  |
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||
war pigs gorge on military pork by Preston Peet (ptpeet@cs.com) - October 03, 2001 |
||||
Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses, Trying to describe this topic to someone over a New Year's dinner, I used the common term "military pork" to give an overall impression of over-billing practices by Defense Industry contractors, who are awarded military contracts by Congress worth huge sums of money, that end up costing taxpayers billions, while making themselves rich. This guy launched into an "explanation" of what he said the real causes of "military pork" were. "See, when folks raised a stink about overpriced coffee-makers ($7,600), hammers ($435), and toilet seats ($640), back in the 80s, they were forgetting the military would only have, say, 60 of those specific toilets, like on certain airplanes, and would therefore have to get the seats specially crafted to fit the military measurements." This is fatuous argument, and a lame excuse for the ongoing rampant US Military-Industrial Complex waste and profiteering by Defense contractors, military types, and the politicians who award the contracts. I thought perhaps he was kidding, but no, he said this with a straight face. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO), formerly known as the Project on Military Procurement when it was instrumental with other watchdog groups in publicizing these exorbitant prices in the 1980s, released a report titled Defense Waste and Fraud Disguised as Reinventing Government (1999), detailing the effects of Gore's Reinventing Government campaign, and how it meshed perfectly with Defense Industry interests. After the public outcry in the 1980s over these practices, numerous reforms were set in place, but by the early 90s, the Defense industry was alleging the new reforms were too restrictive. POGO reports that from 1993 to 1997, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, shown to save $10 for every $1 invested, received a 19 percent personnel cut. The Administration actively pushed for Defense mergers, at a time when competitive bidding was already limited between very few Defense contractors. "Restore the definition of 'competitive bidding' to mean at least 2 bidders," says POGO. In 1994, the Congress bypassed new regulations, by creating "a greatly expanded definition of 'commercial product', thereby removing a large selection of products, contracted for the military from private industry, from normal oversight procedures. POGO also reported on a Defense Inspector General (IG) report (January 1999), which found that AlliedSignal Corporation had over-billed the government for spare parts like nuts, gearshafts, wheels, seals, filters, bearings, and valves, up to 618 percent market value. On the overall contract, the government overpaid 54.4 percent. In 1998, the IG reported that both Boeing and Sundstrand corporations had over-billed the military, on some spare parts up to a thousand percent. Sundstrand charged $6.1 million for $1.6 million worth of parts, and Boeing charged $5 million for $3.4 million in parts. "One contractor charged $76 for a $.57 cent screw, and another charged $714 for a $46.68 electric bell." Now the GAO has gotten into the act, releasing the report, Price Trends for Defense Logistics Agency's Weapon System (November 2000), which found that between 1997, and 1998, prices of 2,993 different spare parts purchased by the military increased over one thousand percent, and 14 percent of the total spare parts ordered from defense contractors increased at least 50 percent in price in that one year. Contractors have been underbidding the prices, then jacking up the prices upon time for billing. Parts like a bolt, initially quoted at $40, ended up being $1,887, or a self-locking nut, quoted at $2.69, ended up costing $2, 185. These are not nearly the worst examples of cost increases . . . A linear microcircuit, original 1997 price $0.11 cents, cost $5,788.76, thermal insulation that really cost $1, ended up costing $3,390, or the boss nipple, costing $1, cost the US military $1,498.48. This takes place both under Democrat and Republican administrations. Some in Congress push each year at Appropriations time for more military building projects in their districts that are unneeded and unwanted by the Pentagon. The Pentagon uses horrid managerial processes to keep track of the wasteful spending and the over-billing practices by its contractors, actively choosing not to ask them for strict accounting. Nor has it the manpower or the will to undertake the task in a thorough manner. Is this yet another method for laundering money? Are these Defense contractors and government entities up to more than simple profiteering? This seems like a classic case of, "Charge us $300 for a $100 part, pocket $50, and we'll use the other $150 in some Secret, off-the-books Intelligence Operation," or perhaps there's some other scheme involved. Bush is talking about increasing military spending even more once in office. Meanwhile the troops, US servicemen and women and their families, receive food stamps to survive, because the US Government can't pay them a living wage. They are used as guinea pigs, placed into harms way for corporate interests, and asked to give up their lives if need be to protect this system. The troops and taxpayers wind up shouldering the real costs of wasteful military contracting and corrupt Congressional appropriations practices. The War Pigs simply continue to bloat, gorging themselves on military pork. |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
|
Defense Waste and Fraud Disguised as Reinventing Government Military Pork F-22 Raptor Corporate Welfare: Military Waste and Fraud Military Spending Working Group: Top 10 Dirty Dozen 1997 Military Spouse Headquarters: Pork Recipe Price Trends for Logistics Agency's Weapon System Parts US Defense Industry Lobby Relaunches Military Buildup POGO's Military-Industrial Complex Initiative Military-Industrial Complex Revisited: Mega-Military Companies: Corporate Interests of National Interests Military Industrial Complex Revisited: How Weapons Makers are Shaping US and Foreign Policy Cato Handbook for Congress: Pentagon Pork USA Today's Debate: Military Readiness Quotes Opposing Military Pork Is McCain Big Enough to Scale Down the Pork Mountain? GOP Wants More Money for Military Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm Maintaining an Effective Military in a Budget Straightjacket ilitary/Budget Priorities Congress Gives New Meaning to "Emergency" Spending Post Cold War US Military Expenditure in the Context of World Spending Trends Campaign Exposing Billions in Congressional Military Pork to be Unveiled at News Conference The Online Pork-Rind Resource |
||||
|
||||
|
