I think that mindset is the driver of our current debt / deficit problem on the federal level. How else do govt. employees receive bonuses and trips to Vegas on the govt. Dime? On Apr 11, 2016 8:08 PM, "geoffrey theist" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm sure that you have seen this if not opposed it. the budget policy on > the local and state level was that any unspent monies did not roll over to > the next fiscal year but the next budget would be reduced by that amount. > The onus was on spending the entire budget for that year plus incurring > cost overruns to increase the next fiscal years budget.in the early 90s > Environmental construction projects sewage and wastewater facilities and > waterfilter plants were heavily funded by federal tax dollars in what was > an almost endless supply.so these budgets inched ever upward and of course > the seeds of greed and > corruption blew in leading to charges and prosecutions. > On Apr 11, 2016 7:38 PM, "Hot4azintop via PoliticalForum" < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree 110% with you on this issue. As a former contracts executive for >> local government, we saw the same thing as the folks in DC......the only >> difference between us and DC was the number of zero's on the bottom line of >> the contract. I had my staff carefully look at their subcontracting >> practices and expected them to meet the federal guidelines when awarding >> their subcontracts. Sole scource, no bid contracts are very tough to get >> through as we expect open competive bidding on almost every thing out >> there. Now, I recognize there are costs involved and time involved in every >> contract bid but that is a way to keep costs down and limit those sole >> scource contracts only with approval from the grantor. >> >> In a message dated 4/11/2016 3:22:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >> [email protected] writes: >> >> I too don't have a problem with this. We pay out the ass. Every defense >> contract needs to be gone over with (great) scrutiny. Along with all >> federal contracts. >> On Apr 11, 2016 2:34 PM, "plainolamerican" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> fuck the defense industry and their thieves. >>> >>> On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 1:48:39 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/defense-pentagon-spending-assad-221776 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Meet the most hated man in the Pentagon* >>>> >>>> Company executives accuse Shay Assad of pursuing a "personal vendetta" >>>> by hounding firms large and small to justify what they charge for weapons >>>> or services. >>>> >>>> By Ellen Mitchell <http://www.politico.com/staff/ellen-mitchell> >>>> >>>> 04/11/16 05:27 AM EDT >>>> >>>> Updated 04/10/16 12:16 PM EDT >>>> >>>> [image: Description: Shay Assad is pictured. | John Shinkle/POLITICO] >>>> >>>> Shay Assad, the Pentagon's director of pricing, has waged an all-out >>>> campaign for the last five years to reduce defense companies' profit >>>> margins, the industry contends. | John Shinkle/POLITICO >>>> >>>> Some of the nation’s leading defense companies are declaring war on a >>>> powerful enemy — an obscure Pentagon official named Shay Assad who has >>>> helped cut more than $500 million from military contracts with his >>>> aggressive scrutiny of their costs. >>>> >>>> The industry’s tactics include blanketing congressional committees with >>>> proposals that would make it harder for Assad and his contracting officers >>>> to get detailed breakdowns of the companies' expenses, according to >>>> documents obtained by POLITICO. But Assad, the Pentagon's pricing director >>>> for the past five years, refuses to back down, saying: "We are going to be >>>> relentless in pursuing getting the good deal for the taxpayers." >>>> >>>> Story Continued Below >>>> >>>> “That's the way it is,” said Assad, a 65-year-old Bostonian with the >>>> heavy accent to match. “If companies don't like it, people have an >>>> objection to it, we're not apologizing for it." >>>> >>>> The result is an unlikely, all-out campaign pitting giants like Boeing >>>> and Honeywell against a Pentagon official so little-known that even some >>>> top defense lawmakers say they're unfamiliar with his jousting with the >>>> industry*. * >>>> >>>> Company leaders accuse Assad — a former Raytheon executive who spent >>>> more than two decades in the defense industry — of pursuing a "personal >>>> vendetta" by hounding firms large and small to justify what they charge for >>>> weapons or services. But Assad says he learned a valuable lesson from his >>>> years at Raytheon, one of the Pentagon's largest contractors: "We generally >>>> overpay for almost everything we buy." >>>> >>>> The contractors, who are enjoying record stock prices, are actively >>>> trying to undermine him. In one proposal circulating on the Hill, they are >>>> seeking to erode contract officers’ ability to demand cost data from >>>> subcontractors — what companies view as an excessive grab of competitive >>>> information. >>>> >>>> The request would weaken the grip of Assad’s cost squeeze, as the >>>> Pentagon uses all the extra cost information to “manage” profit margins, >>>> according to a congressional staff member with purview over the Pentagon >>>> budget who was not authorized to speak publicly. Without that information, >>>> the staffer explained, the Pentagon can’t demand better deals. >>>> >>>> Assad seems as determined as ever to make sure industry hands over the >>>> data, citing the personal backing of his boss, Secretary of Defense Ash >>>> Carter, who created his position in 2011 when Carter was undersecretary for >>>> acquisition. >>>> >>>> His aggressive stance seems to be paying off. Pentagon spokesman Mark >>>> Wright said Assad recently led contract negotiations for multiyear deals on >>>> the Apache helicopter, C-17 transport plane and F/A18 fighter jet >>>> "that returned in excess of $500M to the taxpayers." >>>> >>>> Wright added that "it should be obvious what the Department thinks of >>>> Mr Assad. He was just awarded a 2015 Distinguished Presidential Rank >>>> Award." >>>> >>>> But Assad's role is little known outside the Pentagon, as some top >>>> lawmakers seem to be unaware of the tension between Assad and the industry, >>>> including House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and >>>> Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner, the head of the Tactical Air and Land >>>> Forces Subcommittee. Though Assad oversees all DOD contracting actions >>>> above $500 million, Thornberry and Turner told POLITICO they hadn’t heard >>>> anything about him. >>>> >>>> Assad poses a unique threat to the biggest arms makers. He graduated >>>> from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1972 before spending 22 years as a senior >>>> executive at Raytheon, which last year was the Pentagon's third-largest >>>> contractor. As director of pricing, he is also member of the civil service >>>> who, unlike a political appointee, could be around for a good while. >>>> >>>> "It's just not true that we are negotiating profit rates that are lower >>>> than what we had been doing in the past," he said. "I know, because I was >>>> on the other side of the table. I'm very aware of what industry and major >>>> corporations were negotiating for profit rates versus what we presently >>>> do." >>>> >>>> Extracting and analyzing more cost data from the Pentagon's customers >>>> has become one of his primary focuses. >>>> >>>> A congressional source said Assad has recently directed contracting >>>> officers, via policy guidelines and memos, to go after this kind of >>>> information. While the Defense Department already asks for cost data from >>>> the larger defense players, this recent action seeks to "go lower down the >>>> food chain." >>>> >>>> "He has gone way above and beyond what is reasonable to extract pricing >>>> data," says one senior industry official. >>>> >>>> Assad fires back, asserting the Pentagon is simply doing what the law >>>> has long required but it has historically failed to do. >>>> >>>> Legally, all companies involved in a sole-source contract with the >>>> Defense Department are required to provide pricing data on any >>>> subcontractor that provides $750,000 or more in goods and services. For >>>> years, however, the Pentagon neglected to push companies on that rule. >>>> >>>> "The reality is it's data that they should have been providing us all >>>> along," Assad said, particularly for the countless subcontractors that >>>> defense giants rely on and whose costs get wrapped into the overall price >>>> of the prime contract. >>>> >>>> "What we're saying is, 'no, it is relevant,' and frankly, there's gold >>>> in them there hills at the subcontractor level," Assad said. "It is a >>>> challenge for the companies because they now have to deal with people who >>>> are well trained, who know what to ask for and who insist on it." >>>> >>>> The industry is now trying to head him off. >>>> >>>> In a legislative proposal sent to multiple defense committees, the IT >>>> Alliance for Public Sector, supported by defense firms Boeing, Honeywell >>>> and Rockwell Collins, is seeking to limit contract officers' ability to >>>> reach down into subcontractor cost data — what they refer to as unnecessary >>>> "flow-down" requirements. >>>> >>>> All companies buy parts from the commercial world "that do not relate >>>> in any way to a particular contract, customer or customer requirements," >>>> the proposal says. Applying defense-unique rules to nearly all aspects of >>>> companies' supply chains creates a "problematic situation," as it >>>> potentially cuts into "efficiency of operations and production." >>>> >>>> Another proposal specifically asks Congress to widen the definition of >>>> a commercial item. If something is deemed commercial — rather than a >>>> uniquely military item — industry can withhold most price data on it in for >>>> the sake of staying a step ahead of its competition on the open market. The >>>> congressional source said Pentagon efforts to limit the definition of what >>>> is considered commercial allows the government wider access to cost >>>> information. >>>> >>>> IT Alliance Senior Vice President Trey Hodgkins, who helped form the >>>> proposals, said current Pentagon rules "erode" access to the defense >>>> market. "I think there's broad agreement in Congress that we have to find >>>> ways to lessen the burden and make this market more attractive,” he said. >>>> >>>> While none of the three companies would address their relationship with >>>> Assad or questions on industry profit margins, Honeywell told POLITICO that >>>> the proposals put forward "provide a clear path for the government to >>>> ensure they are buying commercial products at fair and reasonable prices.” >>>> >>>> Boeing would only allow that it was "broadly supportive of acquisitions >>>> reforms that ensure that our military — and the U.S. taxpayer — can take >>>> full advantage of the value provided by the commercial marketplace.” >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, Rockwell Collins said it was focused on limiting the "impact >>>> of military-unique acquisition terms which flow down to our commercial >>>> supply chain," saying there are numerous small businesses the industry >>>> relies on that "are adversely impacted" by current regulations. >>>> >>>> Assad said that in asking for price data on items that have both >>>> defense and commercial applications, the Pentagon simply wants to know if >>>> the price is "fair and reasonable." >>>> >>>> "What we're saying to the companies is 'nobody should know better than >>>> you why the price you're charging me is fair, so just tell me.'" he said. >>>> "The issue that we have is that … in many instances, when we've bought >>>> commercial items, we haven't done as good a job as we possibly could." >>>> >>>> Defense companies, however, want to be treated like any other >>>> commercial company — such as Apple or Samsung — when selling items to the >>>> Pentagon that are also sold on the free market. >>>> >>>> Just as consumers willingly pay Apple or Samsung $600 for a cell phone >>>> that costs a fraction of that price to make — provided the quality is good >>>> enough — industry maintains that the government shouldn't care about the >>>> true cost of defense equipment if the market had a hand in setting the >>>> price, said Mike O’Hanlon, a defense specialist at the left-leaning >>>> Brookings Institution and a longtime Pentagon adviser. >>>> >>>> The profit margin issue "is a big one where contractors and much of the >>>> DOD acquisition workforce part ways," O'Hanlon said. Tensions can also be >>>> pushed with the factor of the Pentagon "cost police" — its thousands of >>>> contracting officers who aggressively seek cost data on defense equipment. >>>> >>>> While these actions can protect the best interest of the taxpayers, >>>> "one would like to see exceptions and exemptions" when dealing with >>>> commercial items, O'Hanlon said. >>>> >>>> Tom Captain, the vice chairman and leader of the U.S. and global >>>> aerospace and defense sector at financial services firm Deloitte, backs his >>>> industry clients on this question. >>>> >>>> "You don’t ask the car dealer, the grocery store and pizza parlor for >>>> cost data — you buy based on your assessment of best price and fair value," >>>> Captain said. "The Pentagon can do the same for commercial sourced items." >>>> >>>> Asking for cost data for commercially available technology “is not only >>>> a waste of taxpayer money,” he said, it acts as a “disincentive to supply >>>> to the DOD for suppliers." >>>> >>>> Providing too many specifics of cost data, Captain argued, could also >>>> reveal to competitors how they managed to reduce the costs on a system a >>>> company sells to other customers outside the government. >>>> >>>> "You might as well run an ad, telling your competitors your prices," >>>> the industry official said, adding that companies routinely expressed "a >>>> complete lack of confidence" in the Pentagon's ability to keep pricing data >>>> secret. >>>> >>>> Despite all the criticism, Assad insists the Pentagon's practices are >>>> not harming the defense industry financially. >>>> >>>> Over the last five years, he contends, the top five defense companies' >>>> stock prices "have gone up anywhere from 67 percent to 180 percent for >>>> those five companies. Record cash flows, record profits, record return on >>>> invested capital." It is an assessment backed up by industry analysts. >>>> >>>> "We're not after their profitability, we're after paying less," Assad >>>> said. "And if we can pay less and they're doing well financially, what's >>>> wrong with that? If you look at what had been happening in the past, year >>>> over year, we always paid more. ... That doesn't happen anymore. Year over >>>> year we're paying less." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Read more: >>>> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/defense-pentagon-spending-assad-221776#ixzz45XNEgEm1 >>>> Follow us: @politico on Twitter >>>> <http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico> | Politico >>>> on Facebook >>>> <http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico> >>>> >>>> >>>> __._,_.___ >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> Visit Your Group >>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYmVvdGU5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjAzOTMyNjE-> >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: >>>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMnM2M3IzBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2MDM5MzI2MQ--] >>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMnM2M3IzBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2MDM5MzI2MQ--> >>>> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> >>>> • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >>>> <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> >>>> >>>> __,_._,___ >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> <http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> <http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
