Why is this a surprise? This type of stuff happens every time the government gets involved with anything! Why in the world...(and please, someone answer who really believes the govt. can do it better), would anyone want government run healthcare??? Why do you think they can do it better than the private sector?

Nope, the government can't do anything better. That includes outsourcing to the cronies.

Want examples. Look at the military. They can't do anything right. Look at the cronies they've hired to do their work. They also can't do anything right. Lets cut back on government to building infrastructure within America and work on getting them to make good laws and enforcement of them in a better way.

If you want to bash the military, go ahead but leave me out of it. I hate lawyers... until I need one.

Make good laws? We want them to make LESS laws. We have enough of them thank you. Gridlock is good, it means they are not interfering in our lives as much. Remember it it us vs. them...not left vs. right.

REPOSTING FROM ANOTHER THREAD :

Actually, things started going downhill when the Defense Department privatized support services at Walter Reed.

From the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's report:

(...)

According to multiple sources, the decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed led to a precipitous drop in support personnel at Walter Reed. Prior to the award of the contract, there were over 300 federal employees providing facilities management and related services at Walter Reed. By February 3, 2007, the day before IAP [IAP Worldwide Services is the company that got the contract] took over facilities management, the number of support personnel had dropped to under 60. Yet instead of hiring additional personnel, IAP apparently replaced the remaining 60 federal employees with only 50 IAP personnel.

(...)

It appears that over the past six years, the Defense Department has been engaged in a systematic effort to replace federal workers at Walter Reed with private companies for a host of functions, including facilities management, patient care, and even guard post duty entrance. This effort occurred under the A-76 process (...).

(...)

The A-76 process was an element of Vice President Gore's reinventing government initiative. The idea behind A-76 is to force federal employees to compete with the private sector for the jobs being performed by the federal employees.

The process of considering Walter Reed for A-76 competitions began in 2000. But the push to privatize support services there accelerated under President Bush's "competitive sourcing" initiative, which was launched in 2002.

(...)

In September 2004, the Army determined that the in-house federal workforce at Walter Reed could perform support services at Walter Reed at a lower cost than the bid received from IAP Worldwide Services. IAP protested this determination. As a result of this protest, the Army Audit Agency was directed to reevaluate the bid from the federal employees. It has been reported that the Army Audit Agency withdrew its certification of the employee bid and unilaterally raised the bid by $7 million, thereby making the employee bid higher than the contractor bid. The Army then reversed its determination and resolved the A-76 process in favor of IAP.

(...)

When IAP took over on February 4, 2007, the company reportedly began to work with fewer than 50 workers, less than one-sixth the staff in the original federal workforce.

(...)

The Committee has been told that some of the problems recently identified at Walter Reed may be attributable to a lack of skilled government technicians on staff during the past year.

(...)

The Committee has also been told that contractor personnel were not adequately prepared when they began work on February 4, 2007.

To add some flagrant collusion to the mix :

The company that sought to take over support services at Walter Reed, IAP Worldwide Services, is led by Al Neffgen, the CEO. Mr. Neffgen was previously Chief Operating Officer of Government and Infrastructure for the Americas Region at KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Mr. Neffgen testified for KBR before our Committe on July 22, 2004, regarding overcharges for fuel imported into Iraq and excessive billings for troop support services (...).

Halliburton: Cheney's former company, which seems involved in almost every privatization scandal that has come to surface. The President of IAP, Dave Swindle, is also a former KBR employee (click on the Swindle's and Neffgen's names to read a short biography):

Prior to IAP, Swindle was Vice President, Business Acquisition and National Security Programs and an Officer for Kellogg Brown and Root. In this capacity, he was responsible for the Government and Infrastructure Division’s Business Development Operations for KBR Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe-Africa, and the Middle East.

IAP is owned by a Cereberus Global Investments. Who is the chairman of the firm ?

The Associated Press; published: November 3, 2006

Within days of former U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow becoming chairman of the New York hedge fund that owns IAP Worldwide Services Inc., the company submitted its bid for huge U.S. Army contracts that will be awarded by year-end.

Cerberus Capital Management LP owns Cape Canaveral, Florida-based IAP, which is led by former executives from Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root.

KBR is currently the U.S. Army's sole contractor for providing food and shelter to the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Army now wants multiple contractors for these services and KBR is bidding again. Some defense analysts are predicting both KBR and IAP, which is run by former KBR executives, will each win one of the 10-year deals that start in 2007.

And meet another old-timer onboard :

Currently, Dan Quayle is Chairman of Cerberus Global Investments, LLC (Cerberus), President of Quayle & Associates, and serves on the boards of directors of IAP Worldewide Services, Inc., K2, Inc and Aozora Bank, Ltd in Tokyo.

Danny boy ! Mr. "I'll spell potatoe however I want !"

IAP Worldwide Services is also a PAC (Political Action Committee), i.e., a lobbying group. Here's some information on the PAC :

Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (0% to Democrats, 100% to Republicans): $10,500.

Contributions to federal candidates, 2006 cycle :

House Candidate Total Contribs
Davis, Tom (R-VA) $2,100
Weldon, Curt (R-PA) $2,100
Weldon, Dave (R-FL) $2,100
Wilson, Joe (R-SC) $2,100
Young, C W Bill (R-FL) $2,100
Total to Democratic House Candidates: $0
Total to Republican House Candidates: $10,500

So the PAC is quite obviously, and unsurprisingly, slanted towards Republicans. There isn't any definitive proof, and there probably won't ever be, but the pieces fit: a case of GOP cronyism !

Lobbyists, politicians, former politicians and other well-connected folks using their networks to receive contracts... Ahh, the sickly smell of government and business collusions and corruption.

Does this include murtha..... I remember watching him on CSPAN saying he was at walter read every week.......... How come he didn't do anything about it

Well, if you can show that Murtha or other Democrats had financial ties to either IAP Worldwide Services, Cerberus Global Investments or Kellogg, Brown & Root, you would have a case. Otherwise, this ongoing scandal remains a primarily GOP affair. Besides, the IAP PAC did not make any contributions to the Democratic Party, or to Democratic candidates, so a collusion between IAP and Democrats seems improbable.

i red al that long shit fuck yu cibungho.

...but did you understand any of it?

__________________
http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably wind up somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter

Interesting posts Cizungu and thank you for them. My problem remains as stated in your summation: that it is a Republican rather than Democrat problem, which makes it a GOVERNMENT problem. I don't buy into the "Dems can do better than Republicans" arguments, or vice versa. There's no evidence to support those types of arguments. I pretty much hate them both.

I've stated in many other posts that it is citizens vs. government. I tend not to look at government officials too narrowly (ie Murtha). Murtha has demonstrated his own propensity for corruption in other arenas so?...he has different interests. The ones who aren't pukes aren't relevant.