Pentagon Lost Billions, Pennies At a Time 323
Hugh Pickens writes "MSNBC reports that in 1969, Walter T. Davey, an aeronautical engineer at North American Rockwell, discovered he was being overpaid by roughly 2 cents an hour, or one-third of 1 percent of his pay. Davey submitted the discovery to his superiors and suggested a simple fix. 'It was so simple to correct,' said Davey, a 79-year-old retired Air Force colonel, 'just change a few digits in the coding software.' The Project on Government Oversight, which reviewed Davey's findings last year, estimated the change could save taxpayers $270 million a year. Multiply by 40 years — the length of time since Davey made his discovery — and the figure grows to an astounding $10.8 billion. Legislators ignored Davey's letters, federal auditors deferred to Congress, and lobbyists 'descended on it and tore it into a piece of Swiss cheese' but legislators aren't eager to challenge the powerful defense lobby about a figure that's a relative pittance in the overall defense budget — even if it exceeds $100 million annually. 'A lot of people have taken advantage of the system to reap as much in taxpayer dollars as possible,' says Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight. 'But when you're going up against the contractor lobby — whether you're an individual across the country or a public interest group or a government employee — it's a tough road.'"
Socialism!!!!eleventy-one11! (Score:2, Insightful)
Explicitly allowing military contractors to overcharge the taxpayer to deliver broken systems on no-bid contracts is the heart of True Capitalism(tm) and A-OK.
Making it easier for employees to enter into unions so they can negotiate better pay/benefits within the constraints of market competition is Pure Socialism(tm) and Must Be Stopped at all costs lest the USA degenerate into a communist backwater like Sweden.
Makes perfect sense!
Ironic, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if this is how the Romans felt?
Military Contracts!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Money wasn't lost (Score:1, Insightful)
Money Circulates it doesn't get lost.
Say you get $10.00
You save $1.00 and Spend $9.00
That guy who got that $9.00 saves $1.00 and spend $8.00
That guy who got that $8.00 saves $1.00 and spend $7.00
That guy who got that $7.00 saves $1.00 and spend $6.00
That guy who got that $6.00 saves $1.00 and spend $5.00
That guy who got that $5.00 saves $1.00 and spend $4.00
That guy who got that $4.00 saves $1.00 and spend $3.00
That guy who got that $2.00 saves $1.00 and spend $1.00
That guy who got that $2.00 saves $1.00
So overall $10.00 was saved and $45.00 worth of goods and services were paid for and at some point the money that is saved will be spent too and repeating the cycle.
Those extra pennies have probably circulated so much that they went back into taxes and funded themselves.
Re:Money wasn't lost (Score:4, Insightful)
Without specifying your 'goods and services paid' your 45$ is worth exactly 1$ + Vapour.
Re:overpaid? (Score:1, Insightful)
That isn't exactly a similar path, but its a fairly accurate view of how unaffordable property in the UK has become and why we were well overdue a crash. The only problem is the crash won't be big enough to take things back to the 1960's level of affordability.
Re:People misunderstand the purpose of spending (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to popular belief, the main purpose of most government spending is simply to create new money. This allows subsequent credit expansion and "growth".
That theory starts to break down when the money your government is spending actually belongs to China...
Re:overpaid? (Score:5, Insightful)
6000 pounds back in 1966. Today, ... 200,000 pounds. ..$6/hour then would be like $20/hour now.
Nice, only off by an order of magnitude. Try $200. A pity salaries have not increased like house prices.
Re:Socialism!!!!eleventy-one11! (Score:2, Insightful)
Gotta blame the pols too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Besides that... (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you figure? If they sell a CD for $x and people agree to pay $x for it, then where's the problem? Who exactly are they ripping off?
Well it's not too hard to figure out. He agreed to work for $x an hour, but was getting $(x+0.02) instead. In other words, he was making more money than he was supposed to, "real work" or not.
It's pretty basic stuff, really.
Re:Show the small waste to mask the Trillions (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Too bad [Bush] had to inherit the problems created under the 8 years of [Clinton].
Fixed that for ya. Bush inherited not only a dot-com crash from Clinton, but also the headache of Saddam and Bin Laden. So as long as you're going to be giving Obama a "free pass" and blame today's problems on Bush, then we should give Bush a free pass and blame those problems on Clinton.
By the way I hate them all. I haven't liked any of our presidents since the Ronald Reagan/Bush Senior combo. Not that they were perfect, but they were far more capable than the bozos we've had since 1993. The next best president prior to them? Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrats.
Re:Show me a government agency (Score:3, Insightful)
Having worked in both for the government and for a private business I don't think the government does any worse at project management and accountability than any other company.
The Government just has to publically disclose all of its screw ups (eventually) and they become fodder for political campaigns, thus we are exposed to them over an over. Unlike private companies who tend to cover the tracks a bit more until it is totally too late (Enron and GM come to mind). But as far as sheer competence goes I don't think the government does any worse than any other company out there.
Of course that is only a limited data set, limited to my own experience (~10 years).
Re:Show the small waste to mask the Trillions (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps Clinton would have had more time in his second term to launch even more Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden if he wasn't busy being deposed about his blow jobs. I seem to recall him being criticized about launching attacks at the terrorist training camps as though it were a "wag-the-dog" distraction from the country's real priority: the president's philandering.
Re:Besides that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actors:
Arnold Schwarzenegger's salary for The Terminator: $75,000
Arnold Schwarzenegger's salary for The Terminator 2: $15,000,000
Arnold Schwarzenegger's salary for The Terminator 3: $30,000,000 + 20% of the profits (about 117 million).
Arnold Schwarzenegger's salary as governor: $206,500 - which he waived cause he already earned over 230 mil. (that is without these 117 T3-millions) over his 30 years in the movies.
Indicating that he himself felt that he was being overpaid already.
Same guy, same role, 400 times the original pay.
Sure, sequels made a lot more money but still - $147,000,000 for a year's work? That is almost $17000 per hour - including being paid for sleeping, eating etc.
Singers:
Britney Spears makes about $737,000 per month. [cnn.com] That comes out to about $1024 per hour. (Is that a kilobuck or megabuck?)
Again - getting paid for sleeping.
HOW is that not overpaid?
And let us not even start with football, baseball, soccer and other enthusiasts who are little more than overpaid manual labor.
Getting millions for kicking a ball around? Fuck that! That is not work.
That is why you never hear about a "job" or "work" or "assignment" of basketball.
What were the words they use? Aaah.. yes!
They PLAY a GAME.
The only group of professional actors/entertainers (IMHO) who are not being overpaid (and are actually underpaid) are porn actors and actresses.
Anyone who does not agree - you try "performing" in front of cameras for hours and then upload that online for all to see.
Re:Besides that... (Score:1, Insightful)
Ahh, I see. You think that your opinion should drive the compensation for various activities. I like the market making those decisions, because I don't need a jerk like you arbitrarily deciding these kinds of things for me. I'd rather it work the way it does, because then I have influence over it myself.
You'll have to pardon my lack of belief in the wisdom of central planning, which seems to be what you advocate under a veneer of populist bullshit rage about compensation.
Re:Show the small waste to mask the Trillions (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush inherited not only a dot-com crash from Clinton, but also the headache of Saddam and Bin Laden.....I haven't liked any of our presidents since the Ronald Reagan/Bush Senior combo.
For someone who likes Reagan and hates Clinton you don't seem to know much about them. It was Reagan who allied himself with Saddam Hussein and gave him money and weapons. From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
The Reagan administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion in aid in the 1980s to fight Iran, nearly all of it on credit. The U.S. also sent billions of dollars to Saddam to keep him from forming a strong alliance with the Soviets. Saddam's Iraq became "the third-largest recipient of US assistance".
Reagan's support for the Mujahadeen also played a role [wikipedia.org] in giving Bin Laden more power:
Alhough there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war.
So before you start blaming Clinton for everything, you might want to read up a bit on your history.
Re:Show the small waste to mask the Trillions (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we just all agree that we haven't had a good president in at least 60 years?
Re:Besides that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:overpaid? (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter. As long as you're paid by the federal government, you cannot be a net taxpayer.
Re:Besides that... (Score:2, Insightful)
That can't be it, because Obama had about the same amount-- and zero of it executive experience, to boot.
Re:overpaid? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't exactly get what your argument is? That government workers should somehow be exempt from the system? They're employees, just like everybody else, and deserve to be treated equally under the law.
For instance, in addition to his presidential salary, Barack Obama makes quite a bit of money off of his books, negating any potential tax credits that he might have otherwise received to pay for expenses relating to the care of his children.
Similarly, I need to repeat again and again that not all government employees have their salaries funded by income taxes. The postal service is mostly self-sufficient. Salaries at public universities are increasingly paid out of tuition and grants. Some agencies are funded via regulatory fees and fines (I'm pretty sure that the FCC is a net source of income for the government, although their income is primarily derived from broadcasting corporations rather than individuals).
If you want to argue about what constitutes a tax, you could also turn to tollbooth operators and DMV employees. Nobody is forcing you to drive on toll roads or possess a drivers' license. Even though public transport agencies are notoriously unprofitable, I'm sure you could dig up a few examples of bus drivers that collect enough fares to cover their own salaries.
Under these circumstances, I think that it's easily possible that there are government employees that are net taxpayers.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Show the small waste to mask the Trillions (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, if you look at the pure numbers, we killed about five times more people with our Iraq/Afghan bombings than all the 9/11 deaths put together. The best course to follow, in order to save lives, would have been to do nothing. Yes shore-up the border defenses so no more terrorists can sneak through, but that's it.
And you also have to put things into perspective. 3000 Americans died in terrorist attacks over the last decade. But during that same timespan 24 million people died in the U.S.; 1 million from car accidents alone. The amount of deaths inflicted by Bin Laden is only one-third percent as many killed (indirectly) by Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, et cetera. i.e. Exceedingly small. It would have made much more sense to have a "war on car safety" to save lives than kill foreigners.