The Latest War-Funding Battle

[babylonsister]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/08/455299.aspx

From NBC's Mike Viqueira


It's once more unto the breach for congressional Democrats tomorrow, when they will try again to pass legislation that would require a troop withdrawal to begin immediately.

Speaker Pelosi just announced that the House will be voting on a package that would give the president only $50 billion of the $196 billion that he has asked for to conduct the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it comes with strings attached: The president would be required to begin a withdrawal immediately, with a goal of having all troops out within a year. Under the plan, troops would be permitted to stay behind only to protect the diplomatic mission, for counter-terrorism operations, and for training Iraqi forces.

The $50 billion would be a "bridge fund" for four months, at which point the Congress would consider sending more. Recall that March is the time when Gen. Petraeus indicated he would next re-evaluate troop levels.

The legislation is quite similar to previous attempts by the Democratic Congress to limit the president, all of which have either stalled in the Senate or been vetoed by the president.

Asked this morning whether this is an attempt to mollify her base, or if she has discerned a change in the political climate, Pelosi got testy. She launched into a passionate condemnation of the war and the president's policies, but did not say whether or not she thought it had a chance to become law, this time.

[glowing]

1. The craziest thing is that most of that money goes to no-bid contracts

and mercs... not to the troops. This whole funding appropriations is the biggest b.s. ever.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

2. Only if the CIC and DoD allows it to be funnelled in that direction. nt

[Squatch]

4. Actually, no.

Only if the specific appropriation (which is a matter of public law) authorizes expenditure of funds in "that direction".

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

5. Are you speaking in terms of "what" or "how"?

btw I do hope you are not taking unnecessary risks revealing such info about yourself (and I am being sincere about that).

I realize appropriations define "what" as in identifies on what the money shall be spent. However, the "no-bid" or "how" is dependent upon rules/regs pertaining to spending. As a general rule, "no-bid" contracts are forbidden except under particular circumstances.

At least, that's how it worked when I did government work.

Has it changed?

[Squatch]

6. It's well-known around here that I'm an Army dude

The underlying principle in any Federal appropriation is this:

"The established rule is that the expenditure of public funds is proper only when authorized by Congress, not that public funds may be expended unless prohibited by Congress."

United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 (1976)

Some appropriations, especially the more specialized ones like RDT&E, MILCON, etc. not only address the "what", but also the "who" and "how", sometimes the "where". All appropriations address the "when".

However, you are correct with respect to "no-bid" contracts in that they are only permitted under very specific circumstances. The FAR, Section 12, details when those types of contracts are appropriate.

[glowing]

7. KBR feeds our troops.. that would be a contract that is essential for our

troops. It is important that they do keep eating. So, they need to pay out their contract fees. The contractors that are used to move supplies and equipment and all these other things that have been turned over to the private sector, need to be paid for their services. The money is not directly going to the troops. The soldiers pay is non-negotiable. They are paid while in action or not. The bonuses are an addition (but there's a lot of red tape stuck on those bonuses). I would say that most of the contracts are companies that have closer connections with the whitehouse. So, "no-bid" may not be the correct terminology, but rather close to what happens.

[Squatch]

9. Those contracts, including the ones for Halliburton were put out for bid,

but the SOW and requirements were written so narrowly that, when it came time to evaluate proposals, only they could fill the need.

Or, another thing that happens is that when the government writes the RFP, they actually work with the company they want to hire it, so what happens is *that company* writes the RFP AND the actual proposal at the same time. Then, when the RFP is announced (with a very short suspense), that company is Johnny on the spot with the proposal, the bid period closes with no other submissions, and voila!

There's your no-bid.

[glowing]

10. I understand... it is "bidded out"... Just seems that the cronies happen

off with most of the contracts... (so that's the added phrase.. no-bid contracts).

[Squatch]

3. That is absolutely and unequivocally a falsehood.

Since I am an Army comptroller, I deal with DoD appropriations daily in the course of my work. What you've said is absolutely false.

[mmonk]

8. Madame Speaker

The administration doesn't play ball.