House (Overwhelmingly) Passes Bill to Raise Debt Ceiling

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,307
3,430
118

Not unrelated;


Military contractors overcharge the Pentagon on almost everything the Department of Defense buys each year, experts told 60 Minutes over the course of a six-month investigation into price gouging.

In March, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks announced the largest Pentagon budget ever: $842 billion. Almost half will go to defense contractors.

Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who spent his career overseeing the purchase of some of the country's most critical weapons systems, said there's an inherent conflict between the Pentagon and defense contractors.

"They are companies that have to survive, make profit. The Department of Defense, on the other hand, wants the best weapon systems it can have as quickly as possible and as inexpensively as possible. Those are opposite ends of the spectrum."

lt-general-chris-bogdan.jpg
Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan60 MINUTES

Perhaps no one understands the problem better than Shay Assad, now retired after four decades negotiating weapons deals. In the 1990s, he was executive vice president and chief contract negotiator for defense giant Raytheon. Then he switched sides and rose to become the Defense Department's most senior and awarded contract negotiator. He put his former colleagues in the defense industry under intense scrutiny.


"They need to be held accountable," he said. "No matter who they are, no matter what company it is, they need to be held accountable. And right now that accountability system is broken in the Department of Defense."

It wasn't always like this, he said. The roots of the problem can be traced to 1993, when the Pentagon, looking to reduce costs, urged defense companies to merge and 51 major contractors consolidated to five giants.

"The landscape has totally changed," Assad said. "In the '80s, there was intense competition amongst a number of companies. And so the government had choices. They had leverage. We have limited leverage now."

The problem was compounded in the early 2000s when the Pentagon, in another cost-saving move, cut 130,000 employees whose jobs were to negotiate and oversee defense contracts.

"They were convinced that they could rely on the companies to do what was in the best interests of the war fighters and the taxpayers," Assad said.

The Pentagon granted companies unprecedented leeway to monitor themselves. Instead of saving money, Assad said the price of almost everything began to rise.

In the competitive environment before the companies consolidated, a shoulder-fired stinger missile cost $25,000 in 1991. With Raytheon, Assad's former employer, now the sole supplier, it costs more than $400,000 to replace each missile sent to Ukraine. Even accounting for inflation and some improvements, that's a seven-fold increase.

"For many of these weapons that are being sent over to Ukraine right now, there's only one supplier. And the companies know it," Assad said.

Army negotiators also caught Raytheon making what they called "unacceptable profits" from the Patriot missile defense system by dramatically exaggerating the cost and hours it took to build the radar and ground equipment.

The company told 60 Minutes it's working to "equitably resolve" the matter. In 2021, CEO Gregory Hayes informed investors that the company would set aside $290 million for probable liability.

A Pentagon study released last month found major contractors flush with "cash beyond their needs for operations or investment." They have tens of billions of excess cash from Pentagon business to hand out to shareholders.

"We have to have a financially healthy defense industrial base. We all want that," Assad said. "But what we don't want to do is get taken advantage of and hoodwinked."

In 2015, Assad ordered a review and army negotiators discovered Lockheed Martin and its subcontractor, Boeing, were grossly overcharging the Pentagon and U.S. allies by hundreds of millions of dollars for the Patriot's PAC-3 missiles.

Pentagon analysts found the total profits approached 40%.

Boeing declined to comment, but Lockheed said: "We negotiate with the government in good faith on all our programs."

After the review, the Pentagon negotiated a new contract with Lockheed, saving American taxpayers $550 million.

f35-head-on-on-runway.jpg
F-35 on a runway60 MINUTES

Bogdan pointed to another Lockheed Martin contract with problems. In 2012, he was tapped to take the reins of the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program; it was seven years behind schedule and $90 billion over the original estimate. Bogdan said the biggest costs are yet to come for support and maintenance, which could end up costing taxpayers $1.3 trillion.

The Pentagon had ceded control of the program to Lockheed Martin. The contractor is delivering the aircraft the Pentagon paid to design and build, but under the contract, Lockheed and its suppliers retained control of the design and repair data, the proprietary information needed to fix and upgrade the plane.

"The weapon system belongs to the department, but the data underlying the design of the airplane does not," Bogdan said.

When a part breaks, the Department of Defense can't fix or replace it itself. That's likely to come from a subcontractor, like TransDigm, a fast-growing company led by Nick Howley. He has made a fortune taking over companies that make spare parts for the military.

Last year, Howley was called before Congress a second time over accusations of price gouging. Assad's review team found the government will pay TransDigm $119 million for parts that should cost $28 million.

TransDigm told 60 Minutes that the company follows the law and charges market prices.

While contract spending is going up, Pentagon oversight is going down because of cuts and attrition. Recently retired auditors Julie Smith and Mark Owen and contracting officer Kathryn Foresman were part of the oversight organizations that were victims of downsizing. They said with less oversight and with Assad gone, the Pentagon is losing the battle to hold down prices.

"We don't have another source for a lot of the spares that they provide right now," Smith said when asked about TransDigm. "They are literally the only game in town in order to make an aircraft fly. So we're at their mercy."

They said it's not a true capitalistic market, but more of a monopoly. It's very concerning for Foresman, who said military contractors are the ones holding the power.

The Department of Defense declined to have anyone speak on camera about price gouging.

"If you're happy with companies gouging you and just looking you right in the eye and say, 'I'm gonna keep gouging you because I know you don't have the guts to do anything about it,' then I guess we should just keep doing what we're doing," Assad said.
Think of all the healthcare that could've provided tax paying citizens instead.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
Think of all the healthcare that could've provided tax paying citizens instead.
I suspect that defence procurement is deliberately bloated as a form of subsidy to engineering and manufacturing industries.

Although lack of oversight is certainly also an issue: it is obvious that cost-hawkish Republicans magically turn into doves when it comes to defence spending. They might gripe about cost overruns and overbilling occasionally, but at the end of the day their policy is to throw money at the arms industry with relatively few questions asked. The Democrats are less into defence spending, but don't appear to be much willing to rock the boat either as they can be vulnerable to accusations of being soft on national security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,702
3,611
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,272
3,477
118
We're not allowed to touch military spending, but we're fully capable of scrapping student loan assistance and ruining people on SNAP. Then we get to clap and say "Politics has won" while people starve to death and we've now instituted arbitrary limits on how much money we can spend to help them. Centrists have crowed that Biden won the negotiation and they don't know how right they are, Biden now has institutional approval to deny social spending, force student debt repayment, and hand out money to the ultrarich.

EDIt:
There is always a worse take.
 
Last edited:

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,272
3,477
118
Senate passed it keeping Manchin's pipeline and killing student debt relief, and I'm pretty sure charging back interest on everyone's paused payments.

For the former, Schumer said he "owed it" to Manchin so it failed overwhelmingly with only a handful of D senators (and Bernie) trying to stop another climate disaster.

For the latter, Manchin (and Tester) crossed the aisle and this wasn't a dealbreaker to most. So the only hope is that this qualifies as ex post facto and gets struck down. By this supreme court.

Vect.PNG
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,393
1,641
118
We're not allowed to touch military spending, but we're fully capable of scrapping student loan assistance and ruining people on SNAP. Then we get to clap and say "Politics has won" while people starve to death and we've now instituted arbitrary limits on how much money we can spend to help them. Centrists have crowed that Biden won the negotiation and they don't know how right they are, Biden now has institutional approval to deny social spending, force student debt repayment, and hand out money to the ultrarich.

EDIt:
There is always a worse take.
Pretty much. The VBNMW crowd can now use this as the reason why Biden won't pass anything useful for the next few years but NEXT time...

Although I'd honestly be pretty shocked if there was a next time this go around. Biden has fumbled the student loan shit so badly that I don't know what he could have done that would have been a worse handling (I suppose he's said he'll veto the above student loan thing so assuming he does that, that'll be one thing he does right). All I know is that a lot of young voters are about to be royally fucked soon and what they'll see (fair or not) is Trump gave them a ton of relief with the loan pause while Biden is starting them back up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,558
6,004
118
Country
United Kingdom
So: as far as this Brit understands it, the debt ceiling bills are periodically-essential bills to prevent the government shutting down. Because the American government sets itself an arbitrary limit for debt that then inevitably requires raising, rather than just not having a legal limit.

... and because American politics is designed to circumvent the popular will, there is nothing to stop legislators attaching other measures to it, which must then be considered inseparably from the unavoidably essential bit.

Can someone offer any possible reason for why this way of doing things is remotely defensible? It seems like something Kafka would devise.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
Can someone offer any possible reason for why this way of doing things is remotely defensible? It seems like something Kafka would devise.
Under the Constitution, Congress has to approve borrowing. This used to be done ad hoc as required bill by bill, but became unwieldy so it ended up passing a debt ceiling law instead - borrowing can be done freely under it.

For a time, there was a useful law that said every time a budget was passed, it would raise the debt ceiling automatically by the relevant amount. They canned this in the 90s so they could have fun playing to the gallery with stupid games of chicken rather than, you know, govern responsibly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvanus

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,491
1,751
118
So: as far as this Brit understands it, the debt ceiling bills are periodically-essential bills to prevent the government shutting down. Because the American government sets itself an arbitrary limit for debt that then inevitably requires raising, rather than just not having a legal limit.

... and because American politics is designed to circumvent the popular will, there is nothing to stop legislators attaching other measures to it, which must then be considered inseparably from the unavoidably essential bit.

Can someone offer any possible reason for why this way of doing things is remotely defensible? It seems like something Kafka would devise.
Having issues be attached isn't necessarily a bad idea, it makes some sense that an item which would, say, greatly increase the budget expenditure, be paired with something that would raise tax. So you don't end up with politician voting for something that cost a lot but voting against the necessary increase in tax. The problem is there's not really anyone to keep an eye on them and making sure only related measure are attached together, the public is technically supposed to, but its obviously by this point that the public, by and large, would rather get hear a fake version of events that reinforce their belief rather than accurate reporting.

I honestly cannot think of a solution aside from much better education and waiting for the older, poorly educate, generation to be replaced. But current politician will do everything they can to prevent this from happening.