Not Every Problem is from Sequestration

For John, BLUF:  Sometimes the Bureaucracy gets it wrong.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

This is a claim that the Office and Management and Budget (Obama Administration) has listed as a Sequestration impact the National Drug Intelligence Center.♠

The National Drug Intelligence Center went away in 2012, with the loss of 180 jobs.  It was a Congressional vote to save $34 million.  Another sign that Representative John Murtha is gone.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  That would be the old Penn Traffic, where my Father's Step-Father worked as the Credit Manager.

Speaking of the Living Dead

It is back, per The Hill.  Reporter Kevin Bogardus gives us "White House donor order becomes flashpoint in Congress".

I am just not sure what this is all about unless it is some sort of intimidation.  The Administration wants federal contractors to reveal their political donations.  OK.  What about unions in firms that have federal contracts?  Shouldn't they also have to disclose political donations?  Do members of Congress not respond to the pleas of union members?

And, there is the question of how this will be implemented.  Will this be a once a year or twice a year revelation or will it be a report submitted with every proposals submitted?

How will it influence the contracting itself?  Perhaps at first it will just be information to the public, but will it have to be, at some point, taken into consideration by the Procuring Contracting Officer, the Procurement Committee Review or the Legal Review?  Will we create a whole new organization to do the "Political" Review?

But, here is the key thing.  Mr Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman, says:

But broadly speaking, the president is committed to improving our federal contracting system, making it more transparent and more accountable.  He believes that American taxpayers deserve that, and that is why he has asked Congress to pass a full disclosure law.

The first step to improving federal contracting is to go "power down" (as we used to say).  That is, give more authority closer to the action.  Part of doing that would be to cut the Gordian Knot of regulation.

I have seen some strange decisions by Government Acquisition personnel in the name of fairness, including squeezing out a bidder because of the fact that being the incumbent gives them an unfair advantage over the competition.  Does this make sense? We wouldn't shun Shredded Wheat just because that was the cereal we last purchased.

Finally, if this is really about political clout, then the place to deal with it is in Congress itself.  Members of Congress putting in "earmarks" distorts the contracting effort.  On the other hand, sometimes the US Congress uses an earmark to move the military along when there is reluctance to do so on the part of the military bureaucrats.  My recollection is that the Light Weight Fighter Competition, which led to the F-16 and F-17, was because of Congressional pressures.

I am sure there are those who think that federal procurement is corrupt, but I would like it noted that when I was involved in Air Force R&D Procurement my work was NOT corrupt.

Regards  —  Cliff

Government Contracting

On 20 April The Washington Post published an article on a draft Administration Executive Order regarding disclosure of political contributions when submitting bids to the Federal Government in response to Government requests for proposal.

There was a follow-up article today, by opinion writer Marc A Theissen.  He noted that last week the second-ranking House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), noted:

The issue on contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractors’ bid and capabilities. I think there are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political implications in the context of awarding contracts.

Representative Steny Hoyer is correct.

Regards  —  Cliff

Corruption is not Just in Mexico

Over at Hot Air is a comment on the indictment of Mr Paul Magliocchetti♠, of the eponymously named PMA Group.♥ 

Also mentioned is Representative Peter Visclosky, of Indiana.  Per Wikipedia Mr Visclosky has been honored by a citizen's group:

In 2009, Visclosky was named one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

From a 29 March 2009♦ New York Times article we have this quote:

“All the combustibles are here for a very salacious set of allegations that could go far beyond his campaign finance problems,” said Stanley Brand, a veteran Washington criminal defense lawyer known for representing Democrats.

A friend of mine related to me, a couple of years ago, about how he ran into one of the PMA Group folks in a parking garage.  It sounded almost like Deep Throat and Woodward and Bernstein.  My friend knew this person when this person was still in uniform and before this person had joined PMA Group.  My friend asked a question in passing and since the friend's company had retained the PMA Group as a lobbyist, the chap went in and billed the time in the garage—but didn't answer the question.

So, are there no bright lines for our politicians?  Or have they so waffled the edges of the issue of corruption and selling votes with sub-sub-sections that it is easy to get lost?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The link at Hot Air is dead at this writing.
♥  If it had been PMAA, it would have been the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, a firm my wife worked for, for a couple of years.
♦  Whatever happened to the idea of a speedy trial?

Washington Awash in Money

I don't have guest bloggers, but here is a comment from one of my reader's, one of our readers:

Our houses of Congress are supposed to represent us, but they don’t.  Why?

Their incentive is to get their hefty benefits including a generous retirement. So they have to get reelected.  To get reelected, they need to pass out favors.  Money works well but doing wise things doesn’t.

Thus, Jefferson’s idea of a volunteer government is truly great.  It eliminates monetary favors and leaves only doing a good job as the duty of office.

Of course we will have to listen to all the wailing about how hard it is to get people to volunteer for the offices without offering significant compensation. NH does not seem to have this problem, however.

Sure, you can write this off as the ravings of someone from Chelmsford, but I believe that would be short sighted.

The fact is that getting elected is expensive, if you have an opponent of any worth.  K Street in Washington is awash in lobbyist money.  That money is not just staying in the banks of the lobbyists.

This article, from The Wall Street Journal tells us about the problem and tells us about a possible solution.  (In reading the article, forget about what party Mr Murtha had tacked next to his name.)

Regards  —  Cliff

Next By-Election

Here is an item (Hat Tip to Instapundit) on the race to replace the late John Murtha as the Representative from the Pennsylvania 12th District, centered on Johnstown.

I love the title, "Voters in 'Bitter' Western Pennsylvania Center Stage".

As the late Diana Wagner, our Admin Person at work, used to say about the area, Pennsyltuckey.  But, I like the area and the people; people like Diana.

Regards  —  Cliff

The New New Camouflage

There it is, the new US Army Utility uniform for those assigned to Afghanistan.  Yes, this will be different from the Utility uniform being worn in Iraq— and there is some logic to that, given that Iraq may provide a somewhat different background into which one might try to blend.  The news report I found was on Buffalo (New York) TV.

Uniforms are important in that they are part of the criteria for being considered a legal combatant, and thus protected by the Geneva Convention.  Get caught out of uniform and you could be considered an unlawful combatant or a spy.

One wonders if this new uniform was developed by the Army Research Laboratory a little south of us, Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center.♠

The news story tells us that this new field uniform was developed in four months:

The secretary of the Army announced Friday that, starting this summer, the Army will provide combat uniforms in the MultiCam pattern to all soldiers deploying to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The Army says the decision follows a rigorous four-month evaluation and reflects its commitment to giving soldiers in Afghanistan the most effective concealment possible.

Rumor Control has it that this development effort came about after soldier complaints rose to the level of the US Congress.

UPDATE:  Army Times points to the late Rep John Murtha.

Interestingly, Blogger Ann Marlowe (Peace Later) talked about this general subject on 1 February, here.

And for those of you who wonder why everyone doesn't wear the same thing—it died in Conference Committee.♥

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  While at the Natick web site I did come across this neat thing, the BCU, or Beverage Cooling Unit.

Utilizing an extremely efficient design in a small footprint, the cooling system is capable of chilling water in a standard water container a minimum difference of 40°F in 25 minutes in ambient temperatures up to 145°F.

But, in the end, there will still be a need for Gunga Din to bring the water, but this will be worth its weight in gold.  Back in the day, when I was in a fighter squadron many of the crew dogs would put a canteen in the freezer in the squadron and just before stepping to the jet take it out and put it in a pocket of their G-Suit.  Too cold to drink at the time, but great 60 or 90 minutes into the flight.
♥  Someone did try to put some standardization into this Battle Dress Uniform issue with this language for the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Budget, but it died in Conference Committee.

SEC. 352. REQUIREMENTS FOR STANDARD GROUND COMBAT UNIFORM.

The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency, shall standardize the design of future ground combat uniforms. The future ground combat uniforms designed pursuant to this section shall be designed to--
(1) increase the interoperability of ground combat forces;
(2) eliminate any uniqueness that could pose a tactical risk in a theater of operations;
(3) maximize conformance with personal protective gear and body armor;
(4) ensure standard coloration and pattern for the uniform;
(5) be appropriate to the terrain, climate, and conditions in which the forces may be operating;
(6) minimize production costs; and
(7) minimize costs to the services for issuing the new standard ground combat uniform.

John Murtha, RIP

It is never good news when someone passes away.  My wife just called me with the news that Representative John Murtha, Democrat from the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, area has passed away.

Here is the news flash at the Johnstown Tribune Democrat.

Representative Murtha had been having complications to a gallbladder operation performed in January.  Apparently there was infection after the laparascopic surgery.  Mr Murtha had been in intensive care and was thought to be improving, but then this final turn.

As an aside, there is a new book out which talks about the importance of medical personnel developing and following checklists as a way to reduce infections.

Let us pause for a moment to remember Representative John Murtha and may he Rest in Peace.

Regards  —  Cliff

PS:  It is interesting to note that Wikipedia already had the fact of Mr Murtha's death.

The Saturday Chat, This Saturday

A friend of mine EMailed a quote he thought appropriate

"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates."
- Tacitus

I found the "Saturday Chat," by Kendall Wallace, in The Lowell Sun this last Saturday to be interesting.  It talked about our legislative team up on Beacon Hill.

The "Chat" talked about those four gentlemen in terms that suggested they were irreplaceable.  As one Sun personality said to me on Sunday, they are the ones who bring home the beacon, or words to that effect.  In Mr Wallace's word, "Delegation has moved mountains."

Here is the line of reasoning:

But places like Lowell can never forget that old cities are fragile and need lots of shoring up that often can only happen when you have some tough political clout that can often move mountains.

Hopefully the city can continue to make progress, be better run, more efficient and become less dependent on help from state and federal agencies.

But until that time, it still needs all the help it can get.

There you have it.  We dare not run someone else for Beacon Hill, because we need all the clout the current four folks bring to the job—unless, of course, there is a revolution and the Republicans sweep into office, in which case we are had.  But, that is unlikely to happen.  That will never happen.

And those who think Democracy survives best when there is competition and those who keep quoting that ancient Brit about power corrupting are just behind the times.  It is a new world and Beacon Hill will lead us out of the wasteland and into the new promised land.

I am, however, nervous about Pennsylvania US Rep John Murtha being in Boston to raise money recently.  I hope none of our four were at the event, getting tips on how to legislate.  That would not be good.

Regards  —  Cliff

PS:  Note that since this is a link to an article in The Lowell Sun, it will likely expire in 30 days.  I will not be updating the link at that point unless I am shut in with the Swine Flu.

Oh Oh

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced today that he is handing the Air Force tanker contracting effort (the KC-X) back to the Air Force.

As you recall, this is a $35 billion dollar competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman (who is teamed with Airbus) to build some 179 aircraft.

Everyone and his brother has had a hand in this pie.  I am surprised that some firm out of Johnstown, PA, isn't teamed up with someone to produce the next Air Force Tanker.

The reason this is important is that the Air Force and the Navy (and the Marine Corps to a lesser extent) depend upon aerial tankers to conduct long range and long endurance missions.  And, this impacts the Army as well, in that strategic lift supports the Army.

The loss of this capability would have a major impact on our military capabilities, which involve projecting power far from our shores.

But, the other side of the coin is the potential loss of aircrews if the current KC-135 force starts falling out of the sky.

Hat tip to Neal Crossland for pointing this out to me.

Regards  —  Cliff

$6.9 Billion in Pork

That was basically the headline in this morning's Washington Post on line.  It has since been softened.  Now it reads "House Seems To Be Set on Pork-Padded Defense Bill."  This can't be ALL Representative Jack Murtha, Democratic House Member from Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, can it?  That number would work out to $15,862,068 per member.  That is almost $16 million in pork for each and every man and women in the US House of Representatives.

Roughly $2.75 billion of the extra funds -- all of which were unanimously approved in an 18-minute markup Monday by the House Appropriations Committee -- would finance "earmarks," or projects demanded by individual lawmakers that the Pentagon did not request.7nbsp; About half of that amount reflects spending requested by private firms, including 95 companies or related political action committees that donated a total of $789,190 in the past 2 1/2 years to members of the appropriations subcommittee on defense, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit watchdog group.

This is the United States.  Citizens are allowed to petition Congress.  It is in the First Amendment.  And, if Joe Dokes, down the street, can call up Reg Niki Tsongas and give her (or, more likely, her staff) a piece of his mind, then so can Raytheon Corporation.  And, sometimes those individual citizens band together.

He [Rep Jeff Flake, R-AZ] noted that at least 70 of the earmarks are for former clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm close to appropriations subcommittee head John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) that is now being probed by the Justice Department and the House ethics committee.

The real way to clean this up is to vote out some of those who are bringing home the beacon.  Does anyone see that happening?  In my humble opinion, only when those Reps become a total embarrassment.

Regards  —  Cliff

John Murtha's Arrogance

Here is an item from Fox News.  It is about Representative John Murtha's Chief of Staff acting in a high handed manner toward the Representative's most recent opponent, who lost by 16 percentage points.  The Chief of Staff, John Hugya, appears to have threatened Mr William Russell that the new Army Secretary would call him back to active duty and court martial him.  As Lieutenant Colonel Russell is now retired a court martial would require us as taxpayers to fund LTC Russell's time on active duty.

The charge suggested by Mr Hugya would be "campaigning while on active duty."

This threat to LTC Russell was also communicated to LTC Russell's former commanding officer, Colonel Gregory Ritch, who confirmed it to Fox News.

Children, don't we have better things to do?

Sure, if Candidate Russell campaigned while on active duty it might be a violation of some regulation.  The show stopper is the US Constitution, which would have forced him out of uniform, if he was still on active duty, if he had defeated Representative Murtha.

A roommate I had in F-4 training was the first Black to graduate from VMI (or was it VPI?).  About four years after graduation he was still in the Air Force, sitting alert at Hahn Air Base, in Germany.  Because of his success the board at his old school elected him to be one of their number, which was an appointed office of the Commonwealth of Virginia. A big deal and a smart move at a time (about 1969) when we were working hard to overcome past prejudices. However, when it hit the base newspaper the base JAG (Judge Advocate General—lawyer) spoke up and said that this officer was no longer an Air Force person, due to the Constitution.  That was a problem, in that F-4 Back Seat Pilots (PSOs, as we were known) were in very short supply for sitting alert and it was going to be a big burden on his squadron mates.  There was some quick action and things were fixed, but it shows that those little clauses in the Constitution can quickly trip up the unsuspecting.

Regards  —  Cliff