Check my previous posts, My Murtha Mystery and Making Sausage, to find out how I wound up with 750 thousand dollars from Congress for an unneeded study. My task now was to fine tune the “intent” of Congress to spend it responsibly.
The reality was the true intent of Congress was for the money to get into the hands of the designated lobbyist. That meant I probably had a free hand to alter the subject of the study to something useful. As long as the American Trucking Association felt they still were in line for the funds, I figured they wouldn’t complain. I was right.
DLA had an operations research office next door to us. Their analysts were always coming up with ways to make the agency more efficient. I knew the director and stopped by with a proposition. I told him about the budget I had; he could have it as long as he could come up with a useful project that involved trucks. I’d manage getting everything on contract and then tie it with a bow and hand it over to him. In return, his office would have to manage the effort once on contract. It was a deal. He had some dispute with the Army about how to best contract for trucking (the Army was responsible for all ground freight contracts) but he didn’t quite have all the data he needed. The modified Congressional earmark would be perfect.
I still was on a mission to find competitors so I put an announcement in the commerce business daily (CBD) “Free to a good home, $750K…” Well something similar. I described what we were looking for along with the not-for-profit trucking research institute caveat. I figured ATA would go running back to their Congressman if I left that out.
In the meantime my contracting officer asked how I was going to certify whether a company met the non profit trucking research requirements. I asked her if she had a problem if we just relied on respondents to self-certify. She liked the idea. We would have the requirement in the solicitation, but we weren’t going to check if folks were compliant.
I did get a call in response to the CBD announcement. An excited fellow told me he just got his PhD from MIT and he had done his dissertation on the very subject we wanted to study; he now had his own consulting business and was interested. I wondered if he played the harpsichord as I told him about the non-profit-trucking requirement. He blew a gasket as he described what kind of an ass I was. When he was done, I told him he could call his congressman. I also gave him ATA’s phone number.
In the end we got two proposals. I don’t recall the competitor but ATA’s submission included two subcontractors – the fellow who told me about his dissertation and MIT. It was a pleasant surprise. Equally surprising was ATA pulled out all the stops. They had an impressive proposal and did not plan for a cake walk. We made the award to the lobbyist I initially despised. Ironically ATA’s competitor protested and I had to defend our decision. It was easy.
If you read all three of my posts, thanks for indulging me. I was fortunate to make use of a bad earmark and it is an accomplishment I’m proud of. The money would truly have been wasted otherwise.
With the advent of blogs, I hope some of the other frustrated public servants can point bloggers in the direction of earmarks of the type I described. A little sunshine might go a long way in curbing the problem.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Making Sausage
Part 2 (see Part 1 here)
While on active duty I was tasked to piddle away spend one million of your tax dollars on a study for the Defense Logistics Agency they neither needed nor wanted. But the agency didn’t oppose it. The outrage was the study had to go to a “not-for-profit trucking research institute engaged exclusively in motor-carrier R&D”. One couldn’t find a more blatant example of congressional pork if it came slathered in BBQ sauce (O.K there is that rain forest in Iowa and the bridge to nowhere).
It didn’t take long to figure out who the intended recipient was for this bit of congressional corruption (see which beltway lobbyist tops the list when you “Google” the words “not-for-profit trucking research institute”). Conversely it also didn’t take long for the American Trucking Association to find me. My friends at headquarters were tired of getting their pestering phone calls so they gave them my number.
“When are you going to get us the contract?” asked the ATA rep.
By this time I was so thoroughly peeved with DLA and corrupt congressmen that I wasn’t in the mood to be accommodating to a lobbying outfit who probably penned the earmark. I cooked up a scheme of my own.
“I’m going to compete the effort” I replied.
There was a moment of silence then “Who else is there?”
“I don’t know yet” was my reply. But I was ticked and I was determined to find some competition.
I started doing my own research to develop options. I actually looked up the law signed by the President; that’s when I learned the complete earmark wasn’t there. The law just listed the title of the project and a dollar sum but the restrictive language was missing. That language could be found in a House Conference report – sort of like a signing statement. Technically the actual law didn’t specify restrictions on how to spend the money. That was nice to know. Bismark said once “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Except in this case I found some missing ingredients.
I learned from the House Conference report that your one million in tax dollars was really earmarked for two studies. The breakdown was in the appropriation - $750K was allocated for my “feasibility study to nowhere”. The remaining $250K was to be used to study private sector ammunition transportation security. A few more phone calls and I found the stuckee for this second study in the US Transportation Command. He was an Army Lt Col and he was red-hot mad – apparently they didn’t need that study either and he saw the earmark for what it was – a rip-off. Like me, the Lt Col had also discovered the law didn’t include the strait-jacked earmark language. He went to his Judge Advocate to see about spending the money on something useful. The decision went up to his three star vice-commander who directed they stick to Congress’s intent. They weren’t going to make waves either.
The Army Lt Col’s experience was a caution to me. If I was going to deviate from the earmark’s language it would be best if I didn’t ask for permission.
My next post describes how I figured a way to do it.
While on active duty I was tasked to piddle away spend one million of your tax dollars on a study for the Defense Logistics Agency they neither needed nor wanted. But the agency didn’t oppose it. The outrage was the study had to go to a “not-for-profit trucking research institute engaged exclusively in motor-carrier R&D”. One couldn’t find a more blatant example of congressional pork if it came slathered in BBQ sauce (O.K there is that rain forest in Iowa and the bridge to nowhere).
It didn’t take long to figure out who the intended recipient was for this bit of congressional corruption (see which beltway lobbyist tops the list when you “Google” the words “not-for-profit trucking research institute”). Conversely it also didn’t take long for the American Trucking Association to find me. My friends at headquarters were tired of getting their pestering phone calls so they gave them my number.
“When are you going to get us the contract?” asked the ATA rep.
By this time I was so thoroughly peeved with DLA and corrupt congressmen that I wasn’t in the mood to be accommodating to a lobbying outfit who probably penned the earmark. I cooked up a scheme of my own.
“I’m going to compete the effort” I replied.
There was a moment of silence then “Who else is there?”
“I don’t know yet” was my reply. But I was ticked and I was determined to find some competition.
I started doing my own research to develop options. I actually looked up the law signed by the President; that’s when I learned the complete earmark wasn’t there. The law just listed the title of the project and a dollar sum but the restrictive language was missing. That language could be found in a House Conference report – sort of like a signing statement. Technically the actual law didn’t specify restrictions on how to spend the money. That was nice to know. Bismark said once “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Except in this case I found some missing ingredients.
I learned from the House Conference report that your one million in tax dollars was really earmarked for two studies. The breakdown was in the appropriation - $750K was allocated for my “feasibility study to nowhere”. The remaining $250K was to be used to study private sector ammunition transportation security. A few more phone calls and I found the stuckee for this second study in the US Transportation Command. He was an Army Lt Col and he was red-hot mad – apparently they didn’t need that study either and he saw the earmark for what it was – a rip-off. Like me, the Lt Col had also discovered the law didn’t include the strait-jacked earmark language. He went to his Judge Advocate to see about spending the money on something useful. The decision went up to his three star vice-commander who directed they stick to Congress’s intent. They weren’t going to make waves either.
The Army Lt Col’s experience was a caution to me. If I was going to deviate from the earmark’s language it would be best if I didn’t ask for permission.
My next post describes how I figured a way to do it.
My Murtha Mystery (part 1)
Congressman John Murtha’s mystery earmark sounds familiar. I got one ten years ago when I was assigned to the Defense Logistics Agency.
I was overseeing several R&D projects for improving distribution when my boss handed me a single sheet of paper with a short paragraph stating I had a million dollars for an additional “R&D” study. I was to investigate the feasibility of using third party logistics providers for DLA. The topic was strange for a reason I’ll get to, but the strangest part was I had to make sure the study was completed by a “not-for-profit trucking research institute engaged exclusively in motor-carrier R&D”. Apparently the one-legged, left-handed, harpsichordist was other-wise engaged.
“Does the person who sent this requirement know DLA already makes extensive use of third party logistics?” I asked my boss. It was a little late to ask if using third party logistics providers was feasible; clearly it was. His wasn’t to reason why, however. He did tell me the requirement came from Headquarters and gave me a name of a contact.
Several phone calls later I traced the requirement to DLA’s legislative liaison office. They told me the requirement came from the House Appropriations committee. They thought John Murtha was the one responsible for generating it. Anyway they didn’t know it was in the conference report (104-863) until a one-legged harpsichord playing lobbyist asked when DLA was going to spend that money.
“Well I would like to talk to the House staffers about the requirement” I said. I was informed they didn’t usually make themselves available to the little people. Or something to that effect. “Well it’s important because we will be wasting a million dollars asking a question we already have an answer for”. My new liaison friend told me he would see what he could do.
A week later I got a call from the Headquarters requirements office. The fellow told me they had a congressional inquiry about my new feasibility study. “Great!” I thought, “The little people have been heard!” It was a short lived thought because the staffer continued “We need to know why you are conducting this study”
“Uh, that’s my question” I said as I entered the logistics version of Abbot and Costello’s routine Who’s on first? “I have no idea why I’m supposed to do this study”.
Abbott asked “Then why are you doing it?”
I ended this see-saw by asking Abbott who gave him the congressional inquiry. He got it from my week-old buddy in the legislative liaison office. “They got an inquiry from a congressional constituent down in Richmond”
“Uh, I happen to be that constituent down in Richmond”
“Damn it!, you know how much work you’ve caused us!”
The headquarters folks eventually gave me the riot act about how “mine wasn’t to reason why” either. They weren’t going to make an issue of the waste. They weren’t going to make waves. I was to spend the money on the study.
Needless to say I was ticked with the spineless folks at DLA in 1997. So my respect goes to Anne Kolton, the DoE spokesman and those within DoE who put John Murtha on the spot:
DoE spokeswoman Anne Kolton said yesterday the earmark is not a program that meets the department’s “mission critical” threshold, noting it was “inconsistent” with the department’s 2008 budget.
More to come…
Part 2 , Part 3
I was overseeing several R&D projects for improving distribution when my boss handed me a single sheet of paper with a short paragraph stating I had a million dollars for an additional “R&D” study. I was to investigate the feasibility of using third party logistics providers for DLA. The topic was strange for a reason I’ll get to, but the strangest part was I had to make sure the study was completed by a “not-for-profit trucking research institute engaged exclusively in motor-carrier R&D”. Apparently the one-legged, left-handed, harpsichordist was other-wise engaged.
“Does the person who sent this requirement know DLA already makes extensive use of third party logistics?” I asked my boss. It was a little late to ask if using third party logistics providers was feasible; clearly it was. His wasn’t to reason why, however. He did tell me the requirement came from Headquarters and gave me a name of a contact.
Several phone calls later I traced the requirement to DLA’s legislative liaison office. They told me the requirement came from the House Appropriations committee. They thought John Murtha was the one responsible for generating it. Anyway they didn’t know it was in the conference report (104-863) until a one-legged harpsichord playing lobbyist asked when DLA was going to spend that money.
“Well I would like to talk to the House staffers about the requirement” I said. I was informed they didn’t usually make themselves available to the little people. Or something to that effect. “Well it’s important because we will be wasting a million dollars asking a question we already have an answer for”. My new liaison friend told me he would see what he could do.
A week later I got a call from the Headquarters requirements office. The fellow told me they had a congressional inquiry about my new feasibility study. “Great!” I thought, “The little people have been heard!” It was a short lived thought because the staffer continued “We need to know why you are conducting this study”
“Uh, that’s my question” I said as I entered the logistics version of Abbot and Costello’s routine Who’s on first? “I have no idea why I’m supposed to do this study”.
Abbott asked “Then why are you doing it?”
I ended this see-saw by asking Abbott who gave him the congressional inquiry. He got it from my week-old buddy in the legislative liaison office. “They got an inquiry from a congressional constituent down in Richmond”
“Uh, I happen to be that constituent down in Richmond”
“Damn it!, you know how much work you’ve caused us!”
The headquarters folks eventually gave me the riot act about how “mine wasn’t to reason why” either. They weren’t going to make an issue of the waste. They weren’t going to make waves. I was to spend the money on the study.
Needless to say I was ticked with the spineless folks at DLA in 1997. So my respect goes to Anne Kolton, the DoE spokesman and those within DoE who put John Murtha on the spot:
DoE spokeswoman Anne Kolton said yesterday the earmark is not a program that meets the department’s “mission critical” threshold, noting it was “inconsistent” with the department’s 2008 budget.
More to come…
Part 2 , Part 3
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Domenici’s Burka
Senator Pete Domenici acts like he is in one of those seats Harry Reid gloated about gaining by politicizing the war in Iraq. Panicking, Domenici has donned the burkha of a “New U.S. Military Strategy” for Iraq and is attempting to sneak out the back door. When I took a peak behind his burkha, however, it turns out his “new” military strategy looks a lot like the old. From Domenici’s press release:
Compare this with the goals of those troops, as articulated by Michael Yon, an independent writer currently embedded with the troops in Iraq:
I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.
Compare this with the goals of those troops, as articulated by Michael Yon, an independent writer currently embedded with the troops in Iraq:
Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.
The Senator’s strategy pretty much matches the current plan – except the part where Yon states “we want them [Iraqis] to succeed without us.” Yon’s use of the word “we” notes the sentiment of the American troops, putting their life on the line, not self-serving U.S. Senators trying to save their Senate hides.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
If someone asks if you are a God…
…you say "Yes!"
- Winston Zeddemore
From the DesNews:
Recently the Wall Street Journal noted the rise in books attacking religion. Christopher Hitchen has written a fast-selling book called “God is not Great”. I haven’t read it and probably won’t, but judging the book from its title I wonder if Hitchen’s complaint isn’t really with God but with those mortals who manage the affairs of the Gods. For instance, his book’s title seems a response to the Arabic phrase “Allahu Akbar” or “God is Great” - the last words of Islamic suicide bombers, who manage God’s affairs by murdering people - usually other Muslims. But neither God nor the devil make people kill; a point Hitchen, an atheist, and I, a believer, agree on for different reasons.
Atheists will always have weak foes when attacking man-made Gods; but when they do, perhaps they are doing God a favor.
- Winston Zeddemore
From the DesNews:
A 10-year-old Nepalese girl was stripped of her title as a living goddess because she traveled overseas to promote a documentary about the centuries-old tradition, an official said Tuesday. Sajani Shakya had her status revoked because she broke with tradition by leaving the country, said Jaiprasad Regmi, chief of the government trust that manages the affairs of the living goddesses.A Goddess is only as powerful as the bureaucracy that empowers her.
Recently the Wall Street Journal noted the rise in books attacking religion. Christopher Hitchen has written a fast-selling book called “God is not Great”. I haven’t read it and probably won’t, but judging the book from its title I wonder if Hitchen’s complaint isn’t really with God but with those mortals who manage the affairs of the Gods. For instance, his book’s title seems a response to the Arabic phrase “Allahu Akbar” or “God is Great” - the last words of Islamic suicide bombers, who manage God’s affairs by murdering people - usually other Muslims. But neither God nor the devil make people kill; a point Hitchen, an atheist, and I, a believer, agree on for different reasons.
Atheists will always have weak foes when attacking man-made Gods; but when they do, perhaps they are doing God a favor.
Hillary’s Vice may be her Virtue
The last time the Clinton’s were running for president, William Safire called Mrs. Clinton a “congenital liar”.
I’m depending on those congenital lies for her to win the Democrat presidential nomination.
While leading Republican presidential candidates are serious about the war on terror the Democrat candidates aren’t - except Hillary. You can’t tell that from her actions right now, and she may even allow a Kossack moment as the primaries approach, but it’s a lie.
Bill and Hillary know terrorism isn't a fantasy conjured up by George Bush. They were the Presidents during the First World Trade Center Bombing, Kobar Towers, the Cole bombing, and the embassy bombings in Africa. After 9/11 I don’t expect them to go back to their old ways of (non) combating terrorism; especially based on the antics of Sandy “pants” Burglar where it seems the Clinton’s don’t want us to know what those old ways were. If she wins, they'll get their mulligan on the war on terror.
Hillary would be the least likely Democrat contender to screw up the war on terror. She won’t follow through on her promise to redeploy American troops from Iraq, at least not in the manner to meet the expectations of the nut-roots; and not in a manner to put America’s head in the sand.
Hillary's one vice larger than the lie is her ambition. The basic rule to understand is: If it's not good for Hillary, she's not going to do it. To get the Demo nomination she will need to come across as a pacifist – good for Hillary. Actually being a pacifist - bad for Hillary (or anyone). She seems to be the only one in the Democrat party with enough sense to understand this. That’s why this conservative is pulling for her nomination over the other demo candidates.
I’m depending on those congenital lies for her to win the Democrat presidential nomination.
While leading Republican presidential candidates are serious about the war on terror the Democrat candidates aren’t - except Hillary. You can’t tell that from her actions right now, and she may even allow a Kossack moment as the primaries approach, but it’s a lie.
Bill and Hillary know terrorism isn't a fantasy conjured up by George Bush. They were the Presidents during the First World Trade Center Bombing, Kobar Towers, the Cole bombing, and the embassy bombings in Africa. After 9/11 I don’t expect them to go back to their old ways of (non) combating terrorism; especially based on the antics of Sandy “pants” Burglar where it seems the Clinton’s don’t want us to know what those old ways were. If she wins, they'll get their mulligan on the war on terror.
Hillary would be the least likely Democrat contender to screw up the war on terror. She won’t follow through on her promise to redeploy American troops from Iraq, at least not in the manner to meet the expectations of the nut-roots; and not in a manner to put America’s head in the sand.
Hillary's one vice larger than the lie is her ambition. The basic rule to understand is: If it's not good for Hillary, she's not going to do it. To get the Demo nomination she will need to come across as a pacifist – good for Hillary. Actually being a pacifist - bad for Hillary (or anyone). She seems to be the only one in the Democrat party with enough sense to understand this. That’s why this conservative is pulling for her nomination over the other demo candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)