Ask Me Help Desk - The real great deceit

The government (Rep & Dem) pays $650. Per toilet seat, $700. For a hammer

Do you remember Al Gore, when he was going to "re-invent government?" He showed Jay Leno a certified government ashtray--- $700 bucks a pop... but of course it had to live up to the federal regulations that they spent millions of dollars researching and publishing.

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- A small South Carolina parts supplier collected about $20.5 million over six years from the Pentagon for fraudulent shipping costs, including $998,798 for sending two 19-cent washers to an Army base in Texas, U.S. officials said.

The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Pentagon records show.

We send millions to the smallest poorest country in Africa and the ruler spends it on his mansion and leaves his people starving.
We send millions to a country club in Ireland...

... and the list goes on...

Citizens Against Government Waste:

Hey - a couple million here and a couple million there and pretty soon we're talking real money. I don't know who that's from. :eek:

Grace and Peace

Hey throw a couple million here and a couple million there to me and I won't care who that's from!!

I do not know about the other expenditures but I do know something about those over price ashtrays . The problem is that very specific guidelines were established as acceptable ashtrays [known to GSA as "ash receivers, tobacco (desk type)," ] .

Here are the specifications according to the Goracles report entitled National Partnership for Reinventing Government'From Red Tape to Results Creating a Government that Works Better & Costs Less':

Quote:

In March 1993, the GSA outlined, in nine full pages of specifications and drawings, the precise dimensions, color, polish and markings required for simple glass ashtrays that would pass U.S. government standards. A Type I, glass, square, 41/2 inch (114.3 mm) ash receiver must include several features: "A minimum of four cigarette rests, spaced equidistant around the periphery and aimed at the center of the receiver, molded into the top. The cigarette rests shall be sloped toward the center of the ash receiver. The rests shall be parallel to the outside top edge of the receiver or in each corner, at the manufacturer's option. All surfaces shall be smooth." Government ashtrays must be sturdy too. To guard against the purchase of defective ash receivers, the GSA required that all ashtrays be tested. "The test shall be made by placing the specimen on its base upon a solid support (a 1 3/4 inch, 44.5mm maple plank), placing a steel center punch (point ground to a 60-degree included angle) in contact with the center of the inside surface of the bottom and striking with a hammer in successive blows of increasing severity until breakage occurs." Then, according to paragraph 4.5.2. "The specimen should break into a small number of irregular shaped pieces not greater in number than 35, and it must not dice." What does "dice" mean? The paragraph goes on to explain: "Any piece 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) or more on any three of its adjacent edges (excluding the thickness dimension) shall be included in the number counted. Smaller fragments shall not be counted."

Regulation AA-A-710E

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1993/npr93a/npr93a.txt

NPR Reports

Obviously not something you can pick up at Walmart .

This was in 1993 . The report offered 384 major recommendations to streamline the procurement process . President Clintoon committed his support to implement all of them.In December 1993, the General Accounting Office announced that it disagreed with only one of the 384 recommendations.The Hammer Award was created by Gore to recognize government efficiency as a part of the program.

This was the first gvt. Report to be published on the net. It became a NY Slimes best seller. But I have no data showing which of the recommendations were implemented . From appearances not much was done.

Part of the problem is the method that the government uses to determine the budget. There's a "use it or lose it" rule in effect, wheich basically says that if a government agency does not use its full budget, that budget will be decreased in the following year. Since every agency wants to INCREASE their budget rather than decrease it, they all must use very penny granted them and then explain why they need more in the following year. So the government spends $700 on a $2 hammer and $700 on a $0.50 ashtray because they need to show that every penny they get is being spent.

The only way to change the amount that the government spends on thse incidentals would be to change the entire budgeting process... the way that agencies ask for money. One way to do that is to privatize as much of government as possible... then the private companies will have to do as much as possible on as SMALL a budget as possible rather than creating excuses for larger budgets, just like every private company. But certain things cannot be privatized. So the solution I am proposing is of limited utility.

I'm not quite sure what the solution is. The problem is huge, but to a certain degree, some waste is to be expected in the largest bureaucracy in the world. You can't get rid of all of it. The question is how much is tolerable, and what do you do about the waste that is not tolerable. I do not have a solution for this problem, but I agree that the problem exists.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Part of the problem is the method that the government uses to determine the budget. There's a "use it or lose it" rule in effect, wheich basically says that if a government agency does not use its full budget, that budget will be decreased in the following year. Since every agency wants to INCREASE their budget rather than decrease it, they all must use very penny granted them and then explain why they need more in the following year. So the government spends $700 on a $2 hammer and $700 on a $0.50 ashtray because they need to show that every penny they get is being spent.

Yep. Every year in July or August we get calls from state and federal agencies looking to spend any money they have left over from the budget.

Quote:

The only way to change the amount that the government spends on thse incidentals would be to change the entire budgeting process... the way that agencies ask for money. One way to do that is to privatize as much of government as possible... then the private companies will have to do as much as possible on as SMALL a budget as possible rather than creating excuses for larger budgets, just like every private company. But certain things cannot be privatized. So the solution I am proposing is of limited utility.

Add to this and the specification issues all the regulations vendors have to comply with to do business with the federal government. It costs so much to do business with the feds that vendors have no choice but to pass those costs on in the bid process. A fire alarm system that might cost $20,000 for an office building might bring $35,000 for an Air Force Base due to red tape and specifications.

Just today I placed an order for 14, 2 1/2 lb fire extinguishers for our local nuclear weapons plant. Instead of buying a perfectly good, high quality extinguisher we have on the shelf they could pick up today - that I could sell for $26 - they ordered 14 specific extinguishers, same size, no better quality, for $29.70 ea and are paying to ship them almost 1500 miles by truck. I could sell them extinguishers for less than it would cost me to ship the others, but then they wouldn't be standardized throughout the plant. You know what's sadly funny though, under the plant's previous contractor I convinced them to switch to the extinguishers they just purchased from their previous standard. I haven't stocked that brand for several years because the other manufacturer offered us much better prices for the best extinguisher on the market. I'm just doing what's best for business and looking out for my employer, the feds could learn from that.

Quote:

I'm not quite sure what the solution is. The problem is huge, but to a certain degree, some waste is to be expected in the largest bureaucracy in the world. You can't get rid of all of it. The question is how much is tolerable, and what do you do about the waste that is not tolerable. I do not have a solution for this problem, but I agree that the problem exists.

As far as waste goes we need to run the government like a business. Do away with silly, unnecessary regulations and specifications, preferential treatment and get back to a competitive environment with stricter oversight. We need to take away the thousands and thousands of credit cards that every little anybody has, and hold these supply management contractor's feet to the fire. They have to make money to stay in business, and when I can sell a part for list price to a contractor that then sells it to the Air Force you know they could be getting a better deal.

Steve

Steve,

I certainly understand your frustration in dealing with government regulation. Things that common sense could solve in five minutes for a couple of bucks take government regulations months to screw up for ten times the cost.

I agree that running the government like a business and eliminating waste is a great idea. I'm all for it. But even in the est businesses there is some degree of waste. I work for a bank... as capitalist a business as you can get. This bank spends twice as much for a ream of paper from their regular vendor as I spend on the same ream of paper at the local print shop. But the bank wants to monitor its expenses, so all POs go through a central location that uses a single vendor. Ergo, there is waste in the name of stadardization and expense monitoring. And the bigger the bureaucracy, the more the waste.

Now... if my bank were wasting so much money on paper that they were taking major losses each year, I can guarantee you that the stockholders would have something to say about that. That much waste is intolerable, and would not be tolerated. On the other hand, a certain level of waste is expected as part of the cost of running a large, multi-state business. A small amout of waste is tolerable.

The government clearly has stepped over the line into intolerable, and clearly something needs to be done. And I agree that using a business model to run the government would not be a bad idea... in fact it's a very good idea and I support it wholeheartedly.

But even if the government were to take on a business-like model of watching expenditures, that would not completely eliminate waste. And with a "company" as big as the US government, with all its various agencies, is bound to have a lot of waste, no matter how efficient you make it. That is the nature of any business.

So the question becomes, "What level of waste is tolerable?"

And frankly, I don't know the answer to that question.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

So the question becomes, "What level of waste is tolerable?"

And frankly, I don't know the answer to that question.

No doubt there will be a level of waste anywhere so you ask good question. I touched on the example of selling a part to supply management company which in turn sells it to the Air Force. I have no problem with privatizing certain government functions and in fact I think it's a good idea, but here's the kind of waste I'm talking about.

Because we are the local distributor with a protected territory, I can get away with selling a certain fire alarm part to a particular company that handles the procurement for Cannon AFB for list price. Our cost for that part is 35% of list. An item I sell every day to just about anyone else for $52.50 I can get $100 for it from these people - not that I do, but on smaller parts I could. I could actually make a 185% profit on that item which they in turn would sell to the Air Force - and they would still be a return customer. That is senseless waste, and too many businesses will get every penny they can from a government purchase because they know they can.

And then you have the idiots that want all their extinguishers to look alike so they'll pay twice the price instead of driving into town to pick a few up here. They're fire extinguishers for crying out loud, same size, same chemical, and you pull the pin and squeeze the handle just like every other extinguisher. But then, I don't understand why anyone would pay $200 for a pair of jeans from Dillards when I can buy a perfectly good pair of Wranglers for $15 at Wal-Mart, either.