Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
February 13, 2012
Xerox Successfully Lobbies for Veterans Department to Fire Veterans
Matt Stoller 2.13.2012 at 11:41 AM
One of the basic pay to play schemes we see in most states and in the Federal government involves the privatization of government services to third party contractors who then kick back money through campaigns or lobbyists for increased privatization. It’s a transfer of state power from the public, which elects the government, to private actors, who increasingly control the data, the hiring standards, and the purchasing decision of the Federal bureaucracy.
Sometimes the kickback scheme is direct, and that’s illegal. But more often than not, it’s indirect. A firm, through subsidiaries or parent companies, hires a bunch of lobbying firms staffed by ex-officials. Then those ex-officials go to work to get the government to award contracts to the firm doing the hiring. The money flows in a nice circle of corruption.
This is just the latest example of indirect and legal bribery.
~snip~
In this case, it’s profitable to these people to have the Veterans Department fire its veterans so it can award the contract to a subsidiary of Xerox. So that’s what’s happening.
Xerox Successfully Lobbies for Veterans Department to Fire Veterans
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/xerox-lobbying/Xerox Successfully Lobbies for Veterans Department to Fire Veterans
Matt Stoller 2.13.2012 at 11:41 AM
One of the basic pay to play schemes we see in most states and in the Federal government involves the privatization of government services to third party contractors who then kick back money through campaigns or lobbyists for increased privatization. It’s a transfer of state power from the public, which elects the government, to private actors, who increasingly control the data, the hiring standards, and the purchasing decision of the Federal bureaucracy.
Sometimes the kickback scheme is direct, and that’s illegal. But more often than not, it’s indirect. A firm, through subsidiaries or parent companies, hires a bunch of lobbying firms staffed by ex-officials. Then those ex-officials go to work to get the government to award contracts to the firm doing the hiring. The money flows in a nice circle of corruption.
This is just the latest example of indirect and legal bribery.
~snip~
In this case, it’s profitable to these people to have the Veterans Department fire its veterans so it can award the contract to a subsidiary of Xerox. So that’s what’s happening.
February 12, 2012
Report: Pensions at top 18 contractors cost government $3.3B in 2010
By SARAH CHACKO | Last Updated:February 10, 2012
Taxpayers contributed more than $3.3 billion to the pension programs of 18 of the biggest federal contractors in 2010, according to estimates by the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) watchdog group.
The government reimburses contractors for payments they make into their employee pension plans, regardless of whether the company's pension investment decisions earn or lose money, the group said in a report released Friday.
The CAGW estimates the government reimbursed Lockheed Martin Corp., the largest federal contractor, $988 million in 2010 for its pension payments. The figure for Raytheon was $667 million, and for Northrop Grumman Corp., $529 million.
"This can lead to moral hazard and higher federal spending, making it a challenge for all government agencies to meet their core mission and responsibilities, while at the same time using taxpayer money to subsidize investment decisions made by some of the most profitable corporations in the United States," the group said in the report.
unhappycamper comment: This is another reason why all the crap we buy is even more expensive (think of the pension payments as an 'added bonus').
FWIW, the price tag of the F-35 is creeping up to the $243 million dollars I've been saying for a long time:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/12/us-usa-budget-pentagon-idUSTRE81A0IF20120212
Exclusive: Pentagon budget eyes $178.8 bln for R&D, procurement
~snip~
The plan for the 2013 fiscal year, which begins on October 1, requests $9.17 billion for the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, down slightly from $9.25 billion requested in fiscal 2012.
That includes $2.7 billion for ongoing development of the radar-evading supersonic jet, and $6.15 billion to pay for 29 jets, down from $6.33 billion for 31 jets in 2012.
6.15 billion dollars / 29 F-35s = 212,068.965.51 per copy
Report: Pensions at top 18 contractors cost government $3.3B in 2010
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20120210/ACQUISITION03/202100304/1001Report: Pensions at top 18 contractors cost government $3.3B in 2010
By SARAH CHACKO | Last Updated:February 10, 2012
Taxpayers contributed more than $3.3 billion to the pension programs of 18 of the biggest federal contractors in 2010, according to estimates by the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) watchdog group.
The government reimburses contractors for payments they make into their employee pension plans, regardless of whether the company's pension investment decisions earn or lose money, the group said in a report released Friday.
The CAGW estimates the government reimbursed Lockheed Martin Corp., the largest federal contractor, $988 million in 2010 for its pension payments. The figure for Raytheon was $667 million, and for Northrop Grumman Corp., $529 million.
"This can lead to moral hazard and higher federal spending, making it a challenge for all government agencies to meet their core mission and responsibilities, while at the same time using taxpayer money to subsidize investment decisions made by some of the most profitable corporations in the United States," the group said in the report.
unhappycamper comment: This is another reason why all the crap we buy is even more expensive (think of the pension payments as an 'added bonus').
FWIW, the price tag of the F-35 is creeping up to the $243 million dollars I've been saying for a long time:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/12/us-usa-budget-pentagon-idUSTRE81A0IF20120212
Exclusive: Pentagon budget eyes $178.8 bln for R&D, procurement
~snip~
The plan for the 2013 fiscal year, which begins on October 1, requests $9.17 billion for the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, down slightly from $9.25 billion requested in fiscal 2012.
That includes $2.7 billion for ongoing development of the radar-evading supersonic jet, and $6.15 billion to pay for 29 jets, down from $6.33 billion for 31 jets in 2012.
6.15 billion dollars / 29 F-35s = 212,068.965.51 per copy
February 8, 2012
Memo on PTSD costs sparked Army review
By Hal Bernton | The Seattle Times
Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
SEATTLE — In a lecture to colleagues, a Madigan Army Medical Center psychiatrist said a soldier who retires with a post-traumatic-stress-disorder diagnosis could eventually receive $1.5 million in government payments, according to a memo by a Western Regional Medical Command ombudsman who attended the September presentation.
The psychiatrist went on to claim the rate of such diagnoses eventually could cause the Army and Department of Veterans Affairs to go broke.
"He (the psychiatrist) stated that we have to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, and we have to ensure that we are just not 'rubber-stamping' a soldier with the diagnoses of PTSD," stated the ombudsman's memo.
~snip~
The Army Medical Command's investigation is being monitored by Sen. Patty Murray, who chairs the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. She said that doctors should not be taking financial considerations into account as they make a mental-health diagnosis.
Memo on PTSD costs sparked Army review
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/07/138095/memo-on-ptsd-costs-sparked-army.htmlMemo on PTSD costs sparked Army review
By Hal Bernton | The Seattle Times
Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
SEATTLE — In a lecture to colleagues, a Madigan Army Medical Center psychiatrist said a soldier who retires with a post-traumatic-stress-disorder diagnosis could eventually receive $1.5 million in government payments, according to a memo by a Western Regional Medical Command ombudsman who attended the September presentation.
The psychiatrist went on to claim the rate of such diagnoses eventually could cause the Army and Department of Veterans Affairs to go broke.
"He (the psychiatrist) stated that we have to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, and we have to ensure that we are just not 'rubber-stamping' a soldier with the diagnoses of PTSD," stated the ombudsman's memo.
~snip~
The Army Medical Command's investigation is being monitored by Sen. Patty Murray, who chairs the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. She said that doctors should not be taking financial considerations into account as they make a mental-health diagnosis.
February 6, 2012
U.S. Militarization in Libya
Juventud Rebelde, Cuba
By Jorge L. Rodriquez Gonzalez
Translated By Kate Wheeler
1 February 2012
Edited by Jessica Boesl
They didn’t become involved in Libya to avoid the damage and death that they experienced in their ranks in Afghanistan and Iraq. But, with a powerful air war, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and the partners of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) destroyed an independent and sovereign nation in the name of a hypocritical worry about democracy, without having a single one of their soldiers leave Libya in a coffin. But now, given the difficulty facing the new authority — put in place by the Western powers — to establish and administrate the “new” Libya, Washington has decided to take action.
The chaos impacts one of the major African oil producers. The armed groups that responded to the National Transitional Council (NTC) — the NATO land army in the war against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime, have spent months fighting for the control of strongholds with a force that requires the NTC to be partial to their interests. Because of this the armed groups reject offers to integrate themselves into what would be the new Libyan armed forces.
~snip~
For this reason, the North American superpower began to establish a military presence in Libya, in an elusive manner thanks to the silent response from the major media powers that accompanied the imperial war against the North African nation.
Since late December, the Pentagon began installing a military base in Wau Al Kebir (900 km southeast of Tripoli and 240 km north of the border with Chad). And in the last few days, various media outlets have reported the movement of American soldiers — some say 6,000, others say up to 12,000 — from a military base in Malta to Brega — a strategic Lebanese city where petroleum is refined before it is sold on the world market.
U.S. Militarization in Libya
http://watchingamerica.com/News/140983/u-s-militarization-in-libya/U.S. Militarization in Libya
Juventud Rebelde, Cuba
By Jorge L. Rodriquez Gonzalez
Translated By Kate Wheeler
1 February 2012
Edited by Jessica Boesl
They didn’t become involved in Libya to avoid the damage and death that they experienced in their ranks in Afghanistan and Iraq. But, with a powerful air war, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and the partners of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) destroyed an independent and sovereign nation in the name of a hypocritical worry about democracy, without having a single one of their soldiers leave Libya in a coffin. But now, given the difficulty facing the new authority — put in place by the Western powers — to establish and administrate the “new” Libya, Washington has decided to take action.
The chaos impacts one of the major African oil producers. The armed groups that responded to the National Transitional Council (NTC) — the NATO land army in the war against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime, have spent months fighting for the control of strongholds with a force that requires the NTC to be partial to their interests. Because of this the armed groups reject offers to integrate themselves into what would be the new Libyan armed forces.
~snip~
For this reason, the North American superpower began to establish a military presence in Libya, in an elusive manner thanks to the silent response from the major media powers that accompanied the imperial war against the North African nation.
Since late December, the Pentagon began installing a military base in Wau Al Kebir (900 km southeast of Tripoli and 240 km north of the border with Chad). And in the last few days, various media outlets have reported the movement of American soldiers — some say 6,000, others say up to 12,000 — from a military base in Malta to Brega — a strategic Lebanese city where petroleum is refined before it is sold on the world market.
February 5, 2012
When war comes home: Crime surge among veterans suggest some didn't leave horrors behind
By Greg Barnes
Staff writer
Published: 01:49 AM, Sun Feb 05, 2012
~snip~
When Fayetteville firefighters showed up to investigate a report of a fire in an apartment building last month, they didn't know that the Fort Bragg soldier who lived there was armed and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
~snip~
The shootout with Eisenhauer is the most public of what appears to be a surge in violent behavior and suicides among Fort Bragg soldiers and combat veterans in recent months.
Like Eisenhauer, many of those soldiers suffer from depression, PTSD and other mental health problems brought on by the stresses of war and multiple deployments.
Fayetteville police Sgt. Steven Bates said he has seen the increase in violence firsthand.
unhappycamper comment: Perhaps some of the DoD weapons money could be channeled into taking care of damaged soldiers?
Naaaah, keep building F-35s.
When war comes home: Crime surge among veterans suggest some didn't leave horrors behind
http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/02/05/1151825?sac=fo.militaryWhen war comes home: Crime surge among veterans suggest some didn't leave horrors behind
By Greg Barnes
Staff writer
Published: 01:49 AM, Sun Feb 05, 2012
~snip~
When Fayetteville firefighters showed up to investigate a report of a fire in an apartment building last month, they didn't know that the Fort Bragg soldier who lived there was armed and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
~snip~
The shootout with Eisenhauer is the most public of what appears to be a surge in violent behavior and suicides among Fort Bragg soldiers and combat veterans in recent months.
Like Eisenhauer, many of those soldiers suffer from depression, PTSD and other mental health problems brought on by the stresses of war and multiple deployments.
Fayetteville police Sgt. Steven Bates said he has seen the increase in violence firsthand.
unhappycamper comment: Perhaps some of the DoD weapons money could be channeled into taking care of damaged soldiers?
Naaaah, keep building F-35s.
February 3, 2012
Some top military brass making more in pension than pay
By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
A change in federal law to keep experienced officers in uniform allows top generals and admirals to make more in retirement than they did on active duty, Pentagon and congressional records show.
The new pension rules were part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Act to address concerns that the military would lose too many experienced generals and admirals during wartime.
Previously, the maximum annual pension was based on an officer's pay at 26 years of service. Now, a four-star officer retiring in 2011 with 38 years' experience would get a yearly pension of about $219,600, a jump of $84,000, or 63% beyond what was once allowed. A three-star officer with 35 years' experience would get about $169,200 a year, up about $39,000, or 30%.
~snip~
The highest pension, $272,892, is paid to a retired four-star officer with 43 years of service, according to the Pentagon. Before the law was changed, the typical pension for a retired four-star officer was $134,400. The top pay for an active-duty officer is capped at $179,900; housing and other allowances boost their compensation by another third.
Retired Generals Get Wall Street-like Pensions
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-01-26/military-officers-pensions/52939598/1Some top military brass making more in pension than pay
By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
A change in federal law to keep experienced officers in uniform allows top generals and admirals to make more in retirement than they did on active duty, Pentagon and congressional records show.
The new pension rules were part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Act to address concerns that the military would lose too many experienced generals and admirals during wartime.
Previously, the maximum annual pension was based on an officer's pay at 26 years of service. Now, a four-star officer retiring in 2011 with 38 years' experience would get a yearly pension of about $219,600, a jump of $84,000, or 63% beyond what was once allowed. A three-star officer with 35 years' experience would get about $169,200 a year, up about $39,000, or 30%.
~snip~
The highest pension, $272,892, is paid to a retired four-star officer with 43 years of service, according to the Pentagon. Before the law was changed, the typical pension for a retired four-star officer was $134,400. The top pay for an active-duty officer is capped at $179,900; housing and other allowances boost their compensation by another third.
February 2, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/afghanistan-war-panetta_n_1247910.html
Afghanistan War: U.S. Troops To End Combat Role Next Year
ROBERT BURNS 02/ 1/12 09:31 PM ET AP
BRUSSELS — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta laid out the administration's most explicit portrayal of the U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan, saying Wednesday that U.S. and other international forces in Afghanistan expect to end their combat role in 2013 and continue a training and advisory role with Afghan forces through 2014.
Panetta's remarks to reporters traveling with him to a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels showed how the foreign military role in Afghanistan is expected to evolve from the current high-intensity fight against the Taliban to a support role with Afghans fully in the lead. The timeline fits neatly into the U.S. political calendar, enabling President Barack Obama to declare on the campaign trail this year that in addition to bringing all U.S. troops home from Iraq and beginning a troop drawdown in Afghanistan, he also has a target period for ending the U.S. combat role there.
~snip~
"Hopefully by the mid to latter part of 2013 we'll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role," he said. He added that this "doesn't mean we're not going to be combat-ready," but rather that the U.S. and other international forces will no longer be in "the formal combat role we're in now."
~snip~
"One of the things we'll be discussing (in Brussels) is what the size of that (Afghan) force should be, but a lot of that will be dependent on the funds that are going to be put on the table in order to sustain that force," he said. "That's one of the things, frankly, I'm going to be pushing at this (meeting)."
unhappycamper comment: "One of the things we'll be discussing (in Brussels) is what the size of that (Afghan) force should be, but a lot of that will be dependent on the funds that are going to be put on the table in order to sustain that force," he said. "That's one of the things, frankly, I'm going to be pushing at this (meeting)."
". . the funds that are going to be put on the table. ."
What does that mean? Currently the United States is paying 75% of NATO's cost of occupation and around 100% of the Afghan Army. We have to pay more to keep this charade going? Is Leon the new Henry the K?
Does this remind anyone of Vietnamization? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Do we have any adults in Congress with the balls to cut of the money spigot? I doubt it.
Afghanistan War: U.S. Troops To End Combat Role Next Year
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/afghanistan-war-panetta_n_1247910.html
Afghanistan War: U.S. Troops To End Combat Role Next Year
ROBERT BURNS 02/ 1/12 09:31 PM ET AP
BRUSSELS — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta laid out the administration's most explicit portrayal of the U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan, saying Wednesday that U.S. and other international forces in Afghanistan expect to end their combat role in 2013 and continue a training and advisory role with Afghan forces through 2014.
Panetta's remarks to reporters traveling with him to a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels showed how the foreign military role in Afghanistan is expected to evolve from the current high-intensity fight against the Taliban to a support role with Afghans fully in the lead. The timeline fits neatly into the U.S. political calendar, enabling President Barack Obama to declare on the campaign trail this year that in addition to bringing all U.S. troops home from Iraq and beginning a troop drawdown in Afghanistan, he also has a target period for ending the U.S. combat role there.
~snip~
"Hopefully by the mid to latter part of 2013 we'll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role," he said. He added that this "doesn't mean we're not going to be combat-ready," but rather that the U.S. and other international forces will no longer be in "the formal combat role we're in now."
~snip~
"One of the things we'll be discussing (in Brussels) is what the size of that (Afghan) force should be, but a lot of that will be dependent on the funds that are going to be put on the table in order to sustain that force," he said. "That's one of the things, frankly, I'm going to be pushing at this (meeting)."
unhappycamper comment: "One of the things we'll be discussing (in Brussels) is what the size of that (Afghan) force should be, but a lot of that will be dependent on the funds that are going to be put on the table in order to sustain that force," he said. "That's one of the things, frankly, I'm going to be pushing at this (meeting)."
". . the funds that are going to be put on the table. ."
What does that mean? Currently the United States is paying 75% of NATO's cost of occupation and around 100% of the Afghan Army. We have to pay more to keep this charade going? Is Leon the new Henry the K?
Does this remind anyone of Vietnamization? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Do we have any adults in Congress with the balls to cut of the money spigot? I doubt it.
February 1, 2012
Taliban Poised To Retake Afghanistan With Help Of Pakistan, Leaked Nato Report Concludes
First Posted: 1/02/2012 09:32 Updated: 1/02/2012 09:40
Pakistan is actively helping the Taliban retake control of Afghanistan, a leaked Nato report has concluded.
The top secret document seen by the BBC and The Times sets out the Western alliance's belief that the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, is "intimately involved" in the fight against coalition troops in the country. It says the Taliban is poised to retake the country once Nato departs.
"ISI is thoroughly aware of Taliban activities and the whereabouts of all senior Taliban personnel. Senior Taliban leaders meet regularly with ISI personnel, who advise on strategy and relay any pertinent concerns of the government of Pakistan," the report is quoted as saying.
The document is reportedly based on interrogations with more than 4,000 captured Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives at the US Bagram airbase in Afghanistan.
unhappycamper comment: This sounds like Vietnam all over again.
Can someone please tell me why we are staying until at least 2014?
Taliban Poised To Retake Afghanistan With Help Of Pakistan, Leaked Nato Report Concludes
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/01/taliban-poised-to-retake-afghanistan_n_1246131.htmlTaliban Poised To Retake Afghanistan With Help Of Pakistan, Leaked Nato Report Concludes
First Posted: 1/02/2012 09:32 Updated: 1/02/2012 09:40
Pakistan is actively helping the Taliban retake control of Afghanistan, a leaked Nato report has concluded.
The top secret document seen by the BBC and The Times sets out the Western alliance's belief that the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, is "intimately involved" in the fight against coalition troops in the country. It says the Taliban is poised to retake the country once Nato departs.
"ISI is thoroughly aware of Taliban activities and the whereabouts of all senior Taliban personnel. Senior Taliban leaders meet regularly with ISI personnel, who advise on strategy and relay any pertinent concerns of the government of Pakistan," the report is quoted as saying.
The document is reportedly based on interrogations with more than 4,000 captured Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives at the US Bagram airbase in Afghanistan.
unhappycamper comment: This sounds like Vietnam all over again.
Can someone please tell me why we are staying until at least 2014?
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
