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. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)