Showing posts with label Government Spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Spending. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Blackwater Mercenaries Usurp Contracts Meant for Small Businesses

photo from Mosquito Blog

I wonder when the time of corporate, blatant disregard of rules, regulations and the law will be over?

So we all already know Blackwater is despicable. But it seems that the billions of dollars of government contracts that they were legally eligible for (using the word loosely) were not enough. A recent audit reveals that in the efforts to be the only game in town, Blackwater illegally applied for and received contracts that were designated for small businesses. The maxim being of course that too much is never enough.

Washington - Blackwater Worldwide, the contractor whose provision of private security in Iraq has been under scrutiny, and its affiliated companies may have improperly obtained more than $100 million in contracts meant for small businesses, according to federal auditors.

A report by the Small Business Administration's inspector general, issued in July, found that Blackwater and its affiliates, including Presidential Airways, won 39 contracts in the fiscal years 2005, 2006 and 2007 despite indications that the companies employed more than the number specified by the U.S. government. In some cases, the report said, the companies also had higher revenues than allowed for a small business. --Elizabeth Olson, International Herald Tribune
These companies, like Blackwater-- are going to work very hard to support John McCain for President.

We need a new ad featuring him side by side with mercenaries, oil company moguls, fawning media celebrities, and racists. After all- these are his base.
There's more...

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Greed Zone: Freedom Village!

The U.S. military is pushing a five-year, $5 billion development plan to dramatically transform Baghdad's Green Zone, the secured enclave where the American Embassy and the Iraqi government is based, The Associated Press has learned. Hotels, a shopping center, condos and a soccer stadium are all envisioned in the plan. -- AP

See! Wasn't it just the other day that I was suggesting that we send the soldiers from the 82nd Airborne, who live in the Piss Barracks, to Baghdad to live in the $800 Billion Dollar Embassy. From my lips to Gods ears. Or in this case Navy wingnut and Freedom Village on The Euphrates (as I call it.) Military Liason, Captain Karnowski.

But the $5 billion plan has the backing of the Pentagon and apparently the interest of some deep pockets in the world of international hotels and development, the lead military liaison for the project told the Associated Press.

For Washington, the driving motivation is to create a "zone of influence" around the new $700 million U.S. Embassy to serve as a kind of high-end buffer for the compound, whose total price tag will reach about $1 billion after all the workers and offices are relocated over the next year.

"When you have $1 billion hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbors are. You want to influence what happens in your neighborhood over time," said Navy Capt. Thomas Karnowski, who led the team that created the development plan. --Associate Press


Here is what my neighbors have to do in order to use the facilities in their neighborhood, Captain. The story goes on to outline all the fun that this Captain, and Lt. Col. Monte Harner and other "American Officials" are having getting this "deal" together. It seems clear to me that there are still more than a couple of those idealistic theoconservative morons walking the halls of the green zone bunkers these days.

But here is my question. Just how much TAX PAYER money is being wasted on this bullshit, when decorated combat veterans have to walk through filth in order to use the bathroom?
There's more...

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

I can haz commission?



Them Damn Misplaced Decimal Points

The Chinese are saving the U.S. from our budget mess.

One county at a time.

WNBC

Chinese Intern Finds $282M Budget Error In Nassau County

MINEOLA, N.Y. -- An official from China who came to Long Island to learn about local government has discovered a $282.6 million error in a Nassau County budget document.

Ellie Su, 27, a supervisor in the government procurement division for Dongguan, in southern China, noticed that a debt service document entry read $31.4 million instead of $314 million.

After her discovery, she replied: "Still, I was surprised at how few errors I saw in such a big budget book."
Perhaps when she's done with Nassau County, China will considering loaning her expertise to the Bush Administration?

Or at least Congress.
There's more...

Sunday, September 16, 2007

“The Republicans in Congress lost their way.”



Greenspan Lets It Rip
The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World


Pulling no punches, retired Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in a memoir to be published tomorrow, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, speaks candidly of his time as Fed Chair, the presidents he served with, and lays out his vision for the future. Greenspan, 81, was chairman of the U.S. central bank from August 1987 until January 2006. He was the second-longest serving chairman in the Fed's 93-year history.

Like any memoir, there are attempts to rewrite the past, most notably Greenspan's claim to have preemptively wanted to raise rates in 1997 against a possible future stock-market bubble, instead of having slashed rates and kept them there, thus fueling and being directly responsible for the housing bubble:

W$J

Mr. Greenspan won plaudits for achieving low inflation and unemployment with just two mild recessions during his tenure at the Fed. But more recently his record has taken some knocks. Some critics fault him for not doing more to restrain the stock bubble of the 1990s, and for responding to its eventual bursting with such low interest rates that housing prices subsequently soared.

Mr. Greenspan writes that in early 1997, he told his colleagues the Fed should raise interest rates as a "preemptive" move against a stock-market bubble. But transcripts of Fed meetings from that period do not support his book's version of events: They show Mr. Greenspan argued for a rate increase principally because of inflation.
But this is quibbling.

Many economists including many opposed to Mr. Greenspan, as well as other observers (including myself) believe market forces would have resulted in low interest rates anyway, that Mr. Greenspan was correct to lower rates as inflation was -- and always is -- an enormously greater risk than any bubble in a single sector.

Notes from the Fed as well as what little public record Greenspan left behind -- surprisingly little, actually; the man raised avoiding talking on the record to a fine art, as he put it, “mumbling with great incoherence” -- bear out this view, that Fed Policy in Greenspan's last years was to keep inflation under control now no matter what, and deal with a bubble if and when, later.

Greenspan also begins to come clean about what many of us believe to be one of his most serious errors, interjecting himself into politics with his support of the Bush tax breaks of 2001.
NY Times

Though he does not admit he made a mistake, he shows remorse about how Republicans jumped on his endorsement of the 2001 tax cuts to push through unconditional tax cuts without any safeguards against surprises. He recounts how Mr. Rubin and Senator Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, begged him to hold off on an endorsement because of how it would be perceived.

“It turned out that Conrad and Rubin were right,” he acknowledges glumly. He says Republican leaders in Congress, made a grievous error in spending whatever it took to ensure permanent Republican majority.

Mr. Greenspan has critics as well, and they are likely to weigh in as soon as the book is published. Though he publicly disagreed with Mr. Bush’s supply-side approach to tax cuts, urging Congress to offset the cost with savings elsewhere, he refrained from public criticism that could have shifted the debate. His willingness to criticize now, 18 months after leaving office, may open him to the charge of failing to speak out when it could have affected policy.

Today, Mr. Greenspan is both indignant and chagrined about his role in the Bush tax cuts. “I’d have given the same testimony if Al Gore had been president,” he wrote, complaining that his words had been distorted by supporters and opponents of tax cuts.
And then there's the presidents. Greenspan makes assessments as sharp of presidents as he does of markets.
W$J

From serving under so many presidents, Mr. Greenspan concludes that there's something abnormal about anyone willing to do what it takes to get the job. Mr. Ford, he writes, "was as close to normal as you get in a president, but he was never elected." The Watergate tapes, he says, show Richard Nixon as "an extremely smart man who is sadly paranoid, misanthropic and cynical." He recalls telling someone who had accused Nixon of anti-Semitism that he "wasn't exclusively anti-Semitic. He was anti-Semitic, anti-Italian, anti-Greek, anti-Slovak. I don't know anybody he was pro."

Ronald Reagan's ability to instantly tap one-liners and anecdotes in support of a particular policy represented an "odd form of intelligence." He describes Bill Clinton as "a fellow information hound" with "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth" whose relationship with Monica Lewinsky "made me feel disappointed and sad."
CNNMoney.com (Fortune Magazine)

when Greenspan asserts that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were "by far" the smartest Presidents he worked with, those two little words say quite a lot about Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and a couple of guys named Bush.

Surprisingly for a self-described "lifelong Republican," Green­span was happiest as Fed chairman when Clinton was in the White House. (He also liked his time running Ford's Council of Economic Advisors, where it was his pleasant responsibility "to shoot down harebrained fiscal policy schemes.")

With the first George Bush, Greenspan had what he calls a "terrible relationship."

He faults the administration of Bush II for a ­decision-making process driven entirely by political calculation.

By comparison, he found the Democratic interregnum sandwiched between two slices of Bush a version of Periclean Athens, where dedicated men (Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, Clinton, himself) made decisions in the nation's long-term interest.
NY Times

He praises President Bush for letting the Federal Reserve stay independent of political pressure, saying he was scrupulous in not trying to interfere with monetary policy — which he contrasts sharply with the pressure exerted by his father, George H. W. Bush, in the early 1990s. For years the first President Bush has blamed Mr. Greenspan for contributing to his defeat in 1992 by failing to prevent a recession by cutting interest rates.

Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in the interview as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.” It was a presidency marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he writes, but he fondly describes his alliance with two of Mr. Clinton’s Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, in battling financial crises in Latin America and then Asia.

By contrast, Mr. Greenspan paints a picture of Mr. Bush as a man driven more by ideology and fulfilling campaign promises made in 2000, incurious about the effects of his own economic policy, and portrays an administration incapable of executing policy. Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described President Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John Snow, as essentially powerless.

Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” wrote Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”

“They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose” in the 2006 election, when they lost control of both the House and Senate.
This book has two halves. The first, an engaging two-decade look at his term as Fed Chair. Not to be missed, he lays out with candor and verve, how he used the power of the Federal Reserve, growing stronger and more assured with practice, to lead up to the strongest peace-time expansion of wealth and prosperity the world has ever known. Genuinely fascinating stuff.

The second half (more like a third) of the book, is Greenspan's "foundation on which to erect the conceptual framework for understanding the new economy." Oh yeah baby. Do me. Do me hard. [That was my imitation of Greenspan attempting snark. Um, never mind. The last part's boring as hell unless you're a market nerd, okay?]

Markets trembled when this man sneezed. He's 81 and still can bring heat right over the plate:

"They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

*sighs*

Greenspan always did leave people, markets and heads a-spinning. Perhaps that's why he called his book, the The Age of Turbulence?

Serve it up Mr. Greenspan. Take us for a ride. Recommended.
There's more...

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Glenn Reynolds Instaputz

I wonder if Reynolds will have his 'PorkBusters' report on this:

Commerce, Treasury funds helped boost GOP campaigns

WASHINGTON - Top Commerce and Treasury department officials appeared with Republican candidates and doled out millions in federal money in battleground congressional districts and states after receiving White House political briefings detailing GOP election strategy.


I know how much he hates government waste, earmarks, and pork, Funny how he started hating it from Nov. 2006. Lets see how outraged he will be about this waste of the taxpayers money
There's more...

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

More Mercenaries than Troops


OK, Timeout!

There are now more Merc's in Iraq than U.S. Troops.

The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq — a mission criticized as being undermanned.

"These numbers are big," said Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution scholar who has written on military contracting. "They illustrate better than anything that we went in without enough troops. This is not the coalition of the willing. It's the coalition of the billing."
-- latimes.com


This is just ridiculous. Thank God we took back congress, that was the only reason that we know this now. Congress ordered CENTCOM to conduct a survey of the merc's. This is the result. We are wasting BILLIONS on this assinine shit.

Lets remember that under the Geneva convention (although rendered quaint according to Cheney) A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

They are accountable to no one. Who has to clean up the mess? Our troops. There have been numerous incidents where these guns for hire have caused irreversible harm. You want to know one of the many reasons we have already lost this war? This is a big one.

Contractors: 180,000
U.S. troops: 160,000

180,000 people running around Iraq with no legal restrictions, astronomical paychecks (from your money), with top of the line military hardware, and no clear mission. Yeah, thats a great idea....

This has to stop. This has to stop
There's more...