Waste Not, Want Not ... or Something.

July 12, 2006 6:06 AM

Reportfrom the Committee on Government Reform Minority Office: Under the Bush Administration, the “shadow government” of private companies working under federal contract has exploded in size. Between 2000 and 2005, procurement spending increased by over $175 billion dollars, making federal contracts the fastest growing component of federal discretionary spending. ... Federal spending on Halliburton contracts increased over 600% between 2000 and 2005. If you're short on time, read the one-page summary of the report, or just hit the database of problem contracts.
posted by monju_bosatsu (37 comments total)

via Law Librarian Blog.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:17 AM on July 12, 2006

It's not graft: From Nixon to Bush/Cheney, Republicans are simply Neo-Keynesians.
posted by Mr. Six at 6:25 AM on July 12, 2006

Do they do anything right? Or, even appropriately? Or even slightly good?

Let's hope Mcain is going to be an improvement. Yikes, he almost he has to be.
posted by skepticallypleased at 6:43 AM on July 12, 2006

The GOP strives to do everything possible to actually make government a problem.

Graft
Of
Politicians
posted by nofundy at 6:45 AM on July 12, 2006

Let's hope Mcain is going to be an improvement. Yikes, he almost he has to be.¹

After fits of laughter lasting several hysterical minutes, I've peeled myself off the floor to say this to you...

*falls through the floor laughing*

After climbing two flights of stairs, tending to my comedy induced injuries, and sampling some of the finest oxygen my town has to offer, I have this to say to you...

Wait, I just had a strange, not funny thought. You're serious, aren't you?
posted by sequential at 6:53 AM on July 12, 2006

I used to believe that Republican policy, as a whole, was designed to point out the excessive flaws with abundant government -- or when not readily apparent, to push and push the government till it reeked of excessive flaws. Step two was always then, 'See? See how wretched? Let's be done with this! Let's remove this!'

I used to believe that. However, Step 2 hasn't shown up yet. o.O.
posted by cavalier at 6:54 AM on July 12, 2006

"...and still they don't vote!"
posted by cavalier at 6:55 AM on July 12, 2006

Well, lest we think our government is in good hands or our corporations, let's all sit back and watch a video of CEO's and senior U.S. government officials in a friendly sporting match!
posted by mk1gti at 6:56 AM on July 12, 2006

Mr Six Yeah they are in the way I may be Neo-Papacito : I follow what justifies my means, disregard consequences. It's rather easy to be neo-whatever if you take only the part of the model you like and disregard the other because you won't handle it and somebody else is going to do the hard part or handle the undesiderable consequences.

Similarly I could run bazillion deficit spending and run the economy into financial addiction as father-state always pays, so why bother find new/more efficient/less expensive ways to do things, why bother find new method to reduce people dependece and need when I can just reshape their expectations and pocket the difference ? Sometime we are so deeply in fixation that money/resources NEED to pass through private hands we forget the obvious : private can reach peaks of ineffectiveness and destruction of value even faster and more efficiently than any government could, so why bother financing them ? Maybe because Mr X in government wants a cut of the pie.
posted by elpapacito at 6:56 AM on July 12, 2006

My biggest concern isn't that government contracts increased, in many cases I think that is a good thing, it is that the lion's share of the contracts have gone to the same couple companies.
posted by Falconetti at 7:11 AM on July 12, 2006

sequential: what's funny about it? We all know - and in fact have known since Kerry lost the election - that Hilary is going to clinch the nomination and then lose the election in '08. This seems so certain right now that it may as well be considered history.

McCain seems to get odd attacks of conscience from time to time, so he could hardly be worse.
posted by Ryvar at 7:41 AM on July 12, 2006

(worse than Bush, I meant)
posted by Ryvar at 7:42 AM on July 12, 2006

Falconetti writes "My biggest concern isn't that government contracts increased, in many cases I think that is a good thing, it is that the lion's share of the contracts have gone to the same couple companies."

I've always found it funny that people almost never see how the former (lots of government contracts) leads to the latter (most of these contracts going to companies that are directly connected to government officials).
posted by clevershark at 7:44 AM on July 12, 2006

Ryvar writes "sequential: what's funny about it? We all know - and in fact have known since Kerry lost the election - that Hilary is going to clinch the nomination and then lose the election in '08. This seems so certain right now that it may as well be considered history."

Do you work for Fox News? because that's the only place where the scenario you describe is seen as certain.
posted by clevershark at 7:46 AM on July 12, 2006

The state of 'murican politics.

'The candidate sucks, but they could suck worse. . . Oh, and the other candidate that could possibly suck less? Why of course they have no chance because the electoral system is now, almost everyone concedes, is rigged. It is all a dog and pony show now, the candidate that everyone thinks sucks the most will win anyway.

Shrug your shoulders, walk away. Oh, and don't forget to pay your taxes so you, as consumer (citizen) can be defrauded all the more by those you hate most and trust least.
posted by mk1gti at 7:47 AM on July 12, 2006

I love how Republicans consider a company getting a lavish, no-bid, Federal teat contract is evidence of the free market in action.

Billions of dollars are now being spent to ensure that New Orleans will never be rebuilt. End of story.
posted by bardic at 7:48 AM on July 12, 2006

I can't believe they would call it a "Shadow Government"! That's just what the Demos need, they can call Kerry the Shadow President, and he can give an alternative state of the union address...
posted by parmanparman at 8:13 AM on July 12, 2006

Do you work for Fox News? because that's the only place where the scenario you describe is seen as certain.
posted by clevershark at 10:46 AM EST on July 12 [+fave] [!]

Actually I'm a straight-ticket Democrat voter who was raised by Fox News fans. As a Democrat, I can see the writing on the wall for Hilary's nomination, and as someone surrounded by the fundamentalist religious right every time I visit my family, I know that every single Jim, Bob, and Bubba will come out of the woodwork to vote against her. Kos hatred for Bush pales in comparison to the right's feelings about Hilary.
posted by Ryvar at 8:17 AM on July 12, 2006

I don't know about McCain, but I do know this: if Hillary Clinton gets the Dem's nomination, the Dem's will lose the election, and probably seats in both the House and Senate. ryvar's right; Hillary will bring the straight-ticket Republicans out in force. And what's more, I think moderates are unlikely to support Hillary in any significant way.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:27 AM on July 12, 2006

Army to End Exclusive Halliburton Deal

"The Army is discontinuing a controversial multibillion-dollar deal with oil services giant Halliburton Co. to provide logistical support to U.S. troops worldwide, a decision that could cut deeply into the firm's dominance of government contracting in Iraq.

....The decision on Halliburton comes as the U.S. contribution to Iraq's reconstruction begins to wane, reducing opportunities for U.S. companies after nearly four years of massive payouts to the private sector.

Of the more than $18 billion Congress allocated for reconstruction in late 2003, more than two-thirds has been spent and more than 90 percent has been contractually obligated, according to the inspector general's office overseeing reconstruction work. The rest of the money, which is collectively known as the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, needs to be obligated by the end of September."

[Washington Post | July 12, 2006]

posted by ericb at 8:31 AM on July 12, 2006

As a Democrat, I can see the writing on the wall for Hilary's nomination.¹

That's rich. Where do you get your material? Do you have an RSS feed I can subscribe to?

and as someone surrounded by the fundamentalist religious right every time I visit my family, I know that every single Jim, Bob, and Bubba will come out of the woodwork to vote against her.

Add my name; the names of many CT Democrats; and, dare I say, the names of many Democrats nationwide who have been paying attention, to the list of stereotyped names that will always vote for a Democrat-in-action before they vote for another Lieberman-style, power hungry Republican-lite who's only a Democrat when they are running for office.

Kos hatred for Bush pales in comparison to the right's feelings about Hilary.

Look, according to Fox News I am so liberal that the French terrorist that tried to disrupt the World Cup in the 110th minute of the finale looks positively Christian (tm) by comparison. Senator Clinton has about as much chance at winning the nomination as Bill Frist has at winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his medical practice of diagnosing the severely ill by watching a pre-recorded video.

You're a funny guy, Ryvar, but get your panties out of that bunch and stop living the future as if every moment of your life was like the moment you could see Ralph's heart break when Lisa revealed her true feelings to him or the moment you found out the 2004 exit poll results did not reflect who won the presidency. If you don't want Hillary to be the next Democrat to lose to an impossibly bad Republican candidate, quit your preparation for future disappointment, draw a line in the proverbial sand, and get a stake in our fucking democracy. And I don't mean just go out and vote.
posted by sequential at 9:10 AM on July 12, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

+1 sequential
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:30 AM on July 12, 2006

"I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years." - Dick Cheney, 2003

Federal spending on Halliburton contracts increased over 600% between 2000 and 2005.

MetaFilter: Hilary is going to clinch the nomination and then lose the election in '08.
posted by prostyle at 10:18 AM on July 12, 2006

That's rich. Where do you get your material? Do you have an RSS feed I can subscribe to?

sequential, click here and quit being a jackass. Hilary consistently has 250% more support for the Democratic nomination than the next candidate (Al Gore), who isn't even running.

How is that not writing on the wall?

Add my name; the names of many CT Democrats; and, dare I say, the names of many Democrats nationwide who have been paying attention, to the list of stereotyped names that will always vote for a Democrat-in-action before they vote for another Lieberman-style, power hungry Republican-lite who's only a Democrat when they are running for office.

I dislike her as well because of her pro-censorship stance. But guess what? You and I aren't delegates. The party doesn't let people like us select the nominee, and the Clintons are in tight with those who do - primarily because they were the last major success the party has had. Amongst the party die-hards and old guard

Look, according to Fox News I am so liberal that the French terrorist that tried to disrupt the World Cup in the 110th minute of the finale looks positively Christian (tm) by comparison. Senator Clinton has about as much chance at winning the nomination as Bill Frist has at winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his medical practice of diagnosing the severely ill by watching a pre-recorded video.

Great. FoxNews and its viewers - with the exception of the NRA - think I ought to be in Gitmo as well. This doesn't change the numbers above, nor does it change the facts that the same processes that gave us Kerry in '04 will give us Hilary in '08.

You're a funny guy, Ryvar, but get your panties out of that bunch and stop living the future as if every moment of your life was like the moment you could see Ralph's heart break when Lisa revealed her true feelings to him or the moment you found out the 2004 exit poll results did not reflect who won the presidency. If you don't want Hillary to be the next Democrat to lose to an impossibly bad Republican candidate, quit your preparation for future disappointment, draw a line in the proverbial sand, and get a stake in our fucking democracy. And I don't mean just go out and vote.

Yeah, good idea, ♥♥♥sequential♥♥♥. Tell the guy with social anxiety problems so severe that he can't hold down a normal job to become a worker for a political party. What a swell idea.

Here's a suggestion: how about you shut the fuck up, check your facts, put some thought into your words, stop making assinine assumptions about me or the degree to which your personal anecdotes reflect the party leadership, and THEN write your comments? I think if you did we'd all find it easier to cope.
posted by Ryvar at 10:19 AM on July 12, 2006

OOoooo...
posted by interrobang at 10:20 AM on July 12, 2006

Amongst the party die-hards and old guard

. . . she's viewed as the future salvation of the party.
posted by Ryvar at 10:21 AM on July 12, 2006

Err, Ryvar, other than the general thrust of the message, which was to, uh, let's see, don't count your chickens before they're defeated by Republicans, I was having a little snarky fun. On the other hand, don't think you're going to get away with this kind of crap:

This seems so certain right now that it may as well be considered history.¹

Statements like that are just so plain lazy and wrong that it's not worth the time you've already put into digging up a poll to support your position, never mind the time you're going to spend melting down in the ensuing MeTa thread you'll start.

There I go again, having a little fun. Chill out, Ryvar, we're batting for the same team: neither one of us want Senator Clinton to get the nomination. The difference between us is that you're claiming the future has happened two years before hand and I'm telling you I'll be actively participating in preventing this from happening.

how about you shut the fuck up, check your facts²

Explain to me, swami, how exactly does one fact check opinion? Better yet, how does one fact check the future?
posted by sequential at 10:45 AM on July 12, 2006

Hmm, you guys sure hate government spending when the money isn't flowing your way.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 11:04 AM on July 12, 2006

Err, Ryvar, other than the general thrust of the message, which was to, uh, let's see, don't count your chickens before they're defeated by Republicans, I was having a little snarky fun.

Translation: you were so certain Hillary wasn't a contender that you didn't bother to check the numbers, and now you're trying to write off your earlier condescending certainty as snark. Here's your gold medal in backpedaling.

On the other hand, don't think you're going to get away with this kind of crap:

Why not? Hillary's numbers within the Democratic Party make it extremely difficult bordering on impossible for her to lose the nomination. Combine that with poor numbers in general polling, the deep ancestral hatred of the right for any name ending in "Clinton," her status as a senator of New York (as opposed to, say, Arkansas), and Rove's upcoming Hispanic voting bloc. Surprise! You've the closest thing to a fait accompli as can be found in American politics.

Statements like that are just so plain lazy and wrong that it's not worth the time you've already put into digging up a poll to support your position, never mind the time you're going to spend melting down in the ensuing MeTa thread you'll start.

Digging up a poll? I didn't have to dig up the many, many polls I linked - I've been tracking the numbers for the potential nominees for the past nine months.

As far as being dragged into MetaTalk goes: Save me! I beg of you! I can think of no worse fate than to be dragged into the hideous grey! If I roll my eyes any harder I might blind myself!

There I go again, having a little fun. Chill out, Ryvar, we're batting for the same team: neither one of us want Senator Clinton to get the nomination. The difference between us is that you're claiming the future has happened two years before hand and I'm telling you I'll be actively participating in preventing this from happening.

In all sincerity - that's wonderful to hear. But it doesn't change the fact that party leaders, massive business interests, and the sort of delusionals who inhabit DK are all backing a guaranteed loss for a variety of different reasons. I don't know if you've noticed , but consistently betting against the forces of sanity prevailing in American politics is the easiest way to make a buck these days.

Neither you, nor I, nor all of Metafilter, are capable of reversing that trend. Well, probably not - I don't want to make assumptions about you, after all - you could be Hillary Clinton posting on Metafilter under a pseudonym for all I know. If you are: please, please throw your weight behind a Warner/Richardson ticket - it just might save us.

Explain to me, swami, how exactly does one fact check opinion? Better yet, how does one fact check the future?

Ask a meteorologist or a statistician to explain it to you.
posted by Ryvar at 11:13 AM on July 12, 2006

This thread is a microcosm of why Democrats lose.

Quick bickering. Now.

The budget deficient is approaching $400 billion That adds to the already staggering $8 trillion debt. This in an economy that is starting to slow and possibly entering a recession. This is before oil goes to $100 a barrel. This is before in the long run China revalues its currency, or floats it, making all those shitty Walmart goods more expensive, which means less walmart revenue, fewer walmart employees, and less tax revenue.

And I've got some more news for you. All those rich people a lot of you want to raise taxes on? They don't have to live here anymore. I hear London is nice. If things get really really bad, they are gone. They aren't staying here for the culture and exceptional schools.

So quit the incessant, inane bitching over tactics - run X person because Y group will vote etc...

The voters are idiots. The voters made NASCAR, Oprah, and Martha Stewart popular. 2008's college voters are working on their myspace pages now, obsessed over who is "friending" them. The older voters didn't read newspapers in 2004 but they listened by the tens of millions to Howard Stern undress strippers every morning.

Jesus H. Christ, stop reading Kos. Kos is a moron concerned only with securing his place as among the power brokers and punditocracy.

Stop pandering to idiots. Stop reading the market research that says they want bigger tailfins and start selling them cars that work.

Stop pandering. Start leading. Come up with solutions, not marketable solutions, not ones that will get you elected, but ones that will solve the problems once and for all. Come up with the solution, and then find a way to sell it. Don't come up with the tactics first and then pick something to sell with those tactics.

Solve the problems.

I'll start - here's something to chew on/up:

1. Maximum 50 hour work week including 1 hour lunch for blue and white collar labor. No one is excluded, except in emergencies, outlying cases etc. Cube drones capped at 50 hours max and their boss can't keep them there longer.

1(a). If there's more work to be done than the man hours available, hire more people. It will not cost more in benefits to do so (See 2)

1(b). This keeps more people working some, and thus helps people stay trained rather than unemployed for months with crappy skills.

2. Health insurance through employers is banned. Health insurance should be available on the consumer market, and the govt/industry regulators will define what can and cannot be considered when giving insurance. Insurance coverage cannot be tied to having a job.

3. Corporations that knowingly hire even a single illegal immigrant even through a subcontract are liable for 75% of the absolute value of their annual profit. They will also be barred from any GSA and or other govt. contract for 10 years.

4. Immigration - wide open, no quotas, no one with any illnesses worse than a cold. The only restriction is on disease. Immigrants cannot become citizens for 7 years. Only citizens can get welfare and social security.

5. Pick a date - 10/10/2010. Anyone in this country illegally before then is given amnesty, but must show up within X days to get a green card. Stop with the "you're rewarding criminals" BS. Ever download an mp3? That's a federal crime punishable by 5 years and $250,000. Crime is crime, so stfu.

6. 1% sales tax on all transactions.

7. 25% flat income tax. If you are single and make under $30,000 you pay no tax. No deductions, for charities, kids ,etc. No more Lance Armstrong foundation tax dodges.

8. Churches/religious groups will pay taxes. Yes, the Catholic Church will finally, after 2000 years have to pay somebody else for a change. But relax, so will the Church of Scientology.

Fire away.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:21 AM on July 12, 2006

monju_bosatsu writes "Hillary will bring the straight-ticket Republicans out in force."

That's why only Fox News keeps blathering on about her being the sure-thing next Dem nominee. They're used to the tried-and-true formula that if you repeat some outlandish thing often enough it'll somehow become real, or as good as real anyway.
posted by clevershark at 11:27 AM on July 12, 2006

Ask a meteorologist or a statistician to explain it to you.

Well, according to statisticians, exit polls have much more predictive power [1] [2], but there you go [3].

[1] http://www.hillnews.com/morris/110404.aspx

[2] http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:29 AM on July 12, 2006

Ryvar writes "Hilary consistently has 250% more support for the Democratic nomination than the next candidate (Al Gore), who isn't even running."

At a time when no candidate has officially announced a run one unofficial candidate is polling better than some other unofficial candidates. Hillary's doing real well -- she's got over 700% as much support as "unsure"! That "none" guy is getting the pants beat off him too. He's doing even worse than "Someone else"!
posted by clevershark at 11:36 AM on July 12, 2006

I agree with Ryvar's assessment. I dunno, I could be wrong, just gleaning from what I see on t.v.

As far as McCain goes - there is some post topic related history there. I respect McCain's position on many topics, but he's been to the money trough: The Keating Five. I keep expecting the Dems to bring this up. They don't, generally. I know why BushCo didn't ('cause of Neil Bush, connections to the S&L, et.al) and a lot of noise made over his adoption, etc. It's not like folks in the government don't know about this stuff, Bob Gates called BCCI 'bank of crooks and criminals.'
But if you're going to say 'shadow government' you gotta bring up Iran-Contra, Casolaro, et.al. The system to loot the public trust has been in place for a long time, Halliburton is only what we can SEE. (and I wonder what will happen if it looks like a Dem is going to win).
posted by Smedleyman at 12:30 PM on July 12, 2006

Go Russ!

Which is to say, part of me feels that the only thing we (as Democrats) have to fear is Hillary herself, i.e., anecdotally I honestly don't know any commited Dems who like her, and yet FOX News loves to tout her as unbeatable for the nomination. The reason being, they obviously want her to run, since she's a woman, and she's a Clinton, and many white males have a problem with that. There are plenty of great options for the Dems in 2008 beyond her, and that's just so damn obvious to anyone who pays attention to politics.

But it's hard not to be gloomy considering how the James Carvilles and Bob Shrums have already lined up their talking points and their donations for Hillary all the way. Say what you will about Markos Moulitsas (I disagree with him on a number of issues, and he seems to be quite a dickhead at times), but at least he's trying to fight the good fight and get the Democratic Party to be accountable to actual Democratic voters for once.

So, Go Edwards, Richardson, Obama, and others as well--a Hillary nomination would not only be a tactical disaster, it would probably break an already floundering Democratic party in two (or three or four). I'd vote for her out of opposition to all the damage the Republicans have done to my country since 2001, but it'd be like that little sip of sake the samurai used to take before disembowelling themselves.
posted by bardic at 2:18 PM on July 12, 2006

I like Russ myself, except I never get replies when I email. Seems he doesn't approve of Wisconsin voters living overseas. But I won't hold that against him. My worry is whether he's actually electable.

Hillary? Only thing I like her is the poetic justice of seeing her and Bill walking back into the Whitehouse. I like having the First Gentleman being a former POTUS. But those aren't good reasons to select a nominee. Her politics suck. She's nothing but another Senator who has failed the people miserably.

As for Republican tactics: after bankrupting the government, they get out of office. The Dems are forced to "tax and spend" to recover from their massive screw ups. Then the Republicans can wait for economic recovery, then start the old mantra of "tax and spend Democrats!". They get elected, and rape the country all over again.

Only way to nip that in the bud is to get in some rabid lefties that will not only make repairs, but will make the extra effort to bring the damn robbers to trial and conviction, on the strongest charges possible. Up to and including treason. And I'm not joking about that last.
posted by Goofyy at 5:50 AM on July 13, 2006

Today's GOP, doing their damnest to make government the problem while enriching the wealthy and the corporations owned by the wealthy with our tax dollars.

Let's face it, Republicans can't govern and you can't trust them with your money.
posted by nofundy at 9:44 AM on July 13, 2006