Best comment of the thread goes to Maurice! Thanks.
Nancy:
the net effect is an image of vast & egregious impropriety, cronyism, fiscal corruption, & violation of a host of US laws regarding awarding of contracts
Guess you didn't read the part where both contracts were up for competitive bids, vice any of the trash in the blockquote above. Not surprising.
Here is a portion of an Email written by the husband of a women that is on the ground in NO and flying DC National Gaurd missions daily. It specificly notes the good work KBR is doing at Naval Air station NO.
Kellogg, Brown & Root, better known as Halliburton, is doing amazing stuff at Naval Air Station New Orleans. Just like in Kosovo, Baghdad, Khandahar and everywhere else our soldiers deploy to harsh conditions, KBR (as we call them in the military) has rushed in and set up huge dining facilities, brought in comforts and standard-of-living improvements, and made life on base in New Orleans far more better than it otherwise would be with the huge arrivals. One facility they set up is "like hundreds of tents long, huge!" She said they have good food and a lot of variety. They have also set up and facilitated the arrival and assembly of many many other things that are improving conditions there for the soldiers.
Sounds like someone is doing a good job.
At least better than the locals who can't even decide whether or not to let residents back into the city.
27 -
steve
Sep 20, 2005 at 10:22 am
If Haliburton is a qualified company dedicated in the rebuilding of NOLA, what is the problem? Haliburton is not a Monopoly...so I don't understand why everyone raises such a stink about them. Just look at the great work that they have done overseas! I think that they are perfectly capable in handling the restoration of NOLA
As far as minimum wages go...everyone who is working on minimum wage deserves what they are paid. most times they are clerks or hold like menial jobs. for the work that they do, why should they be overpaid? People on minimum wage have no motivation to make something of themselves, so they get no sympathy from me. why should someone who is unqualified be paid as much as an experienced, schooled, trained worker? A: THEY SHOULDNT
Regarding #22 - that's a separate inquiry, not the one we were originally discussing, and thus far there's been no conclusion that his charges have any merit.
As for the previous investigation, it was concluded and no fault was assigned to Halliburton despite the deficiency of their accounting techniques. And even then the amount of money in question was quite small compared to the total contract involved.
You're really grasping at straws in your witchhunt.
>>If Haliburton is a qualified company dedicated in the rebuilding of NOLA, what is the problem? <<
The problem is that it's a company dominated by Republicans and associated with members of the administration, and is therefore evil and must be exterminated. It's all just partisan hatred being expressed by targeting the company.
Dave
30 -
steve
Sep 20, 2005 at 11:24 am
kill the vermin!! LoL I know Dave, but I would like to see a legitimate argument which would perhaps "open my eyes" so to speak. They are a great successful company. No one should knock them for that.
31 -
Dr. Kurt
Sep 20, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Wow-lotta data here!
The part that many of us, admittedly ignorant, taxpayers have a problem with is the "cost-plus" provision in Iraq. To wit: Halliburten reportedy scrapped functioning vehicles with flat tires, since they could then make an additional percentage on the replacement vehicle price. Waste more, earn more. When it is our money, we get upset at such stories. I wouldn't hire & pay a homebuilder on this kind of basis, would you?
Um, Dave? *You're* the one who specified that we were discussing certain charges, and not others. I simply pointed out that Halliburton is under investigation for fraudulent practices in Iraq. Which they *currently* are. Add to which they are intimidating witnesses (whistle-blowers). "A great, successful company." Absolutely. With a great and successful history of sleaze and profiteering.
This minimum/prevailing wage debate is amazing to me. George wants to pour money into reconstruction. He wants to do something about poverty. Well, why not *hire locals and pay them a decent wage*? Isn't that better than hand-outs?
>>Um, Dave? *You're* the one who specified that we were discussing certain charges, and not others.<<
No, we started out discussing the charges I was aware of, and you came up with another as yet unfiled charge.
>> I simply pointed out that Halliburton is under investigation for fraudulent practices in Iraq. Which they *currently* are. Add to which they are intimidating witnesses (whistle-blowers).<<
I didn't see any evidence to support the intimidation of whistle blowers, and this new investigation hasn't yet resulted in any concrete charges, correct?
>> "A great, successful company." Absolutely. With a great and successful history of sleaze and profiteering.<<
And of doing a great deal of good work all over the world, and doing it at a competitive price.
>>This minimum/prevailing wage debate is amazing to me. George wants to pour money into reconstruction. He wants to do something about poverty. Well, why not *hire locals and pay them a decent wage*? Isn't that better than hand-outs?<<
That's exactly what he wants to do - pay them a fair wage rather than an inflated union wage so that he can hire enough people to do the job and bring them in from other areas where the wage they'll be paid will be comensurate with what they are earning in right to work states rather than the excessive wage they would earn if they were actually allowed to work in a unionized state.
Bring them in from other areas, huh. That would really help the jobless people of Louisiana and Mississippi. The whole point of Davis-Bacon is to prevent the egregious practice of shipping in underpaid labor from deadbeat states (it was enacted during the Depression). Now, if you can demonstrate that union wages here are vastly inflated, fine -- they certainly are in parts of America. This does not seem to be the case in the affected areas. What you are condoning, is Halliburton's right to cut costs by shipping in borderline serfs. Would that be "compassionate" conservatism?
Cooper, there aren't enough people with the necessary skills in Louisiana to do this work. Yes, they can be drawn on for basic labor, but for electricians. plumbers, welders and other specialized, skilled workers they are going to need more than Louisiana can provide.
And since when did 'serfs' earn $20 an hour? They're not going to be able to hire these people unless they pay at least what they're getting in Texas. There's no forced labor involved here. It's just a matter of undercutting excessive union wages. We're talking about Carpenters and Masons getting $17 an hour instead of a union wage over $20 an hour or Electricians getting $20 an hour like they do in Texas instead of almost $23 an hour as set by unions. Not exactly low wages, but overall a substantial savings when cash is tight.
Um, how do you *know* we're talking $17 an hour? Have you ever seen a Halliburton-like outfit pay anything more than the *absolute minimum they can get away with*? If nothing else, the pressure from shareholders dictates this. The quotation above suggested $9 an hour -- Christ, even "steve" deserves more than 9 bucks an hour, for whatever he does in life.
Because $17 an hour is what those workers can go get a similar job for in Texas or Oklahoma or Arkansas, so if they want to get those workers Haliburton will have to pay that wage. The $9 per hour is solely for completely unskilled labor. We're talking trash moving labor, not even unskilled construction labor which they'll have to pay about $12.
There are market forces at work here, Cooper. All the lifting of restrictions does is allow that market to operate. It doesn't force people to work for the offered wages.
If it weren't so cynical, I'd call this kind of thinking utopian. They can "go get a similar job" -- sure Dave. This is a seriously mobile labor force. They just pile the family into the Mercedes SUV, and go shopping for the best wages. Of course, they don't have the means to leave their own city, even in the face of a murderous hurricane. I assure you, Halliburton will be able to get local employees for a *pittance.*
The point is that we're trying to revive a desperately impoverished area, which has been wiped out by a natural disaster (exacerbated by high-level incompetence). We are trying to *help* these people. Or we should be. Not to nickel and dime them into remaining a perpetual underclass. This is *not* business as usual.
The recent census tells us that the level of poverty has risen consistently, every year of the Bush administration. And I sure don't see that trend altering with this brave new approach. What we need is FDR, and what we have is a simian plutocrat and his merry band of apologists.
>>If it weren't so cynical, I'd call this kind of thinking utopian. They can "go get a similar job" -- sure Dave. This is a seriously mobile labor force. They just pile the family into the Mercedes SUV, and go shopping for the best wages. Of course, they don't have the means to leave their own city, even in the face of a murderous hurricane. I assure you, Halliburton will be able to get local employees for a *pittance.*<<
You're remarkably ill-informed on this topic. I know a number of people who work in construction and related fields. They are absolutely a mobile population. They move where the work is. I know one guy who moves seasonally from the northwest to the southwest depending on where the jobs are at the time. We're not talking about former New Orelans residents here - that's not who these wage adjustments apply to. They are aimed at skilled construction labor who have trucks and who move where the work is. That's the reality.
>>The point is that we're trying to revive a desperately impoverished area, which has been wiped out by a natural disaster (exacerbated by high-level incompetence). We are trying to *help* these people. Or we should be. Not to nickel and dime them into remaining a perpetual underclass. This is *not* business as usual.<<
This is irrelevant. The people you're talking about aren't unionized and aren't in the jobs we're referring to here. They are at best qualified for general labor type jobs at $9 an hour - which is a reasonable wage for that sort of work.
>>The recent census tells us that the level of poverty has risen consistently, every year of the Bush administration. <<
By an infinitessimally tiny amount, as part of a regular cycle which will eventually reverse itself. There's no causal relationship between the tiny increase in poverty and actions of the administration.
>>And I sure don't see that trend altering with this brave new approach. What we need is FDR, and what we have is a simian plutocrat and his merry band of apologists.<<
Ok, so you're just another irrational ideologue who doesn't care about the facts and is on a crusade to bash bush. Glad you finally made it clear.
>By an infinitessimally tiny amount, as part of a >regular cycle which will eventually reverse itself. >There's no causal relationship between the tiny >increase in poverty and actions of the >administration."
Please. And you call me an ideologue. If there were any *decrease*, I'm sure you'd be jumping up and down and howling to the world how this was all a *direct result* of supply side economics.
I'm not an ideologue. Yes, I think you're toadying to a loathsome buffoon, but I suspect I'm more conservative, in the classical sense, than you are.
Actually, it's comical that -- on the same day that this claque has been busy defending the honesty and transparency of procurement policies at the White House -- the man in charge of those policies has just been arrested for fraud and obstruction of justice:
>>Please. And you call me an ideologue. If there were any *decrease*, I'm sure you'd be jumping up and down and howling to the world how this was all a *direct result* of supply side economics.<<
No, I've just looked at the figures. There's a regular cycle which is evident over a prolonged period of time, clearly related to the cycle of recessions we've experienced in recent years.
>>I'm not an ideologue. Yes, I think you're toadying to a loathsome buffoon, but I suspect I'm more conservative, in the classical sense, than you are. <<
Who on earth am I toadying to by defying your attempt to propagandize and distort reality? And who ever said I was a conservative?
Ah, well thank god you're not a conservative. Because then the hypocrisy would be a bit overwhelming, wouldn't it? That your man (yes, you are toadying) is responsible for:
- the expansion of government
- the gutting of habeas corpus
- the promotion of mediocrity (with convenient lip service to the idea of meritocracy)
- increased federal powers
- rank fiscal mismanagement (borrow and spend, as opposed to tax and spend)
So, as I say, given that you seem to be in favor of all of the above, it speaks well of you that you don't call yourself a conservative. Um, what *do* you call yourself?
Who's 'my man'? My man didn't win the 2004 election. Plus I've never given any indication I'm in favor of any of the things you list. I've written articles on BC against most of them. The fact that I support Halliburton and private contracting in general does NOT mean that I support every single action of the administration. What makes you leap to that conclusion? It's not even vaguely logical.
Spare me. You've offered a condescending sigh of pity every time someone satirizes your beloved administration. I'll collect them and post them here, if you'd like.
So petty... so bitter... sigh...
Again: what exactly *are* you? If the answer is classical liberal, or libertarian, you should can the sighing and start screaming.
I've done my screaming, Cooper. I'm all for criticizing the administration when it does something wrong, but going after it for something like this is just pettiness.
There's a difference between going after actual flaws and errors and just bashing because Bush is Bush and therefore bashable.
Dave
48 -
Nancy
Sep 21, 2005 at 3:01 pm
No...this thread is about Halliburton getting humongous contracts without benefit of any kind of bids whatsoever, in violation of federal law, on the flimsy excuse that there's an emergency, but it just so happens that so many of Bush's big donors & VP just by sheer coincidence are Halliburton connections, & that Halliburton has been fingered more than once on more than tenuous grounds for trying to overcharge, overbill, & just plain steal the government blind. That's what we're supposed to be discussing here.
Nancy is, of course, Dead Right (to quote the title of a very bad book by a very old friend). This is getting way off topic, and the depredations of Halliburton are still worth discussing. So...
I'm going to take this somewhere else. Nalle, presumably you believe in something (apart from the conviction -- far from demonstrated -- that you possess, sigh, transcendent wisdom). So let's hear it. I've just posted an essay, written a couple of months ago, which sketches out my position:
Article comments
26 - marc
Best comment of the thread goes to Maurice! Thanks.
Guess you didn't read the part where both contracts were up for competitive bids, vice any of the trash in the blockquote above. Not surprising.Nancy:
Here is a portion of an Email written by the husband of a women that is on the ground in NO and flying DC National Gaurd missions daily. It specificly notes the good work KBR is doing at Naval Air station NO.Sounds like someone is doing a good job.
At least better than the locals who can't even decide whether or not to let residents back into the city.
27 - steve
If Haliburton is a qualified company dedicated in the rebuilding of NOLA, what is the problem? Haliburton is not a Monopoly...so I don't understand why everyone raises such a stink about them. Just look at the great work that they have done overseas! I think that they are perfectly capable in handling the restoration of NOLA
As far as minimum wages go...everyone who is working on minimum wage deserves what they are paid. most times they are clerks or hold like menial jobs. for the work that they do, why should they be overpaid? People on minimum wage have no motivation to make something of themselves, so they get no sympathy from me. why should someone who is unqualified be paid as much as an experienced, schooled, trained worker? A: THEY SHOULDNT
28 - Dave Nalle
Regarding #22 - that's a separate inquiry, not the one we were originally discussing, and thus far there's been no conclusion that his charges have any merit.
As for the previous investigation, it was concluded and no fault was assigned to Halliburton despite the deficiency of their accounting techniques. And even then the amount of money in question was quite small compared to the total contract involved.
You're really grasping at straws in your witchhunt.
Dave
29 - Dave Nalle
>>If Haliburton is a qualified company dedicated in the rebuilding of NOLA, what is the problem? <<
The problem is that it's a company dominated by Republicans and associated with members of the administration, and is therefore evil and must be exterminated. It's all just partisan hatred being expressed by targeting the company.
Dave
30 - steve
kill the vermin!! LoL I know Dave, but I would like to see a legitimate argument which would perhaps "open my eyes" so to speak. They are a great successful company. No one should knock them for that.
31 - Dr. Kurt
Wow-lotta data here!
The part that many of us, admittedly ignorant, taxpayers have a problem with is the "cost-plus" provision in Iraq. To wit: Halliburten reportedy scrapped functioning vehicles with flat tires, since they could then make an additional percentage on the replacement vehicle price. Waste more, earn more. When it is our money, we get upset at such stories. I wouldn't hire & pay a homebuilder on this kind of basis, would you?
32 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Um, Dave? *You're* the one who specified that we were discussing certain charges, and not others. I simply pointed out that Halliburton is under investigation for fraudulent practices in Iraq. Which they *currently* are. Add to which they are intimidating witnesses (whistle-blowers). "A great, successful company." Absolutely. With a great and successful history of sleaze and profiteering.
This minimum/prevailing wage debate is amazing to me. George wants to pour money into reconstruction. He wants to do something about poverty. Well, why not *hire locals and pay them a decent wage*? Isn't that better than hand-outs?
33 - Dave Nalle
>>Um, Dave? *You're* the one who specified that we were discussing certain charges, and not others.<<
No, we started out discussing the charges I was aware of, and you came up with another as yet unfiled charge.
>> I simply pointed out that Halliburton is under investigation for fraudulent practices in Iraq. Which they *currently* are. Add to which they are intimidating witnesses (whistle-blowers).<<
I didn't see any evidence to support the intimidation of whistle blowers, and this new investigation hasn't yet resulted in any concrete charges, correct?
>> "A great, successful company." Absolutely. With a great and successful history of sleaze and profiteering.<<
And of doing a great deal of good work all over the world, and doing it at a competitive price.
>>This minimum/prevailing wage debate is amazing to me. George wants to pour money into reconstruction. He wants to do something about poverty. Well, why not *hire locals and pay them a decent wage*? Isn't that better than hand-outs?<<
That's exactly what he wants to do - pay them a fair wage rather than an inflated union wage so that he can hire enough people to do the job and bring them in from other areas where the wage they'll be paid will be comensurate with what they are earning in right to work states rather than the excessive wage they would earn if they were actually allowed to work in a unionized state.
Dave
34 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Bring them in from other areas, huh. That would really help the jobless people of Louisiana and Mississippi. The whole point of Davis-Bacon is to prevent the egregious practice of shipping in underpaid labor from deadbeat states (it was enacted during the Depression). Now, if you can demonstrate that union wages here are vastly inflated, fine -- they certainly are in parts of America. This does not seem to be the case in the affected areas. What you are condoning, is Halliburton's right to cut costs by shipping in borderline serfs. Would that be "compassionate" conservatism?
35 - Dave Nalle
Cooper, there aren't enough people with the necessary skills in Louisiana to do this work. Yes, they can be drawn on for basic labor, but for electricians. plumbers, welders and other specialized, skilled workers they are going to need more than Louisiana can provide.
And since when did 'serfs' earn $20 an hour? They're not going to be able to hire these people unless they pay at least what they're getting in Texas. There's no forced labor involved here. It's just a matter of undercutting excessive union wages. We're talking about Carpenters and Masons getting $17 an hour instead of a union wage over $20 an hour or Electricians getting $20 an hour like they do in Texas instead of almost $23 an hour as set by unions. Not exactly low wages, but overall a substantial savings when cash is tight.
Dave
36 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Um, how do you *know* we're talking $17 an hour? Have you ever seen a Halliburton-like outfit pay anything more than the *absolute minimum they can get away with*? If nothing else, the pressure from shareholders dictates this. The quotation above suggested $9 an hour -- Christ, even "steve" deserves more than 9 bucks an hour, for whatever he does in life.
37 - Dave Nalle
Because $17 an hour is what those workers can go get a similar job for in Texas or Oklahoma or Arkansas, so if they want to get those workers Haliburton will have to pay that wage. The $9 per hour is solely for completely unskilled labor. We're talking trash moving labor, not even unskilled construction labor which they'll have to pay about $12.
There are market forces at work here, Cooper. All the lifting of restrictions does is allow that market to operate. It doesn't force people to work for the offered wages.
Dave
38 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
If it weren't so cynical, I'd call this kind of thinking utopian. They can "go get a similar job" -- sure Dave. This is a seriously mobile labor force. They just pile the family into the Mercedes SUV, and go shopping for the best wages. Of course, they don't have the means to leave their own city, even in the face of a murderous hurricane. I assure you, Halliburton will be able to get local employees for a *pittance.*
The point is that we're trying to revive a desperately impoverished area, which has been wiped out by a natural disaster (exacerbated by high-level incompetence). We are trying to *help* these people. Or we should be. Not to nickel and dime them into remaining a perpetual underclass. This is *not* business as usual.
The recent census tells us that the level of poverty has risen consistently, every year of the Bush administration. And I sure don't see that trend altering with this brave new approach. What we need is FDR, and what we have is a simian plutocrat and his merry band of apologists.
39 - Dave Nalle
>>If it weren't so cynical, I'd call this kind of thinking utopian. They can "go get a similar job" -- sure Dave. This is a seriously mobile labor force. They just pile the family into the Mercedes SUV, and go shopping for the best wages. Of course, they don't have the means to leave their own city, even in the face of a murderous hurricane. I assure you, Halliburton will be able to get local employees for a *pittance.*<<
You're remarkably ill-informed on this topic. I know a number of people who work in construction and related fields. They are absolutely a mobile population. They move where the work is. I know one guy who moves seasonally from the northwest to the southwest depending on where the jobs are at the time. We're not talking about former New Orelans residents here - that's not who these wage adjustments apply to. They are aimed at skilled construction labor who have trucks and who move where the work is. That's the reality.
>>The point is that we're trying to revive a desperately impoverished area, which has been wiped out by a natural disaster (exacerbated by high-level incompetence). We are trying to *help* these people. Or we should be. Not to nickel and dime them into remaining a perpetual underclass. This is *not* business as usual.<<
This is irrelevant. The people you're talking about aren't unionized and aren't in the jobs we're referring to here. They are at best qualified for general labor type jobs at $9 an hour - which is a reasonable wage for that sort of work.
>>The recent census tells us that the level of poverty has risen consistently, every year of the Bush administration. <<
By an infinitessimally tiny amount, as part of a regular cycle which will eventually reverse itself. There's no causal relationship between the tiny increase in poverty and actions of the administration.
>>And I sure don't see that trend altering with this brave new approach. What we need is FDR, and what we have is a simian plutocrat and his merry band of apologists.<<
Ok, so you're just another irrational ideologue who doesn't care about the facts and is on a crusade to bash bush. Glad you finally made it clear.
Dave
40 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
>By an infinitessimally tiny amount, as part of a >regular cycle which will eventually reverse itself. >There's no causal relationship between the tiny >increase in poverty and actions of the >administration."
Please. And you call me an ideologue. If there were any *decrease*, I'm sure you'd be jumping up and down and howling to the world how this was all a *direct result* of supply side economics.
I'm not an ideologue. Yes, I think you're toadying to a loathsome buffoon, but I suspect I'm more conservative, in the classical sense, than you are.
41 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Actually, it's comical that -- on the same day that this claque has been busy defending the honesty and transparency of procurement policies at the White House -- the man in charge of those policies has just been arrested for fraud and obstruction of justice:
link to blogcritics story
42 - Dave Nalle
>>Please. And you call me an ideologue. If there were any *decrease*, I'm sure you'd be jumping up and down and howling to the world how this was all a *direct result* of supply side economics.<<
No, I've just looked at the figures. There's a regular cycle which is evident over a prolonged period of time, clearly related to the cycle of recessions we've experienced in recent years.
>>I'm not an ideologue. Yes, I think you're toadying to a loathsome buffoon, but I suspect I'm more conservative, in the classical sense, than you are. <<
Who on earth am I toadying to by defying your attempt to propagandize and distort reality? And who ever said I was a conservative?
Dave
43 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Ah, well thank god you're not a conservative. Because then the hypocrisy would be a bit overwhelming, wouldn't it? That your man (yes, you are toadying) is responsible for:
- the expansion of government
- the gutting of habeas corpus
- the promotion of mediocrity (with convenient lip service to the idea of meritocracy)
- increased federal powers
- rank fiscal mismanagement (borrow and spend, as opposed to tax and spend)
So, as I say, given that you seem to be in favor of all of the above, it speaks well of you that you don't call yourself a conservative. Um, what *do* you call yourself?
44 - Dave Nalle
Who's 'my man'? My man didn't win the 2004 election. Plus I've never given any indication I'm in favor of any of the things you list. I've written articles on BC against most of them. The fact that I support Halliburton and private contracting in general does NOT mean that I support every single action of the administration. What makes you leap to that conclusion? It's not even vaguely logical.
Dave
45 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Spare me. You've offered a condescending sigh of pity every time someone satirizes your beloved administration. I'll collect them and post them here, if you'd like.
So petty... so bitter... sigh...
Again: what exactly *are* you? If the answer is classical liberal, or libertarian, you should can the sighing and start screaming.
46 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
(And, yes I'm on "a crusade to bash Bush." Why aren't *you*?)
47 - Dave Nalle
I've done my screaming, Cooper. I'm all for criticizing the administration when it does something wrong, but going after it for something like this is just pettiness.
There's a difference between going after actual flaws and errors and just bashing because Bush is Bush and therefore bashable.
Dave
48 - Nancy
No...this thread is about Halliburton getting humongous contracts without benefit of any kind of bids whatsoever, in violation of federal law, on the flimsy excuse that there's an emergency, but it just so happens that so many of Bush's big donors & VP just by sheer coincidence are Halliburton connections, & that Halliburton has been fingered more than once on more than tenuous grounds for trying to overcharge, overbill, & just plain steal the government blind. That's what we're supposed to be discussing here.
49 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
Nancy is, of course, Dead Right (to quote the title of a very bad book by a very old friend). This is getting way off topic, and the depredations of Halliburton are still worth discussing. So...
I'm going to take this somewhere else. Nalle, presumably you believe in something (apart from the conviction -- far from demonstrated -- that you possess, sigh, transcendent wisdom). So let's hear it. I've just posted an essay, written a couple of months ago, which sketches out my position:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/21/173253.php
Feel free to do the same.