US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy - comptroller general

[MB_722]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

The Comptroller General of the United States on 60 minutes.

[Straw Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

The Comptroller General of the United States on 60 minutes.

This has been part of the neo-con plan from the very beginning. 

Grover Norquist's now infamous quote:

"My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

[Hedgehog]

One of the reasons why Bush is moving to South America...

Spending money on a war that can't be won, and lowering taxes without funding.

 

[Purge_WTF]

bush is god.

  Heaven help you.

[MB_722]

bush is god.

you're delusional

[Eyeball Chambers]

I would be extremely interested to hear Beach Bum's (or similar getbigger's) opinion on this?

[Straw Man]

I would be extremely interested to hear Beach Bum's (or similar getbigger's) opinion on this?

Bum's opinion on this topic would be something simplistic and child like - probably something along the lines of  "lower taxes for everyone"

Me and math don't get along too well. 

[Dos Equis]

I would be extremely interested to hear Beach Bum's (or similar getbigger's) opinion on this?

What's there so say?  We either have to make changes or the government tanks in 2040.  I'm all in favor of reform.  The feds spend too much.  We keep too little of our own money. 

[Straw Man]

What's there so say?  We either have to make changes or the government tanks in 2040.  I'm all in favor of reform.  The feds spend too much.  We keep too little of our own money. 

so basically cut taxes and cut expenditures?

I say let's start with expenditures.  Let's cut the funding for Iraq and cut all funding for Faith Based Initiatives, Abstinence Only Funding etc..

[Dos Equis]

so basically cut taxes and cut expenditures?

I say let's start with expenditures.  Let's cut the funding for Iraq and cut all funding for Faith Based Initiatives, Abstinence Only Funding etc..

I say we increase spending on drug rehabilitation.  Don't you agree?

[Straw Man]

I say we increase spending on drug rehabilitation.  Don't you agree?

couldn't hurt

[Hedgehog]

I say we increase spending on drug rehabilitation.  Don't you agree?

Good point.

It's been shown that an amphetamine addict (criminal) in Sweden costs the society $3 millions in his lifetime.

And that's the costs only, not what the society loses out on from him not working a regular job.

So drug rehabilitation is a good investment, pending it's done correctly.

[Dos Equis]

Good point.

It's been shown that an amphetamine addict (criminal) in Sweden costs the society $3 millions in his lifetime.

And that's the costs only, not what the society loses out on from him not working a regular job.

So drug rehabilitation is a good investment, pending it's done correctly.

I was being facetious Hedge.     I do agree drug rehab is important, but it's not something we should be using our federal tax dollars to focus on.  That's something that should be handled at the state and local levels. 

But $3 million per addict is huge.    

[Hedgehog]

I was being facetious Hedge.     I do agree drug rehab is important, but it's not something we should be using our federal tax dollars to focus on.  That's something that should be handled at the state and local levels. 

But $3 million per addict is huge.    

LOL, OK gotcha.

But that number was much higher than I could ever imagine, I jumped at it, and questioned it myself, I heard it at a seminar, talked to the guy afterwards to hear the source, from what I recall it sounded legit.

As far as the deficit goes, there's a lot of things that needs to be done, and none of them will be popular.

Some taxes will have to be raised, and a lot of the current state programs needs an overhaul.

The military budget will have to be drastically cut, and in order to do that, an entirely different foreign policy has to be developed, where USA will lead by diplomacy, and not by force - also coordinate the military with the NATO allies, in order to slim down that way.

It can be done, but you can't have a happy-go-lucky-president in the office like Bush, who's fiscally as responsible as a retarded 5 year old in a candy store.

[Dos Equis]

LOL, OK gotcha.

But that number was much higher than I could ever imagine, I jumped at it, and questioned it myself, I heard it at a seminar, talked to the guy afterwards to hear the source, from what I recall it sounded legit.

As far as the deficit goes, there's a lot of things that needs to be done, and none of them will be popular.

Some taxes will have to be raised, and a lot of the current state programs needs an overhaul.

The military budget will have to be drastically cut, and in order to do that, an entirely different foreign policy has to be developed, where USA will lead by diplomacy, and not by force - also coordinate the military with the NATO allies, in order to slim down that way.

It can be done, but you can't have a happy-go-lucky-president in the office like Bush, who's fiscally as responsible as a retarded 5 year old in a candy store.

We undoubtedly have to make some sacrifices.  I think it can be done without raising taxes.  I've posted this before, but Governor Lingle led a billion dollar turnaround in four years without raising taxes:

"As governor her greatest accomplishments are creating a record surplus of $730 million.  Before that, the budget was in a $250 million budget deficit."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle

That said, I doubt we ever completely clean up this mess.  I doubt we ever have a Congress and president willing to work together to make the necessary tough choices without gouging the taxpayers.  Too many special interests.  Too much pork.  Too much corruption.   

Not sure we can drastically cut the military.  Who knows what country we need to invade next?     Seriously, we have too much going on all over the world to make drastic cutbacks in defense.

[Hedgehog]

We undoubtedly have to make some sacrifices.  I think it can be done without raising taxes.  I've posted this before, but Governor Lingle led a billion dollar turnaround in four years without raising taxes:

"As governor her greatest accomplishments are creating a record surplus of $730 million.  Before that, the budget was in a $250 million budget deficit."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle

That said, I doubt we ever completely clean up this mess.  I doubt we ever have a Congress and president willing to work together to make the necessary tough choices without gouging the taxpayers.  Too many special interests.  Too much pork.  Too much corruption.   

Not sure we can drastically cut the military.  Who knows what country we need to invade next?     Seriously, we have too much going on all over the world to make drastic cutbacks in defense.

Persons like Lingle, are what it takes to turn around this thing.

If I remember correctly, the military budget is over 20% of the total budget. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

A country like Japan has a military budget at around 1% of the total budget. Anyone can figure out that resources can be put elsewhere then.

No, I don't think USA can ever cut the military spending to the level of where Japan is. But it's food for thought, and it's definitely in USA's interest economically to stabilise the global political situation, install a president who will look to create partnerships around the world.

A guy like Rudy Giuliani (I believe this is a strong point for Giuliani, how he was able to get New York City to function smooth, despite all the different interests in that city).

A firm but friendly hand.

Giuliani, of course, got weaknesses of course too.

With a better political situation globally, the military spending needs to be overhauled, the whole organisation has to be slimmed down, and made to be more effective, no more of these one-way contracts either. That's the taxpayers money, going straight down the pockets of effective lobbyists.

The American people should be pissed. But they're not. Perhaps there's been one too many scandals.

But what do I care? I live in Sweden, far away from all of this. Not quite.

If USA, the biggest, and most important economy in the world trembles, and potentially implodes, it's a crisis that could not only cause economical chaos in the world, but political turmoil, and potentially lead to hostile situations.

[Dos Equis]

Persons like Lingle, are what it takes to turn around this thing.

If I remember correctly, the military budget is over 20% of the total budget. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

A country like Japan has a military budget at around 1% of the total budget. Anyone can figure out that resources can be put elsewhere then.

No, I don't think USA can ever cut the military spending to the level of where Japan is. But it's food for thought, and it's definitely in USA's interest economically to stabilise the global political situation, install a president who will look to create partnerships around the world.

A guy like Rudy Giuliani (I believe this is a strong point for Giuliani, how he was able to get New York City to function smooth, despite all the different interests in that city).

A firm but friendly hand.

Giuliani, of course, got weaknesses of course too.

With a better political situation globally, the military spending needs to be overhauled, the whole organisation has to be slimmed down, and made to be more effective, no more of these one-way contracts either. That's the taxpayers money, going straight down the pockets of effective lobbyists.

The American people should be pissed. But they're not. Perhaps there's been one too many scandals.

But what do I care? I live in Sweden, far away from all of this. Not quite.

If USA, the biggest, and most important economy in the world trembles, and potentially implodes, it's a crisis that could not only cause economical chaos in the world, but political turmoil, and potentially lead to hostile situations.

Yeah.  Governor Lingle would make an excellent president IMO.  But extremely smart, principled people like her don't usually get serious consideration for the highest office in the land.  Shame.   

If you're going to make cuts then it's logical to look at the largest pieces of the pie (e.g., defense).  Not sure how practical it will be.  We just went through a major RIF in the 90s.  Now we're scrambling for bodies.

We're really unique when it comes to defense.  A country like Japan doesn't have the forces or the will to send significant forces around the world.  We are the world's policeman. 

I went through a conversion recently after visiting the Holocaust Museum.  I used to be opposed to using our forces around the world.  Now, I believe if we know about atrocities in other countries and we can do something about it, we should (Rwanda, for example).  I don't mind paying for military operations designed to stop genocide. 

Not sure if military spending needs to be overhauled or just better managed.  The war was mismanaged.  We could arguably have spent less money in Iraq if we went in with a larger force and had a more effective plan for the aftermath of Saddam's removal.

You're referring to the no-bid Halliburton contracts?  I was talking to someone the other day about those.  He said it really wouldn't have mattered if they put those contracts out for bid, because there was really no one else who could do what Halliburton does.  (Not sure if this is true.)

I'm probably like you in that I am almost in a foreign country.  What happens on the mainland with the feds affects us, but we're almost in our own little world.  Taxed to death (thanks to Democrats), but somewhat isolated.

I think we both recognize something needs to be done.     
   

[Decker]

Persons like Lingle, are what it takes to turn around this thing.

If I remember correctly, the military budget is over 20% of the total budget....

If you measure defense spending relative to the total discretionary budget, it is over 50% of the total annually.  For 2005 the total discretionary budget was 818 billion while defense spending was about 421 billion.  For 2008, Bush has requested 647 billion dollars for defense.  The total budget (discretionary and mandatory spending) for 2008 will be 2.9 trillion dollars.  So you're right on in your estimation of 20% (actually, 22%).

Over the next five years, the Pentagon projects to spend 2.75 trillion dollars on defense.  This number does not account for incremental costs of future combat operations.

The US's defense spending accounts for 50% of the total defense spending on earth.  We spend 8 times more than the next closest country--China.

That brings up an interesting point of defining what exactly 'defense spending' is.  It doesn't include the debt created by military spending.  For 2007, the US will spend over 385 billion dollars to pay interest on the national debt.

How's that for an interest only loan?

[headhuntersix]

I don't believe its spent correctly but whatever..as far as haliburton goes..there are plenty of companies that can do each individual thing that Haliburton does...but nobody can do eveything they do in one package. It was not practical to get several companies to do what they do. logistically its very hard. Also there aren't many companbies willing to do what they do. they run chow halls..run all construction on FOBS, clean shitters...run the vehicle pools...subcontract power, run comp networks, run convoys and resupply efforts.  etc. Yet everybody falls in line with Hal/KBR. They get folks in and out. Its run very military like. I hate KBR. We tried to  work with them on some stuff and they proved to be a prize pain in the ass. Not very flexible on certain things. Mnay of the workers are Eastern Euro's now..either Balkans or Poles.

[Straw Man]

I don't believe its spent correctly but whatever..as far as haliburton goes..there are plenty of companies that can do each individual thing that Haliburton does...but nobody can do eveything they do in one package. It was not practical to get several companies to do what they do. logistically its very hard. Also there aren't many companbies willing to do what they do. they run chow halls..run all construction on FOBS, clean shitters...run the vehicle pools...subcontract power, run comp networks, run convoys and resupply efforts.  etc. Yet everybody falls in line with Hal/KBR. They get folks in and out. Its run very military like. I hate KBR. We tried to  work with them on some stuff and they proved to be a prize pain in the ass. Not very flexible on certain things. Mnay of the workers are Eastern Euro's now..either Balkans or Poles.

Don't some of these contractors get paid tax free?  why not have the military actually run their own chow hall, construction, etc... It would probably be 1/10 the cost of what we're paying contractors.   Not enough people then let's bring back the draft.   

[headhuntersix]

Its not cost affective...apparently. Like I said most workers are from Eastern Europe so they make about 25-35 grand as opposed to American KBR folks that made 90-100 grand as carpenters and shit suckers..tax free.  The easiest way to explain it is that we, the Army would incur the cost of training, housing and paying the guy, then his medical, dental, retirement etc. Plus his family. Its easier with a contractor. Plus KBR fires guys for nothing because so many people want the jobs. I've seen guys get fired for arguing with a soldier..they just put em on the next plane.

[Straw Man]

Its not cost affective...apparently. Like I said most workers are from Eastern Europe so they make about 25-35 grand as opposed to American KBR folks that made 90-100 grand as carpenters and shit suckers..tax free.  The easiest way to explain it is that we, the Army would incur the cost of training, housing and paying the guy, then his medical, dental, retirement etc. Plus his family. Its easier with a contractor. Plus KBR fires guys for nothing because so many people want the jobs. I've seen guys get fired for arguing with a soldier..they just put em on the next plane.

Even if the're only paying the EU contractor 25-35k they're probably still billing it to the US govt @ a 300% markup.

How about we just eliminate the cost plus contracts and instead contract to the lowest bidder and keep a tight control over graft and corruption.

Either way, still won't help us recover the $$$$ we've already lost from being bilked for the last 5+ years

[Decker]

Its not cost affective...apparently. Like I said most workers are from Eastern Europe so they make about 25-35 grand as opposed to American KBR folks that made 90-100 grand as carpenters and shit suckers..tax free.  The easiest way to explain it is that we, the Army would incur the cost of training, housing and paying the guy, then his medical, dental, retirement etc. Plus his family. Its easier with a contractor. Plus KBR fires guys for nothing because so many people want the jobs. I've seen guys get fired for arguing with a soldier..they just put em on the next plane.

If  you factor in the fraud only (not waste) you get a much different picture.  There are 180,000 private contractors in Iraq alone.  B/c of the poor accountability standards in Iraq it's hard to get a grasp on the true extent of fraud and malfeasance.

Here are some examples of cost over-runs & failures:

Primary Healthcare Centers were to be a key element of the health sector program, bringing medical services to Iraq 's towns and urban neighborhoods. In March 2004, the Parsons Corporation was awarded a $253 million contract to build 150 local clinics. Two years later, only five of the clinics had been completed while $186 million of the budget had already been spent.  The Army Corps of Engineers, responsible for oversight, had been aware of the shortfalls and done nothing.
 
Basra Children's Hospital , a flagship project, enjoyed patronage from First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  Bechtel Corporation was awarded a $50 million contract by USAID in August 2004 with completion set for December 2005. In July 2006, auditors discovered that the project was hopelessly behind schedule and that it would eventually cost $150-170 million.  The US Army Corps of Engineers removed Parsons as contractor, since a dozen other Parsons projects were also flawed, including prisons, fire stations . . . and meters at Basra Oil Terminal.

Oil Sector Reconstruction addressed Iraq 's key money-maker, badly run-down after 13 years of sanctions and three wars. Halliburton won a no-bid $2.4 billion contract to upgrade oilfield facilities, so as to boost exports and gain more revenue. But the company failed to deliver. At a water injection plant at Qarmat Ali, near Basra , powerful new pumps burst aging pipes and the pumps themselves shortly broke down. The ailing plant worked so badly that Iraq 's southern oilfields were seriously harmed.

Al-Fatah pipeline crossing was another Halliburton oil project. North of Baghdad, the pipeline crossed the Tigris River on a bridge that had been badly damaged during US bombing in 2003. Halliburton subsidiary KBR was tasked to repair it. But instead of repairing the bridge, estimated to be a $5 million job, the company insisted on drilling a tunnel under the river, requiring a $75 million budget. Company engineers ignored warnings of unstable subsoil and rock formations. After wasting the entire budget, the company halted its work and abandoned the project. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/9corruption.htm

The fraud perpetrated by some of these contractors reaches into the hundreds of millions of dollars.  Here's one case (that we know of) of a single contractor nailed for ethical misconduct with a settlement of $615 million dollars.
http://www.contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/1,73,222,html?CaseID=300

The "oil for food" program's bank account of about 6 billion dollars was commandeered by the US to create the "Development Fund for Iraq" and billions of dollars have promptly disappeared.

In short, privatization might work with military needs but so far it hasn't really been cost effective.