The GSA, federal junkets and perspective
posted at 9:42 pm on April 24, 2012 by Dustin Siggins
Over the last two weeks, the importance of a $820,000 junket put on by the General Services Administration (GSA) in Las Vegas has dominated the politician and pundit worlds. The spending spree has resulted in an investigation from Congress, the release of several federal employees and recriminations from both parties. Unfortunately, it has also allowed Congress and many pundits to act as though being tough on the GSA is the equivalent of good governance, something that when faced with the facts is laughably false.
Don’t misunderstand – the GSA and other federal agencies should be held accountable for this and other unethical abuses of the public’s money. As The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell outlined on April 19, and again on April 23, this is only one of many publicly egregious wastes of taxpayer money in the bureaucracies in D.C. But when it comes down to it, $820,000 is not even a drop in the bucket of fraud/waste/abuse/duplicity. Here are some of the other, more easily ignored abuses:
First off is simple abuse that is acceptable for the well-connected politician but disgraceful and/or illegal for anyone else – small change, but ultimately emblematic of the systemic corruption in the federal government. Case in point is how former Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) gets a pension and other benefits for the rest of his life, despite resigning in disgrace. President Obama, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, is almost certainly using taxpayer dollars for campaign trips – illegal, but obviously acceptable under both parties. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) was busted for solicitation, but never spent time in jail. He will get a pension and other monetary benefits, same as Weiner.
Antithetical to many conservatives is looking hard at unproductive defense spending. However, the Defense Department is rife with abuse. For example, last October a report by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) outlined how major defense contractors who paid civil fines or settled for amounts of $1 million or greater still received over $500 billion in contracts in the last 10 years. Another report, this one from The Commission Wartime Contracting, estimated that between $31 billion and $60 billion had been lost to poor oversight and/or fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan during our time in those nations.
Outside of fraud, simple inefficiencies abound in the Defense Department. This Forbes piece notes that approximately $100 billion had been spent on weapons programs that were either never used or eventually canceled – all after significant investments. In an informal conversation with a friend who is a military auditor, I was told that a number of contractors take a contract and take a percentage off the top. They then subcontract to another company, which takes a percentage off the top. This subcontractor then subcontracts to another company, and takes a percentage off the top. Finally, several levels down, the contract actually gets fulfilled.
Duplication of federal programs is something that has come to light in the last 15 months. A pair of Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports in 2011 and 2012 found, according to Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), “hundreds of billions” of dollars in duplication in the federal government. ABC News reported that the GAO found many programs were not tested for actually accomplishing their stated goals, and the same applied to a number of tax loopholes, credits, etc. (Several aspects of the 2012 report can be found at the first link, including examples of duplication and the report’s Executive Summary.) Here are some of the juicier parts of ABC’s article:
- GAO found the Department of Defense could save up to $460 million every year by undertaking a “broader restructuring” of its military health care system.
- The military came in for special scrutiny: over $10 billion on defense-wide business systems every year; $49 billion in military and veterans health services; and at least $76 billion since 2005 in urgent processing systems for the military.
- Fifty-eight billion dollars at the Department of Transportation [was spent] for over 100 separate surface transportation programs.
- [A]lmost $1 trillion in government-wide tax expenditures listed by the Treasury Department, some of which the GAO found “may be ineffective at achieving their social or economic purposes.”
- [T]he government has neglected to investigate numerous programs, making the expenditure of some funds not only redundant but wasteful. For instance, only five of 47 job training and employment programs surveyed by the GAO had been studied to evaluate whether outcomes were the result of the program itself or another cause altogether.
- “Little is known about the effectiveness of most programs,” the watchdog observed.
- That point also applies to domestic food assistance, where “little is known about the effectiveness of [11 of the 18 programs] because they have not been well studied,” the GAO said. In fiscal year 2008, for example, the government spent $62.5 billion on those 18 programs.
Of course, no critique of the federal government’s spending habits is complete without highlighting simple stupidity. In fiscal year 2011, improper payments totaled $115 billion in, over three percent of the federal budget. According to a press release from Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA): “An improper payment could be an incorrect payment, an over- or under- payment, and could include a payment to an ineligible recipient, a payment for an ineligible service, a duplicate payment or a payment for a service not received.” Medicare and Medicaid represented over half of these improper payments; in Fiscal Year 2010 alone Medicare cost the taxpayers $48 billion in improper payments.
To be fair, $115 billion is less than what was spent on improper payments in fiscal year 2010… but the $115 billion did not account for many agencies that simply fail to report improper payments. According to Platts: “Although not all agencies are required to report improper payment estimates, some agencies that are required to report do not do so. The most significant agency failing to report is the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), although both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the DOD – Office of Inspector General has found that the DOD is at a high risk for improper payments.
The simple fact of the matter is that while Congress and much of the media focuses on the President’s unnecessary and wasteful $52 million gas manipulation task force, or the GSA’s junket, hundreds of billions of dollars are slipping through the system. Perhaps Congress should focus on stopping these abuses of the taxpayer dollars, instead of intentionally misdirecting the attention of the American people to what amounts to literally cents on the dollar of the “fraud, waste, abuse and stupidity” (to quote Senator Coburn) so prevalent in our ever-growing, ever-expensive federal government.
Dustin Siggins is an associate producer with The Laura Ingraham Show and co-author with William Beach of The Heritage Foundation on a forthcoming book about the national debt. The opinions expressed are his own.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Their is no other god……except the government.
–Progressives.
PappyD61 on May 9, 2013 at 8:48 AM
So where does Maj. Nidal Hassan fit into this?
gryphon202 on May 9, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Sky pilots beware…times have changed.
It is no longer “Onward Christian Soldiers…” It is become “Nahnu Jund Allāh Jund Al-watan.“
coldwarrior on May 9, 2013 at 8:53 AM
Ed, anybody who has served in the military could have told you this without the need of a follow-up.
The real issue here is who gets to define “forcibly.” Clearly something like mandatory Bible study would be considered forced proselytizing but what about mentioning Christ during the prayer at a retirement ceremony? There is a real danger here that is covered up by going to the extremes. The left hates faith and is looking to slowly eradicating it from the military and nobody is going to convince me otherwise. Just wait until the first chaplains are kicked out of the service because they refuse to preside over sodomite fuax-marriage rites in a military chapel.
Happy Nomad on May 9, 2013 at 8:57 AM
They are backing off the trial balloon they floated due to massive push back. But the seed has been planted.
tommyboy on May 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Why bring up a military officer who merely went postal on a crowd of soldiers? That was an instance of workplace violence. The 13 killed and 30 wounded are not even eligible for the Purple Heart because, you know, that would mean they were attacked by a Muslim…. in Texas.
Happy Nomad on May 9, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Don’t buy it or they wouldn’t have Mikey Weinstein “consulting” them..
melle1228 on May 9, 2013 at 9:04 AM
27 comments or bust!
Bishop on May 9, 2013 at 9:07 AM
The heat got too hot for them, so they backed their plans down…for now.
kingsjester on May 9, 2013 at 9:14 AM
A poster here summed it up last week … (paraphrased) …
Gay — out and proud
Christianity — don’t ask, don’t tell
Paul-Cincy on May 9, 2013 at 9:19 AM
The watch for violations of the right of religious expression needs to continue.
22044 on May 9, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Coke and Christianity are OK..of course…Don’t ban anything.
We can just do a “big gulp” type regulation, yea, that’s the ticket! Legislate civility or a reasonable limit.
This preaching limit is redolent of second amendment limits.
Does every tradition or sacred object have a bull’s eye painted on it lately — or is it me?
I would be a lot more comfortable if it were not for the smell of Christian and traditional faith bashing I keep getting a whiff of in so many places. I keep feeling that it starts with the media and top officials and they just don’t want to come out and say what is really on their minds.
WAS THIS REALLY A PROBLEM?
I doubt it.
IlikedAUH2O on May 9, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Mormon missionaries at my door don’t bother me half as much as gays in bars.
Darn! Now I just lost my pass for cool left coast parties….hope the attentive ones are busy with the early showers in rehab.
IlikedAUH2O on May 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM
Remain vigilant especially when you have like likes of Mikey Weinstein whose sole area of expertise is denigrating Christianity.
AH_C on May 9, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Hhhmmm… “forcibly” can have different contexts. I too had a negative initial reaction to the DOJ policy. In discussing this with some friends, I remembered a personal incident that moved this into a much grayer area for me.
Twenty some years ago I was a young college student on ROTC scholarship. Being a “military brat” it seemed like a good path. Unfortunately, the command structure in that unit was (I didn’t know until much later) far different, bordering on abusive, than the typical ROTC command eventually leading to disciplinary action for the active duty personnel running it. So, I am not writing this claiming it to be typical, but merely as a way in which “forcibly” can have a different meaning in a military structure.
During an intensive 2 week pre-semester “boot camp” at a local military base, we were there for 2 Sundays. We did the basic boot camp stuff, PT, marching, tear gas chamber, obstacle course, cleaning baracks, polishing shoes and brass, etc. On Sunday mornings we were offered an option – attend Sunday ecumenical services or clean the barrack’s bathroom. Needless to say, all of us 18-19 year olds atttended church services.
We certainly weren’t forced in the conventional sense, however, we were certainly coerced. Who wouldn’t want to put on kahkis and sit in church rather than don dungarees and scrub the head? I’m not suggesting that this particular type of coersion is happening regularly or even today, but I have heard friends tell of not dissimilar events in the regular military in the 80s.
I have no idea if it was events such as that leading to the DOJ pronouncement, something vastly different or just the general anti-Christianity of so many in this administration. However, I do think that there may be another side to this story that has not been articulated or complaints about some specific events or command that led to it. At this point, I’m going to keep a more open mind about it until/unless there is some evidence, at least anecdotal, that this is in some way restricting service members normal practice of their faith.
deepdiver on May 9, 2013 at 9:29 AM
You may be hanging out in the wrong bars.
tommyboy on May 9, 2013 at 9:31 AM
To a certain degree and in particular to this conversation I would agree.
However, the problem lies in trying to reconcile religious freedom with the social changes that force leaders are so fond of. This is especially pertinent to homosexuality.
For example, if one believes according to their religion that homosexuality is wrong (please take notice I mean morally wrong, not a hateful response or discriminatory) how does their “freedom” to believe that comport with the “freedom” of one to be homosexual? How does that affect unit cohesion and dilute the overall mission? Will my religious views affect an ability to be promoted? Will I be socially castigated by the CoC for not being a “team player” by adhering to matters of faith?
While I love my brother in a biblical sense, I may disagree with him on such matters. That disagreement manifest itself in not wanting to room with him or being exposed to his lifestyle. So is my “religious freedom” which is under-girded by moral tenets still protected and respected?
This is just one of the complexities and issues which are tangential. It also aptly displays why a military force is no place for social experimentation.
Marcus Traianus on May 9, 2013 at 9:36 AM
What is the social experiment? People keep using that phrase, but I don’t think it applies here.
segasagez on May 9, 2013 at 9:49 AM
That word was only in there for PR. To a leftist, “forcibly” means all sorts of weird things that a normal person would never connect with the actual word.
The Pentagon is a stinkhole full of idiots like ol’ General Casey, whose reaction to the Ft Hood terrorist attack was to say,
“As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”
These are the sorts of morons who are going to be interpreting what “forcibly” means – and you will be amazed at what they come up with. Just remember, Ft Hood wasn’t a terrorist attack, even though the self-proclaimed jihadi was screaming “Allahu ackbar” while he gunned down Americans and had indicated his displeasure with all things non-muzzie for YEARS before. Ft Hood was “workplace violence” … and you’re going to trust this same crew to reasonably interpret what “forcibly” means? LOL.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 9, 2013 at 9:51 AM
The social experiment is that instead of creating unit cohesion and a team; the military is not segmented into special interest groups which defeats the whole purpose of unit cohesion.
Don’t think there isn’t special interest groups see racial and gender quotas in the military.. See the constant powerpoint presentations and EO classes.
melle1228 on May 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Not really, Ed. The question that is unanswered is: why this sudden and urgent crackdown now?
When this administration declares there’s a new crisis that needs fixing right now, I think we’ve all learned enough not to let what they do slide, much less lend them any support. Never let a crisis go to waste, y’know. Or just manufacture a crisis when it serves an end.
whatcat on May 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM
Eventually those progressives are gonna run into a bit of a problem with their muslim allies in regard to that concept.
hawkeye54 on May 9, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Even worse, these assclowns who disgrace the uniform they wear are taking their orders from Mikey Weinstein, a particularly nasty and virulent anti-Christian hatemonger. He terms a Christian discussing faith as “being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators”.
whatcat on May 9, 2013 at 11:20 AM
Don’t worry. When they’re in the foxholes, they will convert.
Hucklebuck on May 9, 2013 at 11:56 AM
What is “undue pressure?”
That simple question makes a huge difference. We’ve already seen a PR person for the Air Force define “making someone uncomfortable” as the standard for proselytization.
Yes, there’s a balance that needs to be kept. Saying something about your belief in God or the need to believe in God may well make someone “uncomfortable,” but that is not sufficient reason to label it proselytization or call it “over the line.”
Behind the story, there is a power struggle going on. Weinstein and others like him want to redefine what started as a simple standard to prevent coercion by superiors into a strict “zero tolerance” type standard to prevent even a chaplain from encouraging someone to become a Christian.
What’s hard to read here is whether the Air Force is simply trying to clarify the rules without actually changing them, or whether they’re trying to change the rules by interpretation while pretending nothing has changed.
But it’s clear enough that some, at least, are trying to turn “proselytization” into a dirty word implying coercion where it has not typically had that meaning.
In Christian doctrine, it’s simply known as the Great Commission. And you can’t tell a chaplain to take the position that conversion to Christianity is off-limits without trampling religious freedom.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 9, 2013 at 3:17 PM
I believe the term “social experiment” refers to the fact that no one knows how unit cohesion will be affected and other consequences of the decision to change the policy on open homosexuality in the military, but they’re doing it anyway.
A fairly straightforward point, but it runs afoul of the push to mainstream homosexuality at all costs, regardless of consequences known or unknown.
In this case, the consequence is the natural conflict between homosexuality and religious freedom. Note that the question is not whether homosexuality is permitted, but whether Christians who believe it is sinful will be permitted to continue to believe that.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM
I’d like it if NO Christians were in the military. None. Nada.
Let every other religion/NON-religion (ie -atheist) go sign up and protect the country……..
and die for it.
Why should Christians always be the ones at the front of the lines and then have to be mocked, given few or little support at home when they do make it home?
LET others do it, get stigmatized, and leave the Christians alone. They’ll eventually need to do a draft because those “other” religions or “non-religions” won’t fill all the slots. Watch the uproar then.
athenadelphi on May 9, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Obama Administration Allowed Radical Cleric to Curse US Navy SEAL Heroes at Their Funeral Services (Video & Transcript)
Pole-Cat on May 9, 2013 at 4:39 PM
They didn’t “float” anything. This was a fabricated story from the get-go. It was just the FRC trying to portray Christians as victims.
Mark Jaquith on May 9, 2013 at 5:07 PM