentagon could save millions if it would only reduce the payout to some contractors to only as much as President Obama’s salary.
When will the Knights Templar, be crusading. Imagine The Tea Party in fine regalia invading California and stealing the Bells of Capastrano!
Jesus, we haven’t had feudalism since the 15th century. We are a democracy, not a fiefdom. We don’t have peerages. We are not awarded land grants for military services or for special services to the “President.” Richard Nixon was the last president who wanted to be King, when he “came to power!” He said this to Queen Elizabeth. Between this concept, of new feudalism, and Nick’s duopoly, you people are creating new explanations for good old American greed. And it clanks!
David, think today we have both government bureaucracy and big business bureaucracy (monopolies, cartels, etc) – two bureaucracies where one is bound by the U.S. Constitution and the other driven by profits.
Free market competition means there is a fair set of rules to play by and an impartial referee.
For example: Clean energy is far cheaper than fossil fuels if we had a free market system. Gasoline would cost about $15 per gallon if it were priced accurately in the free market to include pollution, health and cleanup costs.
With our current choices, I prefer the bureaucracy that’s bound by the U.S. Constitution. Longterm we need a real free market system of private businesses also.
But, Dredd, was delivery at the pump where they would have paid 100 times too much? Or was delivery at some field location where $500 per gallon might be reasonable? We don’t know and that’s what makes the difference between a non-story and a scandal.
David: “The Republican policy is not about privatizing government, so the implication that they want feudalism is misguided.”
*
The great leap in contracting out occurred under “W”, recall that we contracted out much of our wars and national security infrastructure during his tenure. He entered office planning to and stating he would contract out 850,000 federal jobs. I worked for DOD at the time and saw what was going on firsthand and where I worked they played fast and loose with the regs and law to meet their goals.
“Uncle Sam’s outsourcing tab: $517 billion”
“The spending flowing to outside businesses accounts for roughly one out of every three dollars of discretionary government spending, which is everything except for entitlement programs such as Social Security or interest on U.S. debt.”
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/10/news/economy/outsourced-federal-government/
“Obama To Tackle Explosion In Federal Contracts
by DANIEL ZWERDLING”
December 01, 200812:01 AM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97322339
W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician/efficiency expert, that taught the Japanese how to create quality cars and products following World War Two (after being rejected by American CEOs) – was also a former bureaucrat and had several solutions for fixing government in the book “Deming At Work” and the “Deming Management Method” by Mary Walton. Former labor secretary, Robert Reich, was a fan and friend of Dr. Deming until his death.
Deming had a great solution for government budgets that could have prevented the recent shutdown. Essentially allow agencies to keep part or all of the savings and spend it on anything, instead of penalizing agencies for spending less than their proposed budget.
For example: If an agency budget is $1 million and the agency only needed $500,000 under our current system, the agency would be penalized with a lower budget next year – punished for efficiency. Deming proposed freezing the budget amount and allow the agency employees to keep part or all of the savings for bonuses, parties, vacations, etc.
The problem is on face value, taxpayers may hate this idea even if it saves tax dollars longterm because the Press would focus on the bonuses, parties, etc. and not the longterm savings. Some agencies actually work better smaller and leaner (Ex: national security agencies).
Word Press has a burr up its saddle.
“International Organization for Migration paid the contractor the $500 per gallon at a time when the market price in Afghanistan for diesel fuel was less than $5.00 per gallon.” – JT
Dan 1, October 24, 2013 at 12:05 pm
I’m getting in late here, but $500 per gallon is not necessarily a scandal. The question is, where was the fuel delivered and what were the prevailing conditions?
…
========================
According to the post by JT, “International Organization for Migration paid the contractor the $500 per gallon at a time when the market price in Afghanistan for diesel fuel was less than $5.00 per gallon.”
davidm2575 1, October 24, 2013 at 11:48 am
Dredd wrote: “A military historian indicates that this practice [privatizing] was a fundamental dynamic in the feudal ideology of the dark ages:”
The Republican policy is not about privatizing government …
===================================
That explains why Bush II was excommunicated from the Republican party:
(Wikipedia, “Social Security debate in the United States”). It also explains why others were excommunicated along with Bush II.
I’m getting in late here, but $500 per gallon is not necessarily a scandal. The question is, where was the fuel delivered and what were the prevailing conditions?
About 10 years ago I saw a presentation on this exact issue: cost of delivering fuel to front line military units. Armored vehicles are notoriously thirsty and the statistic given was something like a tank, in operations, spends >90% of it’s time idling using the engine at <1% efficiency. The point of the presentation was that the military had misunderstood the value of fuel efficiency and had designed it's systems based on a assumed fuel cost of $1 per gallon in bulk. In reality (operations) the true cost was (in Iraq): $600 per gallon when delivery to the vehicle was included.
So the cost reported here, by itself, may not be unreasonable. If, that is, the delivery point was remote and required a high-security operation to deliver.
Mike Appleton, Bravo and amen!
Otteray Scribe 1, October 24, 2013 at 10:35 am
… this is the price of outsourcing services and goods that are better handled by government agencies …
==========================
A military historian indicates that this practice was a fundamental dynamic in the feudal ideology of the dark ages:
(American Feudalism – 5, quoting W. Scott Jessee in “The Reader’s Companion to Military History“).
Dredd wrote: “A military historian indicates that this practice was a fundamental dynamic in the feudal ideology of the dark ages:”
The Republican policy is not about privatizing government, so the implication that they want feudalism is misguided. Republican policy is about making the federal government smaller and letting State and local governments handle more. The State’s, counties and cities should not be writing grants to get money from the federal government. Excessive bureaucracy, especially at the federal level which is most removed from the citizen and less open to oversight is where most of the waste happens. If your neighbor who is the mayor buys gas for $500 a gallon with your money, you can be sure the community will vote him out of office. When it happens at the federal level, people scream and then don’t remember who did what when election time comes around, especially when they have so many people to point the finger at. This is exactly what we see happening with Obamacare. Name one person who is responsible for this debacle. Most citizens cannot do that.
David,
As others have pointed out in the thread already, this is the price of outsourcing services and goods that are better handled by government agencies. Those who thought this kind of thing to be a good idea failed to take human nature into consideration. Private contractors turned loose with the bags of money will always milk it for everything that is not nailed down.
As for me, I am not at all surprised. As a student of human behavior and motivation, I would be far more surprised to find the contractor was only charging a standard competitive rate.
davidm:
Neither political party has a monopoly on government waste; what actually separates them is the identity of the beneficiaries.
Mike Appleton wrote: “Neither political party has a monopoly on government waste; what actually separates them is the identity of the beneficiaries.”
I agree, but at least the Republican party has a policy to reduce funding and the size of federal government. If the Democratic Party had that policy along with probably two other policy changes, I would switch parties and become a Democrat.
Who the hell buys premium? Anyone here?