Friday, February 08, 2008

I bow to Lileks, not for the first time

Oh that I could write as well as James Lileks does. The Thursday Bleat nails nanny-state liberals and anti-American snarkers to the wall, with big honkin' spikes:

But. Someone somewhere is a practicing Baptist and someone somewhere else is eating a hamburger larger than you’d prefer, and other people are watching cars go around a track at high speed. As your skinny unhappy friend said the other night: people are just too fat and happy.


As they say, read the whole thing.

Your federal set-asides at work

In most US Government purchases, a certain percentage is set aside (by Congressional order) for small, minority, women-owned, and other "disadvantaged" businesses. The NY Times had a story yesterday on what the Department of Defense has received in exchange for their set-aside dollars.

Surprisingly, it's not good news. (But if it were good news, the NY Times wouldn't cover it, would they?) Registration required, but bugmenot.com is a fine, fine Web site that you should visit.

A North Dakota manufacturer has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a suit saying it had repeatedly shortchanged the armor in up to 2.2 million helmets for the military, including those for the first troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

A buck apiece (actually, 91 cents) for defective helmets that endanger soldiers in combat -- not a bad deal. But in government contracting, you get the occasional mulligan, and this case is no exception:

Twelve days before the settlement with the Justice Department was announced, the company, Sioux Manufacturing of Fort Totten, was given a new contract of up to $74 million to make more armor for helmets to replace the old ones, which were made from the late 1980s to last year.

So, Sioux Manufacturing only needs to make 3% profit on the new contract to repay their fine. Moderately talented accountants can make that happen with rounding errors.

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention the name of the case: "United States v. Spirit Lake Tribe". Yep, it's not just a company, it's a tribe, which is how they got the contract.

The article points out that the manufacturing process employed by the company/tribe didn't meet specifications, could never have met specifications given their equipment, and nobody caught it until this had been going on for almost 20 years. So, an entire generation of soldiers has potentially been wearing non-spec Kevlar helmets, and the company suffers the incredible indignity of a $2.2 million fine -- and a $74 million new contract.

And it's not as though it was inadvertent, either:

In the evidence in the suit were hundreds of daily inspection records showing repeated violations of the weaving standards, as well as tape recordings of six managers and employees’ admitting covering up violations.

In a conversation Mr. Kenner secretly taped, Rhea Crane, quality assurance officer, worried “if we ever had someone get killed, and they decided to investigate because they thought maybe the helmet wasn’t any good.”

“If we ever got audited,” she said, “you know what they would do to us. Shut us down and fine us big time. Probably never see another government contract.”

Brilliant observation, Rhea. It's called debarment, and it is the very minimum that your company/tribe should suffer. You've been screwing the government for 20 years, so a minimum 20-year debarment seems reasonable.

But here's the delightful part, right at the end of the article:

Soldiers generally cannot sue the government. And Sioux is owned by an Indian tribe, the Spirit Lake Nation, that can, he said, assert sovereign immunity against private suits.

Note that the Evil $600 Hammer Government Contractors are not immune from lawsuits and cannot invoke sovereign immunity, because they're companies, not "nations". So much for the untouchability of the military/industrial complex ...

The company also benefits from a 5 percent federal incentive program for Indian contractors and preferences for disadvantaged small businesses.

The company benefits. Our guys in combat suffer. The set-aside rules are still in place. And the beat just goes on ...

Friday, February 01, 2008

Sticking up for the wrong constituents, Sherrod

Oh, how nice. Senator(-because-he-was-an-Ohio-Democrat-at-exactly-the-right-time) Sherrod "I'm White, Dammit" Brown is now telling the Department of Defense just who is a security risk, or more importantly, who is not:

10 Investigates took the concerns to Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown.

"I just don't think the whole situation makes sense," Brown said. "I think the government is overreached and the government should change its mind."

Brown said that he sent a letter to DFAS, complaining about the situation and demanded an explanation.


"The government is overreached" because negative information (such as bad credit, the example cited in the piece I linked to) causes some people not to qualify for security clearances? "The government should change its mind" about allowing people subject to bribery to hold sensitive positions?

Senator Brown, are you serious about what you're saying here, or is this just demagoguery for public consumption? If you're serious, then step up and hire these folks (who in some cases owe thousands of dollars to creditors, but refuse to pay) to handle your campaign contributions.

Edit: Nah, we don't need to check the financial background of federal employees.

Also, Senator Brown, talk to Congressman Mike Pence's office about the proper response in this situation. You might want to start with the last sentence and read backward:

It is very important that the employees are able to pass continuing security clearances to make sure that the people who have access to our national defense secrets are not in any way compromised.

Senator Specter has a lot of time on his hands ...

... because he has time to pen a very sensible op-ed for the Wall Street Journal about judicial nominations, but at the same time, he's literally making a federal case about the New England Patriots' "Tape-Gate" scandal, in which the Pats and Bill Belichick were accused of videotaping on the sidelines to steal opponents' defensive signals:

"I am very concerned about the underlying facts on the taping, the reasons for the judgment on the limited penalties and, most of all, on the inexplicable destruction of the tapes," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., in a Thursday letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.

Senator, the Steelers and the Eagles (his two constituent NFL teams) either lost in the first round of, or didn't make, the playoffs. Is it really necessary to call this out the week of the Super Bowl? Maybe Specter has a large amount of campaign funds behind the Giants this Sunday, and he just needed to rattle the Patriots' chain to guarantee a payoff.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Your tax dollars are coming back to you

Your Federal government is hard at work, making sure you have the right equipment to watch TV when they turn off analog broadcasting next February. From the WSJ:

Consumers can buy set-top converter boxes to make old televisions play digital signals, and Congress has set aside $1.5 billion to help consumers pay for the converters. Consumers who subscribe to cable or satellite services don't have to do anything. Earlier this month, U.S. residents could begin applying for two $40 coupons to help pay for converter boxes, which are expected to sell for about $50 to $70 each. The coupons can be ordered at www.dtv2009.gov or (888) DTV-2009.

I would only change one sentence:
Congress has taken $10,000 each from 150,000 taxpayers to ensure continued audiences for soap operas, Oprah!, and American Idol.
which is, of course, one of the enumerated powers of Congress dictated by the Constitution. I'm quite sure it's in there somewhere, if you just look hard enough.

Edit: Those converter boxes might be arriving just in time to sit atop unused TV sets, if this article's prediction is correct:

American TV networks have lost almost a quarter of their audiences because of the Hollywood writers' strike, according to new figures, and executives fear that “orphaned” viewers may never return.

The Nielsen ratings organisation found that US viewership for last week's opening of the 2008 TV season was down 21 per cent compared with the same week last year, when new episodes of hit shows such as Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy were aired.


The article goes on to document the lingering effect of the last writers' strike -- it is estimated that 10% of the network TV audience just never came back. The long-term effect of this idiotic strike will be fewer dollars for everybody -- the networks, the production companies, and, yes, the sainted, long-suffering writers. The writers may or may not get their additional portion, but the pie will undoubtedly be smaller.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Bad news from Iraq

Guess what the recent bad news from Iraq was:

Widespread sectarian violence -- nope;
Infiltration by foreign fighters -- sorry;
Lack of a de-Baathification law -- been done;
Roaming death squads -- oops, not that either.

No, the pressing problem harshing Iraqi mellow is ... high housing prices in certain neighborhoods. Headline: Baghdad's housing boom; subhead: With violence down, home prices are up as displaced Iraqis flock back home. For many, however, the cost is too steep.

The horror ... the horror. Some Iraqis cannot live where they want to, due to economic considerations. Others are forced, due to scarcity, to hurry up and make offers on houses in which they're interested. Still others, unable to afford the down payment, actually have to wait and save money before they buy.

(If you're a renter, you may not understand the last paragraph, but if you've bought a home, chances are that you're familiar with some or all of the above. Home buying is a tradeoff in so many areas -- location, timing, price, mortgage rate, condition, neighborhood -- and that's true in the US as well as Iraq. Why the LA Times thinks this is newsworthy at all is beyond me ...)

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Uh, Governor Schwarzenegger?

Whenever once and future President Clinton (male) calls, and wants to work on something with you, it may be not such a fine idea.

Today's NSaFI: Getting people out from under the thumb of those nasty payday lenders and check cashers, co-authored by the Governator and President Bill. The check-cashing firms charge fees to turn paychecks into cash, and the payday lenders charge confiscatory interest rates for short-term loans. These are apparently profitable businesses, because there are a lot of them, and therefore they must be destroyed. (Although I do have to give Bill Clinton credit -- he's proposing incentives to get people to use banks, rather than just outlawing the paycheck firms. Hillary would just try to take 'em out with legislation.)

The article cites lots of studies that make ridiculous assumptions -- here's a howler:

And consider that, according to a new Brookings Institution report, as much as $360,000 in pre-tax wealth could be created if the average, full-time unbanked worker invested in the stock market what he will spend over his lifetime paying to cash his paychecks. That would allow one of those workers to finance about 25 years of retirement at his current standard of living.

Yeah, like that's going to happen. That $360,000 will never see the stock market -- it'll go for cigarettes, beer, and lottery tickets. (Not all bad, as the cigarette and beer manufacturers, distributors, and convenience-store clerks need income too. The lottery is just a tax on the poor, which goes into the state treasury to be mostly wasted, but that's another post.)

These businesses serve several legitimate purposes, other than just fleecing the poor as the article contends:
  • The presence of a lot of check cashers and payday loan places means that you're probably in a bad neighborhood, and should not stick around, nor even consider living there. They are everywhere, of course, but they seem to be much more numerous in crime-ridden neighborhoods. If you can see inside the store, and the cashiers are protected by bulletproof glass, then you're probably in a really bad neighborhood.
  • Banks and other financial institutions require lots of steps to open accounts (due, in part, to the post-9/11 USA Patriot rules to prevent money laundering). It's a hassle. There's something to be said for paying the check-cashers' fees just to avoid that hassle. Give the people what they want, and all that.
  • Financial institutions also require valid photo IDs for cash transactions, new accounts, etc. Those who don't have photo IDs which would pass inspection at a bank (hint, illegal aliens undocumented-Americans) have to use the check cashers, who are in effect levying a fee for not having a valid ID. Seems like a win-win situation to me.
I'd never use one of these places myself, but it just doesn't make sense to try to put them out of business.

Edit: El Rushbo talked about this issue in the first hour of the program today, and he got a call from a gentleman who has apparently been blacklisted for 10 years from opening accounts banks, because his ex-wife had bounced too many checks on their (presumably) joint account before his divorce. I'd read about this before, but forgot until I heard this call on the Rush 24-7 podcast. Apparently there is an organization called ChexSystems that acts as a clearinghouse for serial bank-account abusers -- but according to this page, which has information on ChexSystems, the lockout period is supposed to be only five years from the last incident. (In fairness to Rush's caller, if banks told me to FOAD when trying to open an account, I probably wouldn't go back again either.)