Republicans Waste The Nation's Money

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:58:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here's more evidence of Republican incompetence to manage the government, as if more were needed:

The government wasted millions of dollars on four no-bid contracts it handed out for Hurricane Katrina work, including paying $20 million for a camp for evacuees that was never inspected and proved to be unusable, investigators say.

Not to mention the Fence to Nowhere:

The Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday that cost overruns, legal obstacles and other problems were imperiling its goal of completing the 670 miles of fencing and technological improvements on the Southwest border that President Bush has promoted as vital to securing it.

[more ...]

To finish the fence, Homeland Security wants to redirect $400 million in department funds "from other purposes." In other words, money that could be spent on, um, homeland security would instead be diverted to a useless fence that protects the nation from nothing. But $400 million won't be enough.

The [GAO] report said the average cost had risen this year to $7.5 million per mile for pedestrian barriers, typically large steel and mesh plates, and $2.8 million per mile for vehicle fencing, usually an array of short thick poles. February’s estimates were $4 million for pedestrian fencing and $2 million for vehicles.

Can the nation afford four more years of Republican mismanagement?

< Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bills to Address Wrongful Convictions | Competition and Text Messaging >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Republicans Waste The Nation's Money | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If the fence protects from nothing (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by hookfan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:31:21 PM EST

why did the Dems provide the money for it, rather than controlling the budget which is their job? I think this is a losing argument as the democrats are knee deep in mutual responsibility for the debacle due to their cowardly capitulation on nearly everything. It's painful to be reminded on their abdication of responsibility.

The Secure Border Intiative (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by eric on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:43:22 PM EST

was proposed and passed in 2005. The Dems didn't have Congress then and didn't commission the fence. It is just more contracts for Republicans, this time, Boeing.

Now, sure, they should cut the money off, but you know what would happen then...political assassination through allegations of being weak on border security. The trap was set.


True and (2.00 / 1) (#9)
by hookfan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:00:19 PM EST

the responsibility to make that decision, whether good or ill, was the Democratic congress. that's why i think it is a losing argument. the Democratic congress is at historically low approval ratings. I believe their refusal to bite the bullet on tough issues is one reason why. I well remember my continuous frustration from 2006 onward as congress repeatedly bowed down to the Bush agenda. What have they gotten for it all? Perhaps a chance to pretend to fight another day.


if you're wanting to argue (1.00 / 0) (#19)
by wystler on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:20:50 PM EST

... it's best to avoid ignoring facts presented. Care to comment on why you choose to refer to the federal legislative body, as constitute in 2005, as "the Democratic congress"?


Read more carefully please (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by hookfan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:29:26 PM EST

I stated from 2006 onward and my "true" comment was in agreement about "the trap" from 2005. The Dem congress still owns responsibility for the budget post 2006.they were voted in, imo, to help stem the bleed and have failed miserably.


: Perhaps I wasn't clear (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by hookfan on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:42:05 PM EST

"that decision" I refer to was the Dem's decision to not cut off funding after they obtained control of congress. I'm basically in agreement with the 2005 time. However, even there, an argument can be made that the democratic minority didn't go to the mat over it. Probably due to the same cowardice they manifest 2006 to present.

Your headline is like (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by scribe on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:47:43 PM EST

"Water is wet."

But, to be fair, the scale of their perfidy is the only thing (relatively) new.

So, congress just approves an arbitrary (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by JavaCityPal on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:00:49 PM EST

Dollar amount to everything requested by the Executive group? None of this has a budget explanation for the amount, or a mandate on which portions need to go out to bid?

Seems to me THAT'S where the changes need to start. Congress just keeps handing this guy blank checks. Which party controls Congress, again?

Well (none / 0) (#15)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:08:19 PM EST

When you give money to the Executive Branch with a direction on how it has to be spent, that's called an earmark, and it's evil. Under the beneficent rule of President McCain, only blank checks will be permitted, for the fiscal health of the nation.


: Not true (none / 0) (#38)
by JavaCityPal on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:47:38 PM EST

It should have been (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:12:43 PM EST

A campaign issue. But in our period of post partisanship, these things were ignored. It was a poor strategy. Dem's won in 2006 because of the corruption and blunders by Republican's. There was no season to back off from it in 2008.

One of the reasons none of the Katrina stuff was hit hard was due to Joe Lieberman refusal to hold hearing on any of it.

: No Reason to Back Off? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Strick on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:28:22 PM EST

Other than the Democrats failed to keep their promises on spending? As I understand it, they've obstructed every attempt to make the process more transparent and earmarks and other spending have gone through the roof on their watch.
And "pay as you go" is a bad joke abandoned almost at the first gavel.
Probably a bad idea to dwell on spending given who the Democrats are running against. After all, McCain and Palin are making running against the Republicans who messed this up the main plank in their campaign and, like it or not, their record is more convincing.

I might be wrong, but I think the dems are (4.25 / 4) (#1)
by PssttCmere08 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:00:55 PM EST

participants in these debacles...may not have generated them, but went along nonetheless.

The Dems (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by TChris on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:07:42 PM EST

participate in legislating, but not in administering the money after it's been appropriated. That's done by the Executive Branch, which is populated by Bush appointees. And under the president's "unitary executive" theory, the buck stops with the Unitary Executive, President Bush.


: So they bear no responsibility for oversight? (5.00 / 0) (#34)
by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:34:54 PM EST

Then why the heck are they wasting all their time on the committee meetings? Congressional committee are supposed to provide ongoing oversight... not just convene when they can get media attention.
Sorry TChris, there is plenty of blame to go around.
For example, Palin may have initially supported the Bridge before she was against it (Kerry should be slapped for giving us THAT linguistic mess :) but both Obama and Biden voted for the thing twice.

Ummm Verr (none / 0) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:05:00 PM EST

You are noticing stuff.


Does anyone, but the grossly naive, (4.00 / 2) (#3)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:16:05 PM EST

believe "wasting the nation's money" is limited to but one political party?

I think many Republicans belabor (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by lilburro on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:58:18 PM EST

under the impression that only Dems do.


Fair enough. (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:04:58 PM EST

although I the converse is probably also true, which is the whole point. Only the grossly naive can believe that gvt waste is limited to one party or the other.


: A lot of people are grossly naive. (none / 0) (#37)
by lilburro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:02:27 PM EST

The GOP doesn't have a nifty "tax and spend" slogan attached to them all the time though.

Both parties... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 03:53:52 PM EST

are experts at wasting dough, no doubt.

Though the Repubs are worse because they claim to be the smart and responsible ones with the pocketbook...saying one thing and doing another.

Kinda the flip side of the war/occupation issue, where it is the Dems who do one thing and say another.


Fair point. (none / 0) (#14)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:06:42 PM EST

Not only is it fair (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:30:51 PM EST

I believe it is also one of the reasons that the Republicans are having problems with their base. Republican politicians have forgotten that a large part their constituency actually (shocking, I know) believe in the ideals of fiscal conservatism.

Then again, I am pretty sure the same can be said for Democratic Politicians and their constituency when it comes to ending the war.

In both cases, say what you need to get elected... then do what you because the ignorant proles (which is how I am beginning to think that they see us) will forget by the time the next election roles around and besides... are they really going to vote for the other party??

I guess there is something to be said (from a career politician's point of view) about this polarized electorate. How sad.


: All good, well said. (5.00 / 0) (#33)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:32:47 PM EST

Terrifyingly incompetent. (3.00 / 0) (#10)
by eleanora on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:00:42 PM EST

Halliburton "lost" $9 billion of our tax dollars somewhere in Iraq recently too. Just lost it, no explanation, no paying it back, just like "Whoops, sorry! :D"

I remember being real scared back in 06 or 07 when the head of the GAO put out a report saying the US was in deep budget trouble. He used exclamation points, and accountants just don't do that. If Dems win this time, it's going to take an army of accountants to figure out where all the money went.

: We'll never know (none / 0) (#24)
by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:38:18 PM EST

Ways to raise $ (2.00 / 0) (#17)
by indiependy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:13:24 PM EST

Well if McCain/Palin win here's one way they may plan on raising money:

Wasilla forced rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests when Palin was mayor. Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

from 2000: (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:22:02 PM EST

Knowles signs sexual assault bill
Published on Monday, May 22, 2000 9:00 PM AKDT
JO C. GOODE / The Frontiersman / May 23, 2000
[...]
While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.
In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.
According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.
Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.

That's kinda rough (none / 0) (#25)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:39:10 PM EST

in a community that built a $15 million sports complex, although I guess you gotta cut corners wherever you can!

It's just really weird, and frankly, I can't think of any other crime where the victim is typically billed for the costs of investigation. Even if that cost is going to be picked up sometimes by a liability insurer.


It is weird, (5.00 / 0) (#28)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:49:16 PM EST

and I'll bet there's more to it. My bet is that the city was mainly trying to push the costs onto the ins co's, but we shall see I guess...


: I hadn't thought of that. Good point. (5.00 / 0) (#35)
by Matt in Chicago on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:36:40 PM EST

Here's your bill for the DNA! (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM EST

Republican spending seems to benefit the (none / 0) (#12)
by Aqua Blue on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:02:29 PM EST

wealthy. The super rich don't need more riches. Enough with the greed!

Democratic spending benefits the common citizen more. As a Democrat, I want my tax dollars to build the nation's infastruction, solar and wind energy incentives, universal healthcare, public education and parks and arts for the people.

Agreed, there is a difference. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by eric on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:13:47 PM EST

For some, funding infrastructure, social programs, education, arts, etc. is wasting money. I don't think so, but it is a fair enough argument because people have different values.

However, in the last 8 years, the Republicans have been literally wasting money. As in, the money isn't being used efficiently or effectively. Money is being tossed into the wind with no consequences.

No matter what you feel about the government program, whether it be hurricane relief or a new park, at a minimum, there shouldn't be the corruption and waste that we have seen with this administration.


: wasting? hardly (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by wystler on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 04:24:02 PM EST

The GOP hasn't been wasting money. They've been paying their boys. McCain would be a continuation.

Bush will get credit on the crazy right probably (none / 0) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:03:44 PM EST

for solving our immigration problems. He had so many problems getting that fence up the better move was to destroy the economy and now nobody else wants to live with us. Atlas shrugged again, long live the Republican party.

But Bush (none / 0) (#31)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:07:33 PM EST

was always to the left of his party on immigration!


: Nobody in history will remember that (none / 0) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 07:44:13 PM EST

but you :) Certainly no voting Republican will teach such nonsense to their children.