Home / governmentwaste
Showing posts with label governmentwaste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label governmentwaste. Show all posts
US Post Office about to declare bankruptcy

US Post Office about to declare bankruptcy

From the WSJ:
While lawmakers continue to fight over how to fix the ailing U.S. Postal Service, the agency's money problems are only growing worse. The Postal Service repeated on Wednesday that without congressional action, it will default—a first in its long history, a spokesman said—on a legally required annual $5.5 billion payment, due Aug. 1, into a health-benefits fund for future retirees. Action in Congress isn't likely, as the House prepares to leave for its August recess. The agency said a default on the payment, for 2011, wouldn't directly affect service or its ability to pay employees and suppliers. But "these ongoing liquidity issues unnecessarily undermine confidence in the viability of the Postal Service among our customers," said spokesman David Partenheimer. The agency says it will default on its 2012 retiree health payment as well—also roughly $5.5 billion, due Sept. 30—if there is no legislative action by then. . . .
With California already facing huge deficits, they want to spend another $68 billion on a green project

With California already facing huge deficits, they want to spend another $68 billion on a green project

The problem is that if this railroad line made sense, the government wouldn't have to subsidize it.  Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin may have thought that they were saving taxpayers' money by turning down the Federal grants, but the money is simply going to go to other projects, such as the one in California.  From the Associated Press:
In a narrow 21-16 party-line vote that involved intense lobbying by the governor, legislative leaders and labor groups, the state Senate approved the measure marking the launch of California's ambitious bullet train, which has spent years in the planning stages. . . .
The bill authorizes the state to begin selling $4.5 billion in voter-approved bonds that includes $2.6 billion to build an initial 130-mile stretch of the high-speed rail line in the agriculturally rich Central Valley. That allows the state to draw another $3.2 billion in federal funding.

The first segment of the line will run from Madera to Bakersfield.

Senate Republicans blasted the decision, citing the state's ongoing budget problems. They said project would push California over a fiscal cliff. No GOP senators voted for the bill Friday.

The final cost of the completed project from Los Angeles to San Francisco is projected to be $68 billion.

"It's unfortunate that the majority would rather spend billions of dollars that we don't have for a train to nowhere than keep schools open and harmless from budget cuts," Sen. Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, said in a statement. . . .
How to make the US much poorer: Military “green fuel” costs nearly seven times more than conventional fuel

How to make the US much poorer: Military “green fuel” costs nearly seven times more than conventional fuel

US military spends a lot on fuel.
Last year, the U.S. military spent approximately $15 billion on fuel for its operations . . .
OK, so the solution is to buy something that costs seven times more?  From Fox News.

The Navy is steaming ahead with an initiative to power ships with biofuel, despite criticism the so-called “green fuel” costs nearly seven times more than conventional fuel.
This month marks the first time the Navy is using biofuel in an operational setting -- sending five ships to a multi-nation exercise off the coast of Hawaii.
A Navy official told FoxNews.com on Monday that sailing the so-called “Great Green Fleet” this month on the 50-50 blend of alternative and conventional fuel is part of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ plan to have half the Navy fleet on alternative fuel by 2020.
The spokesman also confirmed the fuel -- which does not require engine modifications -- costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 a gallon for conventional fuel.
However, he pointed out the cost was for a one-day supply and that prices will drop when the Pentagon, among the country’s biggest fuel users, buys more.
Capitol Hill Republicans have been among the biggest critics of the plan -- questioning the fuel's cost and President Obama's alternative-energy initiatives as either not ready or too expensive for the marketplace.
They point to the government-funded Solyndra solar panel company going bankrupt as a cautionary tale.
"I don't believe it's the job of the Navy to be involved in building ... new technologies. I don't believe we can afford it," said Arizona Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, according to Reuters. . . .
Sure there are concerns about oil supply reductions during a war, but the price of oil already incorporates that risk, or at least the part of that risk that isn't interfered with by the threat of government price controls.  The current price is the future expected price.  So that gives you an idea of what the costs of storing oil might be.  The cost of storing oil per barrel in 1985 was $1.3/barrel/year (p. 27).  In today's dollars, that is about $2.60/barrel/year.
Obama administration "pushes out cash" before Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare

Obama administration "pushes out cash" before Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare

Is this right?  If Obamacare is struck down, this money on setting up state exchanges will be a complete waste.  From Politico:

But the administration has forged ahead, spending at least $2.7 billion since oral arguments in the case ended on March 28. That’s more than double the amount that was handed out in the three-month period leading up to the arguments, according to a POLITICO review of funding announcements from the Department of Health and Human Services. . . .Six states — including three states that are part of the challenge to the health care law — benefited from $181 million in grants announced in mid-May to help them set up health exchanges. The exchanges are new, state-based health insurance marketplaces that will go into effect in 2014 if the law is upheld.And earlier this month, another four states — including three that are opposing the law —split $295.6 million in enhanced Medicaid funding provided by the law to encourage states to provide long-term care to patients in their homes. . . .
Billions of US Tax Dollars going to Cuba and other foreign countries?

Billions of US Tax Dollars going to Cuba and other foreign countries?

From Mark Tapscott:

Two U.S. senators and a representative worry that billions of tax dollars could be going to Cuba and other foreign countries via criminal schemes designed to defraud Medicare and Medicaid.
The schemes often involve the use of “nominees,” individuals who are paid to be fronts for the actual owners of corporate entities being used in the fraudulent operation. By concealing the identities of true owners, the approach invites its use to funnel tax dollars out of the country.
In a letter made public yesterday to Marilyn Tavenner, acting administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid, senators Orrin Hatch, R-UT, and Tom Coburn, R-OK, were joined by Rep. Peter Roskam, R-IL, said they fear billions of tax dollars are being lost annually as a result.
“Clearly, the program vulnerabilities that facilitate billions of dollars to be stolen from the Medicare program each year also allow for some of that money to be funneled to foreign countries,” the three congressmen said.
“While the fraud itself is unacceptable, the loss of American dollars to foreign countries because of flaws in our system is totally unacceptable. The American people deserve the peace of mind to know that federal officials are doing everything they can to safeguard taxpayers’ dollars and the Medicare program.” . . .

Rep. Paul Ryan versus Goolsbee



For an academic, Goolsbee has a bad habit of either just following Democratic talking points or just making things up.  Points that I know he is sufficiently smart enough not to believe.  In the transcript below he has no problem attacking Romney for a company going under after Romney had left Bain,  and fails to acknowledge the inaccuracy of his attacks.  Ryan's comment was about the large portion of government money going to Obama supporters, not that all of it did.  Goolsbee's reference to a single McCain supporter is completely irrelevant.  The hope that "the Obama philosophy [is] to try to transform the government into only picking winners" is something that I can't believe Goolsbee believes.  How does it address the question of what is actually happening?  Why does Goolsbee believe that the government will have a higher success rate than private individuals investing their own money?  Even Wallace finds it necessary to bring Goolsbee back on track.  The transcript from Fox News Sunday is available here:

WALLACE: But let me just ask you, sir, do you see anything wrong with what Bain Capital did, and what lots of money, millions of dollars into this steel industry, the time when the steel was in trouble, what's wrong with that? 
GOOLSBEE: Well, it depends on how they did it. And as I say, they ought to turn over the annual records of the company.If you want to establish they did not have kind of a leverage buy out mentality of pulling the resources out of the company -- turn over the records and let the people see what the business record was. Don't just pick two or three companies that are the success stories and say look at these because that invites the ones that went wrong.In this case, the company did horribly but the investors did great. So, I think it's a little bit different than a normal investor philosophy which if we can turn the company around in a positive way, we benefit. This was the case where they canceled the pension, they drove the company into the ground but the investors from Bain actually profited a great deal. 
WALLACE: Let me follow up with Congressman Paul Ryan.Because the Obama campaign says the point of Romney economics is to make money for Bain, to make money for their investors, even if all of the workers get wiped out. And in this particular case, with the steel mill in Kansas City, the workers and that plant went bankrupt. The 750 workers were laid off and Bain did make millions of dollars in profits. 
RYAN: You know what's ironic about this, Chris, Mitt Romney was running the Olympics during this time. He wasn't even running Bain during the time period in question.I think the individual if I'm not mistaken who was running Bain is a big Obama contributor.But for the point, Chris, what Bain did was they used private capital to help struggling businesses. What President Obama is doing is he's gambling with taxpayer money and giving money to corporate contributors, to campaign contributors like Solyndra and he's losing taxpayer money.So, what we have in the Obama administration is this crony capitalism, this corporate welfare where President Obama thinks it's right that we taxpayer dollars to give to private companies and take bets on these private companies. That's wrong.What is right is a private sector that you have risked that capital. You put capital in businesses whether they're struggling or not to try and grow those businesses, some succeed, some don't. On the net, when on Mitt Romney ran Bain, they were very successful. They created thousands of jobs, great success stories.But for the point, we don't think that the government should be in the position of picking winners or losers in the economy which is the result of the president's economics.  
WALLACE: Let me -- 
RYAN: The result of it is, we have stagnation. 
WALLACE: Let me let Mr. Goolsbee into that.I mean, what about the argument that, you know, it's the private sector. If companies want to take a chance, they take a chance. But the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. 
GOOLSBEE: Well, that's two different arguments. The first one I actually think is a little bit cheeky because in several of these bankruptcy cases, you saw the investors profit by dumping the pension on to the government and actually getting bailouts from the government, which helped to cover the profits that were going to the investors.On the picking of winners, it is absolutely not the Obama philosophy to try to transform the government into only picking winners. By that I think Congressman Ryan is referring to things like in the midst of the crisis deciding to save General Motors and the auto industry. 
WALLACE: I think wait a minute. Without speaking for him, I think he's talking about things like Solyndra. . . .
Democrats think that the French and Greek votes are good news?

Democrats think that the French and Greek votes are good news?

Do voters just want to spend more money without worrying how to pay for it?  Dems think so.  From the Washington Examiner:

Democrats say that the angry, anti-austerity elections this week that saw voters throw out reform-minded French and Greek leaders could be good news for them, a signal that their plan to spend billions more than the Republicans is a vote winner.
Those elections “confirm the position that many of us have taken, which is the most important thing right now is to sustain and nurture the very fragile economy,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.
“While we have to develop and implement a long-term deficit reduction plan, we should be very careful in designing that, that we do nothing to hurt the fragile economy. In fact we believe that we should make some additional investments,” he added.
For example, he’s pushing for the passage of a massive $50 billion-plus infrastructure spending bonanza offered by President Obama, as well as spending on education, science, research and Middle Class programs. The reason: it would inject money into the economy and cut the 16 percent unemployment in construction and fix roads and bridges. . . .
The Obama administration rejects Dem Gov. Jerry Brown's attempts at modest health care cost savings

The Obama administration rejects Dem Gov. Jerry Brown's attempts at modest health care cost savings

Even very modest co-pays will make people use resources more responsibly. Why be careful at all with what you ask for if the price to you is zero? Co-pays for drugs ($3) and doctor visits ($5) seem very trivial compared to their true costs. From the WSJ's Political Diary.

Strapped with a $13 billion deficit last year, Mr. Brown sought to squeeze $1.6 billion of savings out of the state's Medicaid program. Since more than half of the state's Medicaid dollars come from the federal government, Mr. Brown had to request waivers from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to implement many of his cost-saving solutions. While Ms. Sebelius last year signed off on a 10% rate cut to providers, which was projected to save the state about $600 million, she drew a line in the sand on the governor's request to charge Medicaid recipients a co-pay for drugs ($3) and doctor visits ($5).

The co-pays would save the state more than $300 million a year, but the Obama administration reasoned that they would deter recipients from seeking treatment and thus restrict health-care access. While in Washington, D.C., for the National Governors Association's winter meeting earlier this week, Mr. Brown lobbied Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett and Ms. Sebelius again for a waiver but didn't sound too optimistic about his prospects. The governor said that Ms. Sebelius had raised "legal issues" about charging co-pays and indicated that there were other ways to reduce Medicaid costs, which she didn't specify.

Trouble is, the Obama administration won't countenance limiting eligibility or introducing incentives that encourage doctors and patients to use health resources more judiciously. . . .
Surprise increase in the cost of Obamacare for next fiscal year

Surprise increase in the cost of Obamacare for next fiscal year

Some technicalities apparently have some real consequences. So much for Obama's promises about how much Obamacare would cost.From the AP:

Cost estimates for a key part of President Obama's health care overhaul law have ballooned by $111 billion from last year's budget, and a senior Republican lawmaker on Friday demanded an explanation.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., wants to know by Monday why the estimated ten-year cost of helping millions of middle-class Americans buy health insurance has jumped by about 30 percent.
Administration officials say the explanation lies in budget technicalities and that there are no significant changes in the program.
The revised numbers, buried deep in the president's budget, stumped lawmakers and some administration officials for most of the week. At a congressional hearing Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is in charge of carrying out the health care law, indicated she was unaware of the changes.
At issue are subsidies that will be provided under the health care law to help middle class people buy private coverage in new state insurance markets that will open for business in 2014.
Last year's budget estimated the cost of the aid to be $367 billion from 2014-2011. This year's budget puts it at $478 billion over the same time period. . . .
Cost of government risk insurance double what was previously estimated

Cost of government risk insurance double what was previously estimated

Only a fraction of the people who were supposed to sign up for this program have done so (see here). The government has gone all out to try to convince more people to sign on to it. But the costs for those who have turned out to be wildly higher that the Obama administration had estimated. From the Washington Post:

The health-care law set aside $5 billion for a Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, meant to provide health insurance to those who had been declined coverage by private carriers. Since its launch last summer, nearly 50,000 Americans have enrolled in the program.

The PCIP program will phase out in 2014, when insurers will be required to accept all applicants regardless of their health-care status.

Those who have enrolled in the program are projected to have significantly higher medical costs than the government initially expected. Each participant is expected to average $28,994 in medical costs in 2012, according to the report, more than double what government-contracted actuaries predicted in November 2010. Then, the analysts expected that the program would cost $13,026 per enrollee.

The costs also are significantly higher than those of similar high-risk pools that many states have operated for decades. States spent an average of $12,471 on enrollees in 2008, according to the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans.

The Obama administration has spent $600 million of its $5 billion budget for the program over the past 18 months. . . .
Alinsky-tied gets $56 million federal loan

Alinsky-tied gets $56 million federal loan

Tax dollars given to an left wing group that has no background in area that it is being given a huge amount of money for. From Fox News:

A Saul Alinsky-tied group has been awarded a $56 million federal loan to start up a nonprofit health insurance company -- one of several organizations across the country this week tapped to launch a new network of insurers under the sponsorship of the federal health care overhaul.

The Wisconsin group, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, was awarded the funding on Tuesday. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the group is expected to provide coverage statewide within five years after starting on a smaller scale in early 2014.

But Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson questioned the group's credentials -- given its affiliation and lack of experience in the insurance field.

"The indisputable fact is that Common Ground was an outgrowth of the Alinsky operation in Chicago," Wilson said. "We're not giving money to a group with experience in health care issues or in setting up exchanges. ... We're handing the money to people who have been trained by arguably the single most expert individual on community organizing in the last 100 years." . . .

"CBS News: 11 More Solyndras In Obama Energy Program"



CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra. . . .


Beacon Power was given its money even though Standard and Poor's had given it a CCC+ rating.

"They had built into the program $2.4 billion in potential losses. That is already factored in."


Well, they may already have $6.5 billion in losses from the five that have gone bankrupt with Solyndra alone at a half a billion by itself.

Fox News has this: "More Solyndra-esque debacles?"
The ideal Stimulus project?

The ideal Stimulus project?

If this wasn't costing $6 billion, it would be just too funny. From the Washington Post:

if California does start building without securing future funding, it could end up with a $6 billion track to nowhere. As the Peer Review Group (PRG) explains, that’s because, for economic-stimulus reasons, Washington insisted that California build the initial stretch between two outposts in the lightly populated San Joaquin Valley. . . .


How exactly is building a massive train track between to places no one wants to go between the best place to spend Stimulus money? Wouldn't it "create" jobs if you built it between two places that people actually lived? What can people do with this money that would actually produce something of value?

I understand the crazy logic here. If you spend the money on something that people would have spent their own money on, the government spending will be offset by a reduction in private spending. But this whole discussion ignores the crowding out regarding where the money has to come from to fund the train project to begin with.
Pedophilia as a government funded Disability in Greece?

Pedophilia as a government funded Disability in Greece?

This seems hard to believe, but it also seems part of a longer term trend. From ABC News:

Greek disability groups expressed anger Monday at a government decision to expand a list of state-recognized disability categories to include pedophiles, exhibitionists and kleptomaniacs.

The National Confederation of Disabled People called the action "incomprehensible," and said pedophiles are now awarded a higher government disability pay than some people who have received organ transplants.

The Labor Ministry said categories added to the expanded list — that also includes pyromaniacs, compulsive gamblers, fetishists and sadomasochists — were included for purposes of medical assessment and used as a gauge for allocating financial assistance.

But NCDP leader Yiannis Vardakastanis, who is blind, warned the new list could create new difficulties for disabled Greeks who are already facing benefit cuts due to the country's financial crisis.

"What's happened is incomprehensible. I think there is some big mistake. The ministry should have a different policy on disability," Vardakastanis told the Associated Press. "The list contains major changes to disability quotients, which could effectively remove many people from access to benefits."

The new list gives pyromaniacs and pedophiles disability pay up to 35 percent, compared to 80 percent for heart transplant recipients.

"It's really not serious to grant Peeping Toms a 20-30 percent disability rate, and 10 percent to diabetics, who have insulin shots four or five times a day," said Vardakastanis. . . .

White House explains why Michelle Obama is taking a separate flight on Air Force 1 to Hawaii


At $185,000 an hour for 13 hours, that comes to $2.4 million. Mr. Carney keeps saying that past first ladies have taken separate trips for vacation, but no one pushes the point that probably no one has traveled to Hawaii for vacation. Going to the Hamptons or Maine or even Texas might be one thing, but traveling to Hawaii is much, much farther.
How much money are we losing on the strategic oil reserve?

How much money are we losing on the strategic oil reserve?

We have spent a lot of money on the strategic oil reserve. The reserve has been around since 1975. What have been the interest costs alone in for the money used to buy the oil? "As of May 31, 2011, the current inventory was 726.5 million barrels. This equates to 34 days of oil at current daily US consumption levels of 21 million barrels per day." Suppose that we sold the 726.5 million barrels at $90 a barrel. That comes to a value of $65.4 billion. At 3.5% interest with continuous compounding, the principal doubles every 20 years. At 5%, it doubles every 14 years.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)