Haste Makes Waste

Jacob Sullum | September 26, 2005

A New York Times story cites evidence that the federal government is already spending more money than it should on the Katrina cleanup, including wide price ranges for the same products and no-bid or limited-competition contracts at questionable rates. "When you do something like this, you do increase the vulnerability for fraud, plain waste, abuse, and mismanagement," says Richard L. Skinner, the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general. "We are very apprehensive about what we are seeing."

The story also quotes Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, who

complained that FEMA and other federal agencies were delivering too much of the work to giant corporations with political connections, instead of local companies or minority-owned businesses.

"There is just more of the good-old-boy system, taking care of its political allies," Mr. Thompson said. "FEMA and the others have put out these contracts in such a haphazard manner, I don't know how they can come up with anything that is accountable to the taxpayers."

Thompson's complaint seems to be that the government is wasting taxpayers' money by favoring politically connected companies when it should be wasting taxpayers' money by favoring local and minority-owned businesses. There is a similar contradiction in the October 3 New Republic, where the editors complain that "no-bid contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been handed to big Bush donors" but also worry that "President Bush has ordered prevailing wage and affirmative action programs rolled back in the Gulf Coast." Squandering our money is OK, apparently, as long as the wasted dollars end up in the hands of interest groups that tend to support the Democrats.

Comments

|9.26.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Competetively bid contracts, no-bids to somebody's brother in law...it's all, like, the government stealing your money, man.

|9.26.05 @ 4:48PM|#

no, joe

The stealing was the taxation. This issue is merely one of how the stolen money is to be wasted.

ed|9.26.05 @ 4:51PM|#

I love it. Acquire bids and you're guilty of foot-dragging. Speed things up and you're lining the pockets of your favorites. Maybe Goldilocks will one day stumble upon the response that is "just right."

|9.26.05 @ 4:53PM|#

Yeah, man. Doesn't matter what the unit cost of the work is. Doesn't matter how much actually gets built. It's all just spending other people's money, and that's the only thing that could possibly be worth considering.

You know, whether they pave the whole road, or stop halfway through, it's all stolen money.

|9.26.05 @ 4:57PM|#

joe

Stop, you're killing me! I know you must be laying on the sarcasm, but your words are music to my ears when taken at face value. Keep this up, and I may have an orgasm.

|9.26.05 @ 5:28PM|#

Thompson's complaint seems to be that the government is wasting taxpayers' money by favoring politically connected companies when it should be wasting taxpayers' money by favoring local and minority-owned businesses.

Uhmmm... NO

Thompson's complaint seems to be that by favoring politcally connected companies with "no-bid or limited-competition contracts at questionable rates" taxpayers aren't getting the best bang for the buck and are quite possibly being overcharged.

People can argue whether the money should be spent at all or not, but once its decided that the spending is going to happen, maybe the money should go to whoever can give the taxpayers the best/most work at the best price.

There is a similar contradiction in the October 3 New Republic, where the editors complain that "no-bid contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been handed to big Bush donors" but also worry that "President Bush has ordered prevailing wage and affirmative action programs rolled back in the Gulf Coast."

I don't see the contradiction there either. No bid contracts handed out to politcal donors are bad. So is rolling back prevailing wage and affirmative action programs. By rolling these back and at the same time having no competitive bids for projects, you are basically giving an inflated contract price to the company while assiting it in paying below market price for its costs and making even bigger than normal profit margins. This is what many would call a windfall to these connected companies

|9.26.05 @ 5:31PM|#

Thompson's complaint seems to be that the government is wasting taxpayers' money by favoring politically connected companies when it should be wasting taxpayers' money by favoring local and minority-owned businesses.

Uhmmm... NO

Thompson's complaint seems to be that by favoring politcally connected companies with "no-bid or limited-competition contracts at questionable rates" taxpayers aren't getting the best bang for the buck and are quite possibly being overcharged.

People can argue whether the money should be spent at all or not, but once its decided that the spending is going to happen, maybe the money should go to whoever can give the taxpayers the best/most work at the best price.

There is a similar contradiction in the October 3 New Republic, where the editors complain that "no-bid contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been handed to big Bush donors" but also worry that "President Bush has ordered prevailing wage and affirmative action programs rolled back in the Gulf Coast."

I don't see the contradiction there either. No bid contracts handed out to politcal donors are bad. So is rolling back prevailing wage and affirmative action programs. By rolling these back and at the same time having no competitive bids for projects, you are basically giving an inflated contract price to the company while assiting it in paying below market price for its costs and making even bigger than normal profit margins. This is what many would call a windfall to these connected companies

|9.26.05 @ 5:31PM|#

Like that not-funny kid telling a joke, we're laughing AT you, joe, not with you.

|9.26.05 @ 5:31PM|#

Thompson's complaint seems to be that the government is wasting taxpayers' money by favoring politically connected companies when it should be wasting taxpayers' money by favoring local and minority-owned businesses.

Uhmmm... NO

Thompson's complaint seems to be that by favoring politcally connected companies with "no-bid or limited-competition contracts at questionable rates" taxpayers aren't getting the best bang for the buck and are quite possibly being overcharged.

People can argue whether the money should be spent at all or not, but once its decided that the spending is going to happen, maybe the money should go to whoever can give the taxpayers the best/most work at the best price.

There is a similar contradiction in the October 3 New Republic, where the editors complain that "no-bid contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been handed to big Bush donors" but also worry that "President Bush has ordered prevailing wage and affirmative action programs rolled back in the Gulf Coast."

I don't see the contradiction there either. No bid contracts handed out to politcal donors are bad. So is rolling back prevailing wage and affirmative action programs. By rolling these back and at the same time having no competitive bids for projects, you are basically giving an inflated contract price to the company while assiting it in paying below market price for its costs and making even bigger than normal profit margins. This is what many would call a windfall to these connected companies

|9.26.05 @ 5:32PM|#

no one gives the taxpayers an honest day's work like joe

|9.26.05 @ 5:45PM|#

Sorry for the triple posts -- The server was acting flaky

|9.26.05 @ 6:46PM|#

I don't see the contradiction there either. No bid contracts handed out to politcal donors are bad. So is rolling back prevailing wage and affirmative action programs.

It is only not a contradiction if you buy into the liberalspeak and believe that "prevailing wage" rules are something other than a way to get more taxpayer money into the hands of a democratic constituency. Just like giving taxpayer money to a republican constituency it is simply a political payoff.

...while assiting [the company] in paying below market price for its costs...

How does not forcing a company to pay a particular wage help it pay "below market" wages? How can any company get anyone to work for it by paying below market wages? It can't, therefore prevailing wage rules can only result in "above market" wages - i.e. a political payoff to unions.

And as for rolling back affirmative action being a bad thing - only if you believe a human being should sometimes be judged by which arbitrary racial classification they happen to find themselves born into. If you believe doing so is fundamentally immoral, then you simply cannot be for affirmative action, period.

Larry A|9.26.05 @ 7:03PM|#

In fact, given that most of New Orleans' labor force is now living in Texas, I would expect the NOLA market might have to pay premium wages to compete for the few workers that are left.

|9.26.05 @ 7:18PM|#

and I'm laughing right back, rafuzo. So are a lot of other people.

The only reason the din isn't overwhelming is that so few people pay any attention to you at all. When you make arguments like "corrupt no bid contracts to cronies is the same thing as getting the work done for the best price," people write you off as batshit insane, and stop listening.

|9.26.05 @ 7:19PM|#

Like that not-funny kid telling a joke,
-------------
There's this man who -- I can't remember if he's trying to tell people he's important or impotent -- but the point is he's trying to tell somebody one or the other about himself. Anyway, his accent, that's the thing. Like a Southern accent that makes him sound, well, he sounds normal, but with the accent he pronounces "important" the same way he pronounces "impotent." Right, so imagine some guy just telling you he's impotent out of nowhere. He's black, this guy. I should've mentioned that. Or maybe that's not that big of a deal, but I remember someone starting it by saying, "There's this black guy."

-- "PRETTY MUCH THE WAY SOME TOOL ON THE PLANE WAS TELLING JOKES WHILE I WAS WONDERING IF WE WERE ALL GOING TO DIE IN A THUNDERSTORM OVER THE ATLANTIC OCEAN"

|9.26.05 @ 10:53PM|#

I'm just thinking that maybe - if you're going to give out money anyway - it probably makes more sense to give it in smaller increments to local businesses rather than big politically well-connected companies for at least a couple of sound fiscal reasons.

The main one being that the local folks know the area and are in the best position to spend a small amount on something that makes some economic sense as opposed to a big company with a big blank check doing something grand - and abominably stupid - with it...that will arguably make little economic sense in the long run.

|9.26.05 @ 11:37PM|#

Thompson's complaint seems to be that by favoring politcally connected companies with "no-bid or limited-competition contracts at questionable rates" taxpayers aren't getting the best bang for the buck and are quite possibly being overcharged

Right. Which is exactly the same thing that mandating union-level wages and/or affirmative action gets you -- less-competent workers for the same amount of money. Less bang for your buck.

lucas|9.27.05 @ 2:53AM|#

What more can be said after reading about all this. Joe i agree with you fully. Thanks for highlighting the fact.
lucas

|9.27.05 @ 8:23AM|#

I've said this before. Government contracting is a huge scam.

You have political payback and good ol' boy back slapping on the right.

On the left: "minority owned" and other special set-asides for the sake of votes.

joe: this is all about money, power, and corruption. The "public good" is the last thing on most of these peoples' minds.

|9.27.05 @ 8:59AM|#

joe,

So are a lot of other people.

...so few people pay any attention to you at all.

One would think that in order for a lot of other people to be laughing us they'd also have to be paying attention. You can't have it both ways idiot. In joe's haste to insult libertarians he comes off as usual looking like a moron.

Show us where they are "getting the work done for the best price."

|9.27.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Not to defend government contracting schemes, but...
since the cleanup needs to be done immediately, FEMA and others have really no choice but to go with previously approved contractors, per GSA rules. The process of being approved for a fed contract takes quite a long time. Funny thing is that I think those rules were originally intended to prevent old-boy networking and corruption. This is really more of a case of the bureaucracy itself being the problem, not corruption.

|9.27.05 @ 10:55AM|#

...so few people pay any attention to you at all. When you make arguments like "corrupt no bid contracts to cronies is the same thing as getting the work done for the best price," people write you off as batshit insane, and stop listening.

Yet you keep coming back and arguing with the lunatics, as if the ghost of Ulysses S. Grant would NEVER say that to me because you read an insightful biography about him some years ago which said, and I quote...

In any event, if you're trying to come off like you're soaring above the fray on the wings of your smugly quiet self-righteousness, well, you're not.