Your tax dollars on holidays

[Gob]

The US government has wasted $30bn (£18bn) in contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last decade, according to a bi-partisan spending commission.

The commission on wartime contracting blamed an over-reliance on contractors, poor planning and fraud for the waste.

It had evidence of lax accountability and inadequate competition, it said.

Writing in the Washington Post, the report's authors warn that investments in the two countries could be wasted even after US involvement there ends.

Among the examples cited was a $40m prison for Iraq that the country did not want and was never completed.

US-funded projects in those two countries also risk going to waste because host governments are unable or unwilling to sustain them.

In one case, $300m was poured into a sophisticated power plant in Kabul which the Afghan government will not be able to run, and a programme worth $11.4bn of facilities for the Afghan national security forces is likely to be unsustainable.

The commission's report is due to be published on Wednesday but its authors, who include former government officials and lawmakers, have already published an opinion piece in the Washington Post, blaming both the government and contractors for the waste.

The article makes the obvious recommendation to be more rigorous when deciding whether a project should be contracted out but it also recommends cancelling or modifying projects that are not sustainable.

Beyond just a disservice to taxpayers, the report says that the waste fosters corruption in host countries and diminishes the standing and influence of the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14712172

[Scooter]

Of course those of us who questioned those contracts from the get-go were siding with the terrorists...

[Long Run]

Waste is never good, but on the other hand, it is a byproduct of government spending, whether it be on the local, state, national or international level. We often get adequate to good value for our tax dollars, but frequently enough there is a poor or wasteful use of our money. The poor use of money is almost always the result of political compromises on processes, inadequate planning or decision-making, or trying to serve too many interests, or built-in inefficiencies (due to the prior three items). Private businesses that engage in wasteful spending end up out of existence (unless a government bails them out), but governments are more or less permanent, so the taxpayers pay for the wasteful spending.

Given that the key to winning the long-term battle in Iraq and Afghanistan is getting the people on the pro-democracy side, spending on things like power plants, roads, buildings, and other infrastructure is a big part of that effort. Hopefully, the report will detail the many projects where we received adequate to good value for our funds, and the amount of misspent funds can be placed in the larger context of typical government expenditures.

[dgs49]

Having spent 3 years in the USArmy and 5 years in DoD procurement, I can say with some confidence that the Gub'mint spends money under the same basic philosophy as I empty my wallet: Whatever is there in the morning will be gone by the end of the day. It doesn't matter whether the expenditure is needed, wise, silly, duplicative, nonsensical, exorbitant, counterproductive, or indefensible, the MONEY WILL BE SPENT!

Go into a God-forsaken country like the ones where "we" are spending our time now, and the environment is simply too primitive to support the amount of money that "we" are determined to spend. (NOTE: When I see the word "invest" used in this context - as it in the article - I don't know whether to laugh or puke). Inevitably most of it will be wasted, and much of it will either end up in the hands of our adversaries or be spent to do things that ought not be done.

But even in the states, I saw huge expenditures for projects time and again, that simply made no sense and were only undertaken because the money was there. The worst thing for a procuring agency is to NOT spend allocated money, because the following FY's allocation will be reduced. In the early years of DOE, we funded many millions of dollars in studies that were simply put on a desk somewhere and forgotten.

Which is why we Republicans frequently give the impression that we think Government is fucked-up, and we ought to be placing LESS trust and responsibility in the public sector, rather than MORE.

"Do you really want these people running healthcare?"

[quaddriver]

oh goody, another 'the US sucks and this is why thread'.

actually, the number could be higher and was stated today that it IS higher, its $60B. Over 10 years. or $6B a year. Vs how much of a budget?

If the beaners can only come up with THAT SMALL of a percentage of waste one can conclude that the DOD spenders are far more thrifty than anyone reading this. And that is WITH the specter of political favors looming. DOD is spending for a service, in other words a return. contrast to the 100% waste that SSA is....(actually its more like a 200% waste with the looming debt)

And Dave dunno when you did procurement, but having done it for over 4 years now for my branch, I can tell you, your words are 180* opposite reality and presidential directive. IIRC "Kristina" is in procurement and she can back that up.

[Liberty1]

oh goody, another 'the US sucks and this is why thread'.

The article is about the US, but I think all of Long Run's comments (which I happen to fully agree with) are true of government in general, at least non-totalitarian governments.

[dgs49]

I worked in DoD procurement from 1975-80. I am (was) a CPCM.

I think I know what you are driving at - DoD has excellent policies that maximize the benefits of competition in many areas. But the real waste comes in big programs (major weapons systems, planes, etc), where huge contractors like General Dynamics have learned to game the system. Outside DoD it's the same thing. Thousands of private companies have learned how to play the game and exploit the system, and the aggregate of wasted taxpayer money is astounding. In every major government thrust, whether it is a war or a natural disaster or another politically-motivated campaign (like "Stimulus"), mountains of money are made available by Congress and the sharks take over. Many of them are ex-government or friends and relatives of government officials. Worst are the retirees who suck the system dry.

Just my opinion.

[Liberty1]

I've got to tell you guys, it's not the contractors gaming the system. It's all requirements driven. I propose a system to ULA for a commercial launch vehicle and I get a SDRL list of maybe 20 documents. I do a proposal for NASA for the same type of system, I get a list of over 100, mostly stupid data items. I mean, you've got to have a Configuration Control system in place, when you've been providing NASA with hardware for over 30 years and yet they still want a Configuration Control Plan every single time. From my experience the waste is driven from the top down from the actual requirements.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I've got to tell you guys, it's not the contractors gaming the system. It's all requirements driven. I propose a system to ULA for a commercial launch vehicle and I get a SDRL list of maybe 20 documents. I do a proposal for NASA for the same type of system, I get a list of over 100, mostly stupid data items. I mean, you've got to have a Configuration Control system in place, when you've been providing NASA with hardware for over 30 years and yet they still want a Configuration Control Plan every single time. From my experience the waste is driven from the top down from the actual requirements.

Yet another reminder on why I left the aerospace business. of course I have no job now, so who's laughing?

My last 3 months there consisted of writing FRACAS reports on shit I didn't design, but because I spoke back to my VP of engineering, he decided to make my life hell. I had no trouble with things I designed, but for other things I had no control/say in/debutg or testing on, he can kiss my ass.