Pentagon Paid $998,798 to Ship Two 19-Cent Washers (Update3)

[OzmO]

Pentagon Paid $998,798 to Ship Two 19-Cent Washers (Update3)

doesn't this just make you feel great all over?

[24KT]

Pentagon Paid $998,798 to Ship Two 19-Cent Washers
Tony Capaccio
Thu Aug 16, 12:52 PM ET
 
Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- A small South Carolina parts supplier collected about $20.5 million over six years from the Pentagon for fraudulent shipping costs, including $998,798 for sending two 19-cent washers to a Texas base, U.S. officials said.

The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Pentagon records show.

The owners of C&D Distributors in Lexington, South Carolina -- twin sisters -- exploited a flaw in an automated Defense Department purchasing system: bills for shipping to combat areas or U.S. bases that were labeled ``priority'' were usually paid automatically, said Cynthia Stroot, a Pentagon investigator.

C&D's fraudulent billing started in 2000, Stroot, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service's chief agent in Raleigh, North Carolina, said in an interview. ``As time went on they got more aggressive in the amounts they put in.''

The price the military paid for each item shipped rarely reached $100 and totaled just $68,000 over the six years in contrast to the $20.5 million paid for shipping, she said.

``The majority, if not all of these parts, were going to high-priority, conflict areas -- that's why they got paid,'' Stroot said. If the item was earmarked ``priority,'' destined for the military in Iraq, Afghanistan or certain other locations, ``there was no oversight.''

Scheme Detected

The scheme unraveled in September after a purchasing agent noticed a bill for shipping two more 19-cent washers: $969,000. That order was rejected and a review turned up the $998,798 payment earlier that month for shipping two 19-cent washers to Fort Bliss, Texas, Stroot said.

The Pentagon Defense Logistics Agency orders millions of parts a year. Stroot said the agency and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, which pays contractors, have made major changes, including thorough evaluations of the priciest shipping charges.

Dawn Dearden, a spokeswoman for the logistics agency, said finance and procurement officials immediately examined all billing records. Stroot said the review showed that fraudulent billing is ``is not a widespread problem.''

``C&D was a rogue contractor,'' Stroot said. While other questionable billing has been uncovered, nothing came close to C&D's, she said. The next-highest contractor billed $2 million in questionable transport costs, she said.

Guilty Pleas

C&D and two of its officials were barred in December from receiving federal contracts. A federal judge in Columbia, South Carolina, today accepted the guilty plea of the company and one sister, Charlene Corley, to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to launder money, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin McDonald said.

Corley, 46, was fined $750,000. She faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years on each count and will be sentenced in the near future, McDonald said in a telephone interview from Columbia. Stroot said her sibling died last year.

Corley didn't immediately return a phone message left on her answering machine at her office in Lexington. Her attorney, Gregory Harris, didn't immediately return a phone call placed to his office in Columbia.

Stroot said the Pentagon hopes to recoup most of the $20.5 million by auctioning homes, beach property, jewelry and ``high- end automobiles'' that the sisters spent the money on.

``They took a lot of vacations,'' she said.

**************************

Not too certain about the accuracy of this article. While Bloomberg's version is the most prevalent, I've heard conflicting reports from out of Columbia South Carolina, that this scam took place starting in 1997, and that Charlene Corley & Diane Wooten, the  C&D  of C&D Distributing were actually cousins not sisters, and that a guilt ridden Diane committed suicide upon learning of the investigation, and provided full co-operation with investigators prior to committing suicide.

[Nordic Superman]

Hey Jag, do you have the copyright holders permission to reproduce this article in its entirety?

[Decker]

This is what you get--corruption-- with unsupervised privatization of government services.  It is the tip of the iceberg.

The Pentagon couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent.  http://www.networkworld.com/news/2004/0708gaopenta.html

[Dos Equis]

The government is not more efficient than the private sector.  I'd rather have private industry doing as much as possible.  You'll have corruption regardless of whether government or private industry is in control, but by and large you'll get better service and a better product from a "corporation" than from the government. 

[headhuntersix]

I bet its Bush's fault

[Decker]

The government is not more efficient than the private sector.  I'd rather have private industry doing as much as possible.  You'll have corruption regardless of whether government or private industry is in control, but by and large you'll get better service and a better product from a "corporation" than from the government. 

It depends on what service you are looking at.

The Social security Administration is light years ahead of any private insurance company as far as administrative costs are concerned.

You don't have corruption regardless of who's in control.  Corruption in government is largely private corporations exploiting governmental contracts.  Not the other way around.  Not govermental employees absconding with funds or such.

[headhuntersix]

They had an Army Col get busted with some ridiculous amount of cash stuffed in his matteress, in Korea. His Korean wife was running the scandal. She was shaking down contractors. I think he had gotten 450 grand total, but they found 90 grand cash in his mattress. Generally speaking we don't get away with crap, as far as funds.

[Hugo Chavez]

I bet its Bush's fault

who would have been blamed under Clinton   uh huh...

[headhuntersix]

The guy above did it under Clinton.....not Bill's fault but Bush gets blamed for everthing.

[Hugo Chavez]

The guy above did it under Clinton.....not Bill's fault but Bush gets blamed for everthing.

oh brother, cut the shit... All I've heard from the right the whole time Bush has been in office is that every last mistake is due to Bill Clinton... It's been a freaking broken record with these clowns It's the standard go-to, "It's Clinton's fault"

[ieffinhatecardio]

The guy above did it under Clinton.....not Bill's fault but Bush gets blamed for everthing.

Now Bush is a victim? LOL

I remember a time when Clinton was getting bashed for EVERYTHING. Some of it he deserved and some of it he didn't. The vast difference is that Clinton wasn't nearly as bad as Bush 43 has turned out to be.

Bush as a victim, that's hilarious. 

[headhuntersix]

Clinton screwed up the Military, but he was great for the economy. His folks didn't see the threat of Bin Laden, enabling 911. But at this point, finger pointing is pointless. We have to fix the problems and let history point fingers later.

[Camel Jockey]

Epic lack of decent bookeeping.

[Hugo Chavez]

Clinton is a traitor so is Bush and finger pointing is not only ok but required.  Later my ass... None of this, oh well, it's already done, nothing we can do, we're already headed toward self destruction, to late... fuck that...

What's ironic is that Clinton gets all the credit for the military cutbacks,... righwingers don't seem to mention how many of these were innitiated by Cheney right up to his last moments at work in the Pentagon. While he was at the Pentagon the size of the Army was reduced by more than 26 percent, the Air Force by 22 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 10 percent.

I also seem to recall very well the republican uproar of "wag the dog" when Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden   You shouldn't get your info from that ABC fakumentary which had its origins from extreme rightwing organizations.

[Hugo Chavez]

Now Bush is a victim? LOL

I remember a time when Clinton was getting bashed for EVERYTHING. Some of it he deserved and some of it he didn't. The vast difference is that Clinton wasn't nearly as bad as Bush 43 has turned out to be.

Bush as a victim, that's hilarious. 

ditto that... Clinton bad, but he looks like the best president ever next to the high crimes of Bush

[Decker]

Clinton screwed up the Military, but he was great for the economy. His folks didn't see the threat of Bin Laden, enabling 911. But at this point, finger pointing is pointless. We have to fix the problems and let history point fingers later.

How did Clinton screw up the military?

I think Clinton focused on terrorism like a laser.  Was he perfect? no.  But can you look at this list and tell me that he was asleep at the wheel like his successor was?:

Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation
$1.097 billion.

Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million

Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million

Passenger Profiling: $10 million

Screener Training: $5.3 million

Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million

Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million

Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million

Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million

Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million

Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million

Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million

Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million

Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million

Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million

Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million

Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million

Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million

Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million

Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million

Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million

Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million

Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
    
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies.

[headhuntersix]

Throwing money at the  problem..didn't the Dems bash Bush for doing the same...

On the Military... The U.S. military was used as a 'meals on wheels' service by the Clinton administration in its nation building adventures, the military had its own humanitarian crises at home on its own bases. The pay freeze instituted by Clinton was imposed on a military in which 80 percent of all troops earned $30,000 per year or less. Food stamp applications soared and re-enlistment rates dropped....My pay keeps going up under Bush.....We were miserable under Bill, he was an embarrasment. Mybe not him personally but many younger staffers hated the military, many in his government etc.


Bin Laden and his terrorist-related activities were well known to the United States by 1995. Clinton had an opportunity to capture him in the fall of 1998, but did not. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for 'show' than for honestly eliminating a threat. He pulled out of Somalia...this led to Bin laden thinking we were soft. Bin Laden said this himself. Clinton sought "to pacify truly dangerous nations with unilateral concessions, under the flawed notion that totalitarian regimes will return kindness for kindness. The head in the sand approach is still being conducted by mnay on the liberal left. Bill wasn't even a Liberal but he allowed way to many foreign policy decisions to be made by idiots who leaned that way.

Its not all Clinton's fault..but what he did led directly to the events of 911.

[Decker]

Throwing money at the  problem..didn't the Dems bash Bush for doing the same...

On the Military... The U.S. military was used as a 'meals on wheels' service by the Clinton administration in its nation building adventures, the military had its own humanitarian crises at home on its own bases. The pay freeze instituted by Clinton was imposed on a military in which 80 percent of all troops earned $30,000 per year or less. Food stamp applications soared and re-enlistment rates dropped....My pay keeps going up under Bush.....We were miserable under Bill, he was an embarrasment. Mybe not him personally but many younger staffers hated the military, many in his government etc.


Bin Laden and his terrorist-related activities were well known to the United States by 1995. Clinton had an opportunity to capture him in the fall of 1998, but did not. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for 'show' than for honestly eliminating a threat. He pulled out of Somalia...this led to Bin laden thinking we were soft. Bin Laden said this himself. Clinton sought "to pacify truly dangerous nations with unilateral concessions, under the flawed notion that totalitarian regimes will return kindness for kindness. The head in the sand approach is still being conducted by mnay on the liberal left. Bill wasn't even a Liberal but he allowed way to many foreign policy decisions to be made by idiots who leaned that way.

Its not all Clinton's fault..but what he did led directly to the events of 911.

I wasn't posting the dollar amounts to show the efficacy of the programs, rather I was rebutting your assertion that Clinton didn't 'see the threat of 9/11" when I think he did.

Clinton presided over a "military recession" where any and every politician--including Dick Cheney--was making budget concessions on military spending b/c the cold war race was over. 

I mean defense spending in the US budget is the single largest outlay.  Sometimes it has to be roped in. 

I'm sorry that some of that cutting was done at your and the rank and file's expense.  That blows.  I'd rather see a few lucrative military contracts--weapons or what not--get shitcanned.

The Clinton 1998 story no doubt refers to the Sudanese offering OBL up on a platter to Clinton who turned it down inexplicably.

That is a nice Fox News talking point but it didn't happen that way.  The man that's the source of that bullshit is MANSOOR IJAZ--a con man expecting the Clinton administration to lift sanctions against the Sudan so that he could pursue business interests there.  Even the 9/11 Commission came to that conclusion.  http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

Yes, I recall Bin Laden's statement about the US's softness.  But I must tell you that terrorists say anything and take credit for anything that can give them leverage.  OBL took credit for the attacks of 9/11 but there still is not enough evidence out there showing that which could survive a simple motion to dismiss. 

I don't recall Clinton's critics stating his head was in the sand when he bombed Iraq?  Do you?  No they accused him of trying to divert attention from the hallowed impeachment trial for lying about blowjobs.  Why I too felt like a Shakespearian character in that 'tragic chapter.'

I do agree with you though.  Clinton does share in the blame for 9/11.

[headhuntersix]

He could have had him pure and simple...even bombing him..they could have made sure etc.....Now I'm not laying the blame at Clinton..he plays a part. Bin Laden's quote about the US being soft was BEFORE 911. Its chillling. Even so..its pretty easy to see why folks would think we're soft after Somalia.

About the military..GHW Bush started it...but Clinton gutted it and instituted stupid policies. Things like the air war in Kosovo also emboldened our enemies....high tech instead of muddy boots. Anything we do is analyzed by our enemies. Sometime we don't look at what everybody else is doing...had we studied Chechnya more maybe we'd be doing better in Iraq.
Certain systems we don't need.....why the F-22 which is the swiss army knife of jets that may not do any one thing well....instead of the F-16..which cost 16 million to produce when they first rolled it out. Jets like the F-16 helped win the cold war. I am in no way a defender of the MIC....they don't serve our best interest. Anyway that should cover most of you're post......

[WOOO]

doesn't this just make you feel great all over?

bahahaha... george w sure has things under control!!!

[OzmO]

bahahaha... george w sure has things under control!!!

I'd have given them washers at a 50% discount 

[Decker]

He could have had him pure and simple...even bombing him..they could have made sure etc.....Now I'm not laying the blame at Clinton..he plays a part. Bin Laden's quote about the US being soft was BEFORE 911. Its chillling. Even so..its pretty easy to see why folks would think we're soft after Somalia.

About the military..GHW Bush started it...but Clinton gutted it and instituted stupid policies. Things like the air war in Kosovo also emboldened our enemies....high tech instead of muddy boots. Anything we do is analyzed by our enemies. Sometime we don't look at what everybody else is doing...had we studied Chechnya more maybe we'd be doing better in Iraq.
Certain systems we don't need.....why the F-22 which is the swiss army knife of jets that may not do any one thing well....instead of the F-16..which cost 16 million to produce when they first rolled it out. Jets like the F-16 helped win the cold war. I am in no way a defender of the MIC....they don't serve our best interest. Anyway that should cover most of you're post......

The 9/11 Commission did not conclude that Clinton could have had Bin Laden "pure and simple"...that's just not the case.

Clinton did not gut the military.  That is propaganda.  Type the following phrase "Clinton gutted the military" and look at all the results that state that assertion verbatim.  It's a propagandistic talking point.


National Defense Spending             
   Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf, page 49-51         
   In Millions of Current Dollars         

   Year    Budget total    As % of Outlays   As % of GDP
   LBJ 1963    $53,400    48.00%   8.90%
   1964 (Vietnam)    $54,757    46.20%   8.50%
   1965 (Vietnam)    $50,620    42.80%   7.40%
   1966 (Vietnam)    $58,111    43.20%   7.70%
   1967 (Vietnam)    $71,417    45.40%   8.80%
   1968 (Vietnam)    $81,926    46.00%   9.40%
   Nixon 1969 (Vietnam)    $82,497    44.90%   8.70%
   1970 (Vietnam)    $81,692    41.80%   8.10%
   1971 (Vietnam)    $78,872    37.50%   7.30%
   1972 (Vietnam)    $79,174    34.30%   6.70%
   1973    $76,681    31.20%   5.80%
   Ford 1974    $79,347    29.50%   5.50%
   1975    $86,509    26.00%   5.50%
   1976    $89,619    24.10%   5.20%
   Carter 1977    $97,241    23.80%   4.90%
   1978    $104,495    22.80%   4.70%
   1979    $116,342    23.10%   4.60%
   1980    $133,995    22.70%   4.90%
   Reagan 1981    $157,513    23.20%   5.10%
   1982    $185,309    24.80%   5.70%
   1983    $209,903    26.00%   6.10%
   1984    $227,413    26.70%   5.90%
   1985    $252,748    26.70%   6.10%
   1986    $273,375    27.60%   6.20%
   1987    $281,999    28.10%   6.10%
   1988    $290,361    27.30%   5.80%
   Bush 1989    $303,559    26.50%   5.60%
   1990 (Gulf)    $299,331    23.90%   5.20%
   1991 (Gulf, CW End)    $273,292    20.60%   4.60%
   1992    $298,350    21.60%   4.80%
   Clinton 1993    $291,086    20.70%   4.40%
   1994    $281,642    19.30%   4.00%
   1995    $272,066    17.90%   3.70%
   1996    $265,753    17.00%   3.50%
   1997    $270,505    16.90%   3.30%
   1998    $268,456    16.20%   3.10%
   1999    $274,873    16.20%   3.00%
   2000    $394,495    16.50%   3.00%
   Bush 2001 (Afghanistan)    $305,500    16.40%   3.00%
   2002 (Afghanistan)    $348,555    17.30%   3.40%
   2003 (Afghanistan, Iraq)    $404,920    18.80%   3.70%


He did cut some spending that was attendant to the end of the cold war. But to characterize that as "gutting" is nonsense.  The US's military expenditures account for about 50% of all military expenditures worldwide.  We spend 8 times what the Chinese (second largest spender) spend.

The gutted military seemed to perform well in Afghanistan.

As for the Kososvo military action, wasn't the mission accomplished without a single US casualty from the attack?

[OzmO]

Wow, facts about Clinton over propaganda infused beliefs......

Go figure.

[headhuntersix]

Dude we cut division after division...spending increases only mean we bought sexier equipment instead of stuff we needed. Case in point 7th ID gone..2nd AD gone 3AD gone 24th ID (Mech) gone.....The fiscal 1999 defense-budget request represented the 14th consecutive year of real decline in defense spending
During the last decade, the U.S. military has shrunk from approximately 2.2 million active-duty service members to 1.4 million active-duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. In fact, since the Persian Gulf War, Army divisions have been reduced from 18 to 10, Navy ships cut from 547 to 346 and Air Force fighter wings reduced from 36 to 19.

Yet, at the same time our military forces continued to shrink, they are being called upon to do more all over the world. For instance, the Army, which conducted 10 operational events outside of normal training and alliance commitments during the 31-year period of 1960-1991, had conducted 26 operational events since 1991. The Marine Corps, which undertook 15 contingency operations between 1982 and 1989, has conducted 62 such operations since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And, for the first time, the Air Force is experiencing frequent, long-term deployments.


Looks like draw done to me...