Federal contracts up 86% under Bush; Halliburton rises 600%

[Chadman]

Yeah...and Cheney has nothing to do with Halliburton making bank, and vice-versa...and Bush and this administration are not the most blatant abusers of influence we've ever seen in the White House. The sad thing is, they don't even hide it, and some of you continue to defend their way of doing "business." Any wagers that Cheney won't re-assume a position with Halliburton in some capacity after he leaves office?

:bs:

Federal contracts up 86% under Bush; Halliburton rises 600%

Top contractor Lockheed got contracts larger than budget of Congress, Dept. of Interior

WASHINGTON -- A new report claims that a "shadow government" of federal contractors has exploded in size over the last five years.

The document, compiled at the request of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and distributed to RAW STORY, indicates that procurement spending increased by over $175 billion between 2000 and 2005, making federal contracts the fastest growing component of federal discretionary spending.

500 reports, audits and investigations by government and independent bodies, including the Government Accountability Office and the Defense Contract Audit Agency, were used to compile the data.

That spending increase -- an astonishing 86 percent -- puts total US federal procurement at $377.5 billion annually. The increase means spending on federal contracts has grown more than two times as fast as other forms of discretionary government spending.

Waxman claims that overcharging -- by mistake or outright fraud -- has been a frequent occurrance. In all, the report identifies 118 federal contracts worth $745.5 billion that have been found by government officials to include significant waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement.

Each of the Bush Administration's three signature initiatives -- Homeland Security, the Iraq war and reconstruction in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina recovery -- has been linked to wasteful contract spending.

Spending is categorized in the report as highly concentrated on a few large contractors, with the five largest contractors receiving over 20 percent of contract dollars awarded in 2005. Last year, the largest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin, received contracts worth more than the total combined budgets of the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Small Business Administration and the U.S. Congress.

But the fastest growing contractor under the Bush Administration has been Halliburton. Federal spending on Halliburton contracts shot up an astonishing 600% between 2000 and 2005.

Waxman plans to make all 118 "problem contracts" available on the Internet as part of a searchable database with Internet links to government audits.

 

[shamrock]

Like we all didn't see this five years ago, Bush suck s

 

[buddy]

totalitarianism

n 1: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) [syn: dictatorship, absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, tyranny] 2: the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government [syn: absolutism, totalism]

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Geez guys where do you think lots of these funds are going.

A: What type of work does Haliburton do?
B: Can you think of anytime in history when so much of this type of work was necessary or being done.
C: Do you think there is remote probabity that the graph of contracts Haliburtan has would mirror the graph on need for their type of work-- eg reconstruction.

In addition you might be surprised to see contracts awarded to Kosovo and Balkans under Clinton in "non war times"
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1tvxm/thepoliticalarena/The Truth About Halliburton.htm

Its quite easy to paint one side of picture--but when hole pic is shown it looks entirely different--wouldn't you say?

 

[StevieD]

And you might have just maybe hit on the whole reason for the Occupation of Iraq.

 

[Axle]

Dogs that Bark...you forgot to add Haliburton = economies of scale.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Legally, Halliburton can't increase or reduce the amount of the deferred compensation no matter what Cheney does as vice president. So Cheney's deferred payments from Halliburton wouldn't increase no matter how much money the company makes, or how many government contracts it receives.

check your facts

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Check this blog out--Hard to believe someone trying to shed negative spin on someone that gave 77% of his AGI to charity last year :shrug:

Kirsch: Cheney Tax Return Shows Katrina Tax Benefits for Non-Katrina Charitable Contributions
Michael Kirsch (Notre Dame) points out an interesting aspect of the Vice-President's 2005 tax return:

It appears that the VP is a major beneficiary of the Hurricane Katrina tax relief act. In particular, he claimed $6.8 million of charitable deductions, which is 77% of his AGI -- well in excess of the 50% limitation that would have applied absent the Katrina legislation. The press release indicates that the charitable contribution reflects the amount of net proceeds from an independent administrator's exercise of the VP's Halliburton options -- apparently, the VP had agreed back in 2001 that he would donate the net proceeds from the options to charities once they were exercised.

The press release seems to confirm, at least implicitly, the VP's efforts to take advantage of the Katrina legislation -- it mentions that the Cheneys wrote a personal check of $2.3 million to the administrator in December in order to "maximize the charitable gifts in 2005." Admittedly, I don't know anything about the transactions beyond the info in the press release, but my gut reaction is that the personal check was given in order to make sure the independent administrator had sufficient liquid assets to pay all of the promised charitable contributions before the 50% limit returned on 1/1/06.

Despite the importance of the Katrina legislation to his tax return, it looks like none of the charitable contributions actually went to Katrina-related charities (the press release lists the 3 charitable recipients, all of which were designated in the original 2001 gift agreement). While there's nothing inappropriate about that from a legal perspective, it does demonstrate how the legislation, which was sold to the public as providing relief to Katrina victims, provided significant tax benefits to the VP (and potentially other wealthy individuals) in situations that have nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina

 

[Chadman]

Geez guys where do you think lots of these funds are going.

A: What type of work does Haliburton do?
B: Can you think of anytime in history when so much of this type of work was necessary or being done.
C: Do you think there is remote probabity that the graph of contracts Haliburtan has would mirror the graph on need for their type of work-- eg reconstruction.

Its quite easy to paint one side of picture--but when hole pic is shown it looks entirely different--wouldn't you say?

Your first question is a very good one, thanks for asking it. I do worry about where lots of these funds are going - and why - and that is the point. Here's a couple of questions for you, Dogs:

A. Can you think of a time in history that a company has so incredibly benefitted because of the decisions made by an administration under such dubious and questionable reasoning? Decisions made that can be directly linked to and defended by a former CEO (that had no real experience in leading a multi-national corporation until Halliburton) and his ascent to power?

B. Can you think of another time in history where a major corporation with direct ties to an administration has been awarded billions in contracts AFTER admittedly overcharging taxpayers (more than once) and billing for services not even done? And you have the gall to ask where a lot of the money has gone?!?

C. Can you think of another war where an administration continues to ask taxpayers to fund projects benefitting one company in particular after billions of taxpayer dollars just disappears from reconstruction efforts with no explanation? Many of those efforts dealing with "work" being done by said company?

Good question, Dogs. Let me know if Clinton was in charge of any of these Iraq and Katrina efforts while you are searching for the answers.

One other thing...you guys maintain that Cheney doesn't benefit from his former position at Halliburton. Wasn't he being paid a handsome CEO salary from the company when he was named to head up the Vice Presidential search committee? And the best person he could come up with for the job was...um...himself? And he won't benefit handsomely from his consulting and speaking gigs after he leaves office after gaining the VP position, thanks to Halliburton paying him to name himself as the best person for the position? And doesn't he benefit on his tax return when his "charitable" donations based on the escalating Halliburton stock are figured in - that happened specifically because of his orchestrated decisions as Vice President?

You guys try to spin things like Cheney is a good, charitable citizen. And that is all that is appropriate to talk about. And then you say Clinton was at fault for doing the "same kind of things" Cheney and Bush are doing. Interesting. I think I'll try that when the dems return to power. It looks pretty easy - off point, of course - but easy.

Time to practice...

"Yeah the dem might have done this poorly, but look at what Bush and Cheney did back in 2002..."

Ok, I'm ready for 2008.

 

[s_dooley24]

Halliburton is awarded large no-bid contracts alot of times because they're the only company qualified to handle the scope of the contract and then they will sub out work from there. Also, it is not uncommon to have problems arise with large government contracts. I work for an IT consulting firm and more specifically on large federal contracts. To have discrepancies in the millions of dollars is not uncommon when you have yearly contracts upwards of a billion.

 

[ctownguy]

Halliburton is awarded large no-bid contracts alot of times because they're the only company qualified to handle the scope of the contract and then they will sub out work from there. Also, it is not uncommon to have problems arise with large government contracts. I work for an IT consulting firm and more specifically on large federal contracts. To have discrepancies in the millions of dollars is not uncommon when you have yearly contracts upwards of a billion.

This is a very good point and does answer alot of the lame acusations always made by chad stevie and all the rest.

 

[Chadman]

Halliburton is awarded large no-bid contracts alot of times because they're the only company qualified to handle the scope of the contract and then they will sub out work from there. Also, it is not uncommon to have problems arise with large government contracts. I work for an IT consulting firm and more specifically on large federal contracts. To have discrepancies in the millions of dollars is not uncommon when you have yearly contracts upwards of a billion.

I don't accept this, maybe some do. If our only choice to complete a task is to use a corporation that we already know continually overbills us and charges us for work not done, simply because it is big, then steps need to be taken to change this process. Obviously, the people currently in charge of creating and managing these scenarios have no reason to do that, so we as voters need to affect change at the ballot box and in contacting legislators.

You use the word discrepancies in your post. Let me ask you this...do you think, as both a taxpayer and an employee of the large IT consulting firm, that your company should continue to be awarded contracts if it admittedly overcharged the government, and didn't do projects that it billed for? Do you think that repetitive "discrepancies" that always went in the favor of your company and never in the favor of the government should be considered ok, and worthy of further no-bid contracts? What would the reasoning be for this? Especially if the former CEO of the company was now in the position of making decisions that continue to reward that kind of "performance?" Wouldn't that seem a little worrisome to you as a taxpayer, at least?

I don't think we, as voters, can continue to just accept discrepancies that go against us, when so much is at stake. To do that is wrong, in my opinion. To defend it is worse, in my opinion.

I have to think that if we found out that the Heinz corporation was overbilling for filling the White House ketchup bottles - or not filling them at all and charging for it - that it would be a concern for some people that apparently think its ok for Halliburton to do what they continue to do.

 

[StevieD]

In '91 Haliburtan was not granted a contract to rebuild Iraq. In fact the Iraqi's did it themselves. Much quicker than Haliburtan has been able to do this time around.

 

[s_dooley24]

I don't accept this, maybe some do. If our only choice to complete a task is to use a corporation that we already know continually overbills us and charges us for work not done,

I don't know the specifics of the Halliburton contract, so I cannot speak to those facts. However, many times problems arise over the interpretation of the contract. I will use the example of a common T&M (time and materials) contract setup. Its not as if *company A* blatantly charges the gov't for 1000 man hours when the job only required 50 man hours. The more common overbilling occurrence would be that certain overhead rates were charged on the related travel expenses of those employees. Now it is assumed that those rates are applicable unless specifically documented in the contract. Well the gov't doesn't always see it this way and says its not in there, so you can't charge us. Thus the price you pay for doing public vs private business.

simply because it is big, then steps need to be taken to change this process.

Not sure how you can start a multinational business overnight, but I agree the more competition the better. The problem is that there are high barriers to entry in this industry of large gov't contracts. Because smaller companies cannot handle the scope/scale of these contracts they are awarded to the large contractors and the sub-contracts then trickle down to the smaller guys. Same as in the construction industry

Obviously, the people currently in charge of creating and managing these scenarios have no reason to do that, so we as voters need to affect change at the ballot box and in contacting legislators.

I would worry less about the politicians and more about your fellow Americans holding high ranking positions in gov't agencies awarding contracts. These people are not appointed by politicians, but they might as well be. Because it is nearly impossible to get rid of them once they are granted membership into the socialistic structure of the public arena.

You use the word discrepancies in your post. Let me ask you this...do you think, as both a taxpayer and an employee of the large IT consulting firm, that your company should continue to be awarded contracts if it admittedly overcharged the government,

Like I stated before you have to take things into perspective. When you see an article in the paper about whoever over-charging the gov't by 10 million dollars that seems like alot. To the average person 10 million dollars in quite overwhelming. I ask you to take this into context which the *un-bias* journalist often fails to leave out.

Note: The 2 quotes below are one in the same just different semantics

"Gov't Contractor defrauds the Gov't and Taxpayers of 10 million dollars"

"Gov't Contractor over-charges the Gov't by 1%"

and didn't do projects that it billed for?

In my experience this is an exception and 99% not the underlying problem in a billing discrepancy. The one Gov't agency worse then the IRS when it comes to auditing is DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) and they would be all over after this and would make business hell.

Do you think that repetitive "discrepancies" that always went in the favor of your company and never in the favor of the government should be considered ok,

I have not and will not justify these mistakes, but that is the nature of business it is imperfect. Do you believe if you audited your phone bill it would be correct 100% of the time? Or that the gas pump you pump from is calibrated correctly to 100th decimal point 100% of the time?

and worthy of further no-bid contracts?

What alternative do you suggest? If there is only one company in the marketplace capable of doing what you ask them you must use them. Think Wal-Mart in a small mid-west town you may not like going there or agree with some of their practices, but that is your only option for a satisfactory product. The alternative would be to create a gov't agency/dept to handle every need that arises which cannot be satisfied by smaller companies in the private sector. That is an alternative I don't find in the least bit satisfactory.

What would the reasoning be for this? Especially if the former CEO of the company was now in the position of making decisions that continue to reward that kind of "performance?" Wouldn't that seem a little worrisome to you as a taxpayer, at least?

I don't think its wrong to reward 95% accuracy when the alternative is less then 95%.

I don't think we, as voters, can continue to just accept discrepancies that go against us, when so much is at stake. To do that is wrong, in my opinion. To defend it is worse, in my opinion.

This is a good point. With so much at stake you need the most capable company handling critical tasks. Halliburton is the most capable company when it comes to large-scale defense contracts. Maybe it would be better to have use trial and error with smaller companies. I for one would rather not and that would be a tough sell to the troops.

I have to think that if we found out that the Heinz corporation was overbilling for filling the White House ketchup bottles - or not filling them at all and charging for it - that it would be a concern for some people that apparently think its ok for Halliburton to do what they continue to do.

This comparison is way over simplified and many companies are capable of fulfilling this task which is not the case in the defense sector. However, would you rake the Heinz Corp. over the coals if they were only filling the bottles 99% of the way?

 

[Chadman]

Very thoughtful response and interesting perspective, s_dooley. A lot to digest in your commentary, and will give it its proper time when I can.

 

[djv]

When these cats got elected Bush and Cheney. Evey one new about there connection to Oil And Hal. Any spare cash you had you could have joined them in there venture by buying there stock.

 

[StevieD]

When these cats got elected Bush and Cheney. Evey one new about there connection to Oil And Hal. Any spare cash you had you could have joined them in there venture by buying there stock.

If you can sleep with blood money.