|
Following that
last little ‘poison pen’ mention of the Bush2 global-corporate policy – Ooops! -
I meant to say global foreign policy, here’s another example of cronyism. We already have a surplus of suspicion
about US preemptive policy and governing agendas. Shouldn’t the laws of supply and demand begin to apply soon? As some of you
no doubt have read, the second phase of reconstruction contracts for Iraq will
not favor just a few big bucks friends of the BC 04 campaign; however, mischief
is afoot as ‘Friends of Dubya’ sneak preferential treatment into omnibus
legislation, as below, for Trick or Treat: Amendment to Spending Bill Questioned
By Christopher Lee, Washington Post Staff Writer,
Wednesday, November 5, 2003 Two Senate GOP allies
of President Bush recently inserted a provision into a spending bill that
critics say contradicts the president's stated goal of making government more
efficient through his "competitive
sourcing"
initiative. Republican Sens. Craig
Thomas (Wyo.) and George V. Voinovich (Ohio) sponsored the amendment during the Oct.
23 floor debate on the $90 billion spending bill for the departments of
Transportation and the Treasury. The measure appeared to be an effort to
promote accountability and transparency under the controversial Bush
initiative, which requires hundreds of thousands of federal employees to prove
they can do their jobs more efficiently than private contractors, or risk
seeing the work outsourced. But one paragraph -- unnoticed at the time because the full
text of the amendment was unavailable, even as lawmakers were debating it -- requires that job competitions involving
architectural and engineering services be governed by a process that emphasizes
selection based on technical merits, not cost. The amendment passed 95 to 1.
The House version of the bill does not contain similar language. Critics say choosing a winner first and negotiating a
price later is not a recipe for increased efficiency. They note that the Office of Management and
Budget rejected such language this spring in revising the rules for such
competitions. And they complain that neither Thomas nor Voinovich mentioned the
controversial provision during the floor debate, even though Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) sought a full accounting of what was in
it. "This deal for
specific contractors is cronyism," Mikulski said in a statement yesterday,
adding that she will work to remove it in a House-Senate conference. "It
does the opposite of what I'm trying to do -- make sure federal employees get a
fair competition." John Gage, president
of the American Federation of Government Employees, decried the "disingenuous
tactics" to benefit "politically connected contractors." Scott Milburn, a
spokesman for Voinovich, referred calls about the provision to Thomas's office,
which did not respond yesterday. "In
general, what I can say is that this bill was brought to the floor at the last
minute…And if there are any modifications that need to be made as a result,
then Senator Voinovich certainly will support making those modifications in
conference," Milburn said. David Raymond,
president of the American Council of Engineering Companies, said the provision
echoes a 31-year-old
federal procurement law
that requires government projects to be designed and engineered properly, so
more money would not be necessary later to fix them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You’d think
the only reliable contractors in the whole country are Bechtel, Halliburton and
Kellogg, Brown & Root. Did I
post that article suggesting that if the totals for private contractor personnel
doing business in Iraq were tallied it would likely surpass the number of UK
troops? So our largest coalition
force would be war profiteers? How
could that possibly, possibly be? And
aren’t you glad I’m drinking organic tea and not espresso? - KWC |
