1
   

Screwups of the Year ...

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 01:08 pm
BW, I didn't vote for either Davis or Simon - both losers in my books. I voted green for govenor. Too bad people think votes are wasted by voting for the best candidate. c.i.
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 01:13 pm
I don't mean to defend the $6000 toilets or $1500 hammers, but I do know how they come about. It is to compensate for undercharging on other items such as periodic aircraft overhauls so as to stay within a specific cost limit. This is all known by the procurers and may or may not be a matter of collusion. One questioned item I recall from many years ago was the discovery of the scandalous stock of can openers, something in the hundreds of millions. What the expose did not reveal was that the can openers were of the individual type, one per individual field pack meal.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 01:16 pm
flyboy, Your cost for the toilets has another digit. Is that correct? c.i.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 01:23 pm
I recall having read in some trustworthy source some time back that The US Government maintained a 5 year supply of flashlight batteries ... items which typically have shelf-life of about 3 years. That this might be so would be a matter of no surprise to me, for such would fit perfectly with the oxymoron of Governmental Fiscal Responsibility.



timber
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 01:35 pm
I was aware that I had an extra zero on my toilet cost. I am relying on my memory but I do recall $6000. I could be mistaken.
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 01:45 pm
I just did a quick google search. I found reference to government paying for $600, $640, and $3000 toilet seats. I found no references to complete toilets.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 02:44 pm
flyboy, They probably also paid $100 per screw to attach the toilet seats to its base, because it had to meet their specs. ;( c.i.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 03:03 pm
flyboy, perhaps you were thinking of a Mil-Spec 2-Holer, if you'll pardon the outhouse humor.



timber
0 Replies
 
flyboy804
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 03:25 pm
Timber- That five year supply of flashlight batteries sounds like a poor application of a common practice in many government units. Any section that does not use all of its allotted funds for a given fiscal period will have its allocation reduced by that amount in the next period. As a result it is common to overstock if necessary to use up the funds. Of course, it does not take too much intelligence to do this with items that will not become worthless. But then-----.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 03:45 pm
Any section that does not use all of its allotted funds for a given fiscal period will have its allocation reduced by that amount in the next period. As a result it is common to overstock if necessary to use up the funds. Of course, it does not take too much intelligence to do this with items that will not become worthless. But then-----.
*********

Flyboy, this is the kind of policy is that always amazes me. It has been around forever, yet most people hate it because it is so irrational.

I've never been able to understand why these things seem to have a life of their own, sort of an in perpetuity kind of protection.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 04:00 pm
Diane, It's because we keep voting in the same people election after election. The MO for all elected officials is "How To Spend." They don't understand anything else! c.i.
0 Replies
 
Mustang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 04:47 pm
I can understand some of the ridiculous costs for items purchased by our government. Years ago when I was in the plastics industry, our company turned out to be the low bidder on a job. With all the confounded certifications we had to supply, plus the very exacting specifications, we decided to bid high the next time they asked for a quote on the same items. We got it again. The next time, we hiked our quote by 400%. Yep, we got it again. Here's why industries are pushing up their prices so high on government contracts: There's probably a GS-4 who's the incoming inspector on outside shipments. He's just biding his time until he can roll in that good retirement benefit. He'll take out one part from a shipment of 50,000--find a scratch on it--and reject the whole lot, and have them shipped back! The manufacturer has to eat this loss. But then, does the federal government hire anyone with a brain?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Dec, 2002 05:24 pm
Consider, in regard to The Business of Government, that when a Private Concern sells goods or contracts to provide service to The Federal Government, there is a category of thereon attendant paperwork incumbent on the vendor which deals with The Federal Reduction In Paperwork Act. Go figure.



timber
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 07:44:13