Political Roundtable Part XXVII

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Ruzious]

Listening to every GOP stooge of the house judiciary panel, mind blown.

The amount of distortions, misrepresentations and straight up lies, incredible.

And even if some legitimately believe there shouldn't be an impeachment, calling the investigations a sham, a witchhunt,etc is just unacceptable. They can't be stupid enough to actually think that what Trump was doing wasn't at least highly questionable. That would require the inability to think. It's like what happened doesn't even matter to them - as long as they can get away with it - like they're in elementary school.

Graham as chair of senate intelligence says explicitly that he's conducting a sham investigation when it reaches the Senate, not calling witnesses, and basically rubber stamping it to find no evidence of wrongdoing.

McConnell also straight up said that there's no way in hell that the senate removes trump.

Oh, and Huckabee said that he found a legal loophole that enables Trump to run in 2024 for a third term, and will be revealing details tonight on Hannity.

It's a freaking circus.

We don't need no steenking Constitution. McConnell even went as far as saying he won't permit any witnesses. This is America December 2019 folks.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I don't think anyone thinks there is no bloat in the federal government - least of all me. Nor do I think that process improvement and underperforming program elimination isn't warranted. But I also don't think we should eliminate the use of contractors when warranted.

But now let's take on another false assertion. I am not a contractor. I don't work for a contractor. I don't not make any money off of the federal government. I have assisted others pro bono when they were trying to help a federal agency and I have a general understanding of the federal contracting process. I have zero skin in that game.

I've worked in government in various capacities for some time now. I think there's a place for both contractors and employees. The catch is that the distinction made between the two is often a political one rather than a logical one.

The one thing with contractors that wind up being a bit tricky is that we can trace where the power is based on where the money is. Bloat really does need to be streamlined but for the most part there aren't a lot of legitimate attempts to eliminate bloat that go anywhere and the cost-cutting that gets done is more about attempting to take the power out of government by taking the money out of it.

Restraining government power isn't necessarily bad, either, but the question becomes to what end - where does the money flow that's leaving government? Increasingly, it's all flowing to a very narrow segment of the population. That's not better.

And this gets at the heart of the discussion we've had a few times earlier, too, for example unions or how to increase wages. I'm not actually for or against unions on their own. I'm more for any means that tip the balance of power back towards the many over the few. Contractors/employees aren't inherently bad either way but as a cost cutting measure - cost cutting for what? Where do those savings go? I've seen so many governments go either employee or contracts simply to hire from their chosen demographic voting pool in order to stack the box with like philosophical minds and it's ugly.

If the money is all running to the same place, though, then the solution has to be finding ways of diverting those flows. And if the "solution" is to keep things the same and expect different results by blaming people for not doing something individually, as the banks seem to be doing in questioning why wages aren't going up when profits are and suggesting people need to change jobs more, then there is a high degree of obliviousness - possibly willful obliviousness - that's going on.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[pancakes3]

lol, don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you, gabs.

[gtn130]

It started with the notion that Buttigieg should be disqualified since he was a contractor.

My point is that the notions of disqualification seem to be coming against every D candidate that rises in the polls. And the origin of those arguments seem to be coming from trolls and then parroted again by the right wing media and then often times picked back up on the left.

The strategy is to say that Trump is on an equal footing with those candidates. When you see gtn picking up those same talking points - you know they are doing their job very well.

Man, this is a really bad post that does not come close to capturing my feelings on Buttigieg or really anything we've been talking about, and since everyone is pretty mad that I would dare question the sacrosanct federal contracting machine, I'll clarify some of my positions here.

1) The work Pete Buttigieg did at McKinsey unquestionably *was* valuable to his clients. This is largely true for anyone working at the prestigious consulting firms, but I don't think that is a positive quality for someone running for President when considering the work he did was at best neutral for society. There are alternatives in the field with a long history of public service. That said, if Buttigieg wins the nomination, I'll obviously still vote for him over Trump. The idea that I've been tricked into my position by extremists on the left or right is just asinine.

2) Defense and IT contracting is mostly a grift for different reasons. With tech projects specifically, they are 100% way too expensive, they frequently underdeliver and they often outright fail. Cronyism is rampant in terms of who wins these projects and why. You can argue that value is being transferred so it's not a """grift""" but that's semantics - if someone unqualified is winning the work because they have the right contract vehicles or have the right personal relationships then it's still functionally a scam on tax payers.

I think people have generally accepted a bunch of things about federal contracting that absolutely do not make any sense, and the Overton Window on this subject is kind of ****ed. The entire system just isn't merit-based or results-driven, and it's rife with problems. How often are RFPs written with language targeting specific companies due to personal relationships? How often do companies win work without even having a validated team in place to execute it? Why were defense contractors working on the HealthCare.gov website? Why were 33 different vendors working on the HealthCare.gov website?

These things do not at all align with any free market principles, yet they're commonplace in the government contracting space. The fact that dckingsfan is apparently a staunch defender of all this is pretty eye opening considering his positions on government waste and fiscally irresponsible policymaking.

tl;dr and this derail sucks, but I feel like I should defend myself against the Centrist Discourse Lovers and their Wild Assertions™ that I am basically Trump because I would dare to question the federal contracting space.

[dckingsfan]

If we are saying Buttigieg shouldn't be eliminated from consideration because he worked at a consulting firm - we are good. Especially since his gigs turned out to be mostly research and analysis. I objected to your statement: "...that outcome does not make him a viable presidential candidate...".

If you are saying that the federal government is rife with inefficiencies and inequalities both inside the departments and how they contract - I am right there with you - especially in Defense. I would be all for a cleaned up federal contracting process. And I would be all for ending federal government programs that don't work. For example: I would kill the student guaranteed loan program today.

If you are saying that there is no place for contractors in the federal government. Well, I am not there with you on that one. If you are saying that anyone that worked for a large contractor should be eliminated from consideration for the office of the POTUS. Meh...

[pancakes3]

i know for you (dckings) it's a monkey-paw scenario but if we can snap our fingers and kill the guaranteed loan program, and wake up tomorrow in a world of full guaranteed tuition, that would be amazing.

[bsilver]

I was a contractor in the IT field for 18 years at the CIA before retiring in 2014. In IT the mix is about 85% contractor, and 15% government workers. The CIA decided they wanted to be in the spy and intelligence business, and their mission wasn't IT.

What I don't get is how we all missed that all those years that we were grifters. Even though all our projects were following govt direction we were producing little or anything of value. The worldwide networks I supported weren't really necessary, or would operate even if I ignored middle of the night calls. Applications to identify terrorists were little more than scams to fill our wallets.

Of course we weren't grifters. I don't get this whole discussion. I don't criticize anyone here (except PIF occasionally), but the claims made here recently are totally inane, and don't deserve responses, but for the some reason the discussion has continued.

The way governments award private contracts is always going to merit scrutiny due to the widespread opportunities for corruption. Much of the lobbying industry is built on government contracting. Much 'pork barrel" is tied to government contracting. Many campaign contributions are tied to government contracting. Proven and unproven accusations of favoritism, bid rigging, etc. often accompany government contracting.

On the other hand, much government contracting is related to downsizing the permanent workforce and filling those role as needed. If someone retires from the government, then the government realizes the need that role filled, and hires the retiree back on contract, doing the exact same job, is that a grift?

90%, like 90% as a guess, no real difference in phrasing there, still an unsupported assertion, adding "skin in the game," and "sacred cow" more of the same, with a little STD trolling to boot. Trump has encouraged the use of broad brush flame throwers.

I'm not a government contractor, and I don't work for the federal government, or any government, except at tax time. I think the government is too big, produces a lot of waste (like most organizations, big or small), and government contracting is a fair subject for discussion here. Maybe more actual information, less speculation, and fewer insults would help the conversation.

And don't forget, Mr. Small Government himself, Ross Perot, made his fortune largely off government contracting.

That covers a lot of ground. I think we all agree on -
There's lots of corruption.
Lots of government waste. I'd start with the Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq wars as examples. Most waste is not of the nefarious type. Intentions were good for the most part.

I know a lot of government staff that retired and returned as contractors. Usually not in the same job, but in the same department. As long as they're qualified for the position, and do a good job I don't see the problem. They've done the calculations and seen they're best off financially retiring from govt and returning as contractors. This applies especially for those in the pre 1983 retirement program. Not sure about the current program (FERS).

Government is too big? Sure, but what exactly would you cut that would make a difference? With about 70% spent on Medicare, Medicaid etc. and interest, that leaves 15% on discretionary defense, and 15% everything else.

[dckingsfan]

i know for you (dckings) it's a monkey-paw scenario but if we can snap our fingers and kill the guaranteed loan program, and wake up tomorrow in a world of full guaranteed tuition, that would be amazing.

You make a very good point. I guess it was a bit of a monkey-paw scenario when implemented. It seemed to good to be true - the government was going to save money and it would be so much better for the students. And yet...

But you are probably right it might be another monkey-paw scenario just cutting it off cold turkey. Kind of like getting out of wars - once they start it is really hard to stop them.

[pancakes3]

i mean, given the technological advances in the last 50 years and the natural progression of degree inflation, why not recognize the necessity of extending k12 education to k-14 or k-16?

[dckingsfan]

i mean, given the technological advances in the last 50 years and the natural progression of degree inflation, why not recognize the necessity of extending k12 education to k-14 or k-16?

This! - or that our education system is from the 40s. Or that certifications could be done in high school. Or...

But instead we went with a guaranteed loan program. By and large - our recent education proposals and the DOE haven't been very helpful.

But you are getting to my point. Kill programs that don't work. Kill federal contracts that don't work.

It isn't the contractors or the federal workers that are causing the problems. They shouldn't be vilified.

[Ruzious]

Listening to every GOP stooge of the house judiciary panel, mind blown.

The amount of distortions, misrepresentations and straight up lies, incredible.

And even if some legitimately believe there shouldn't be an impeachment, calling the investigations a sham, a witchhunt,etc is just unacceptable. They can't be stupid enough to actually think that what Trump was doing wasn't at least highly questionable. That would require the inability to think. It's like what happened doesn't even matter to them - as long as they can get away with it - like they're in elementary school.

Graham as chair of senate intelligence says explicitly that he's conducting a sham investigation when it reaches the Senate, not calling witnesses, and basically rubber stamping it to find no evidence of wrongdoing.

McConnell also straight up said that there's no way in hell that the senate removes trump.

Oh, and Huckabee said that he found a legal loophole that enables Trump to run in 2024 for a third term, and will be revealing details tonight on Hannity.

It's a freaking circus.

Graham's a real man of principal:

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

i know for you (dckings) it's a monkey-paw scenario but if we can snap our fingers and kill the guaranteed loan program, and wake up tomorrow in a world of full guaranteed tuition, that would be amazing.

I think you missed my point. I was agreeing with you.

But I also pointed out that the guaranteed loan program was an even worse monkey-paw scenario. It has increased the cost of education and burdened those (and their parents) getting an education with unprecedented debt.

So, which is the worse monkey-paw scenario?

I agree with you that my solution of just ending the guaranteed loan program (now that it is in place) would have some unintended consequences.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I agree with you that my solution of just ending the guaranteed loan program (now that it is in place) would have some unintended consequences.

I mean, the real question is how bad the guaranteed loan program has been relative to having done nothing at all. It's a pretty dangerous game to simply suggest that the guaranteed loan program was the direct cause of increasing student debts and education's current problems when those trends were well established beforehand. Accelerated? Sure though even there the acceleration was already coming, too, and parsing what is what is tricky.

Both scenarios (guaranteed loans and doing nothing) seem pretty bleak to me. It's because it's an increasing offloaded cost. Where is the money flowing? Education from the government is already a massive offloaded cost by the private sector that benefits from an educated workforce. Offloading it from government onto students was even better since it would cost fewer tax dollars from those same employers (and everyone else). Cheaper at the source doesn't necessarily mean those costs go away. That money saved is going somewhere and creating a situation where the demand is forever high with guaranteed loans and prices can be almost indiscriminately charged was always an unreasonable idea but people were so focused on the immediate government receipts that they missed the bigger picture. Where is that saved money coming from and where is it going to go? These are questions that always need to be asked. It doesn't prevent unintended consequences - nothing can do that - but it can avoid some of the worse ones if people take the time to fully understand the answers rather than listening to opportunistic types that stand to profit from the proposal.

[queridiculo]

GOP using talking points from Kremlin backed misinformation campaigns?

Nothing to see here right, Russia hoax etc..

Some pretty compelling data from Graphika (https://graphika.com/reports/uk-leaks-and-secondary-infektion/) used by the WaPo in this piece:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/17/russian-disinformation-network-said-have-helped-spread-smear-us-ambassador-ukraine

The story that appeared on The Hill website on March 20 was startling.

Marie Yovanovitch, the American ambassador to Ukraine, had given a “list of people whom we should not prosecute” to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, according to a write-up of an interview Lutsenko gave to the conservative columnist John Solomon.

Five days later, an image of that purported list appeared in a post on the website Medium and on a number of other self-publishing platforms in locations as disparate as Germany, South Africa and San Francisco. In less than a week, the Medium essay had been translated into Spanish and German and posted to other websites.

Now, a social media analysis firm, Graphika, has traced those posts to a Russian disinformation campaign — in the first evidence that a network of accounts involved in spreading disinformation before the 2016 election also participated in circulating the false claims about Yovanovitch that led earlier this year to her recall from the U.S. embassy in Kyiv.

Also worth noting John Solomon's role in this Ukraine business.

[dckingsfan]

I agree with you that my solution of just ending the guaranteed loan program (now that it is in place) would have some unintended consequences.

I mean, the real question is how bad the guaranteed loan program has been relative to having done nothing at all. It's a pretty dangerous game to simply suggest that the guaranteed loan program was the direct cause of increasing student debts and education's current problems when those trends were well established beforehand. Accelerated? Sure though even there the acceleration was already coming, too, and parsing what is what is tricky.

Both scenarios (guaranteed loans and doing nothing) seem pretty bleak to me. It's because it's an increasing offloaded cost. Where is the money flowing? Education from the government is already a massive offloaded cost by the private sector that benefits from an educated workforce. Offloading it from government onto students was even better since it would cost fewer tax dollars from those same employers (and everyone else). Cheaper at the source doesn't necessarily mean those costs go away. That money saved is going somewhere and creating a situation where the demand is forever high with guaranteed loans and prices can be almost indiscriminately charged was always an unreasonable idea but people were so focused on the immediate government receipts that they missed the bigger picture. Where is that saved money coming from and where is it going to go? These are questions that always need to be asked. It doesn't prevent unintended consequences - nothing can do that - but it can avoid some of the worse ones if people take the time to fully understand the answers rather than listening to opportunistic types that stand to profit from the proposal.

IMO - and have posted this before with supporting data - the guaranteed loan program has been an absolute disaster with respect to increased costs AND debt load on students (and their parents). We would have been better off doing nothing - full stop.

Our education system needs to be reformed (see pancake's suggestions). This is actually why I don't like the "free education" mantra coming from Bernie at this time. It is just throwing money at an antiquated system(s) and increasing unfunded mandates on the states.

pancakes solution of extending (and I would add - reforming) the existing system would be the best. But it will be very difficult for anyone to change the status quo. The existing stakeholders (unions, professional educators, higher ed) have blocked most major reforms. Just bring up charter schools and folks go crazy...

[pancakes3]

well when i say k14 or k16, i mean making college/trade schools free - not compulsory attendance. tough to tell legal adults that they have to go to school if they don't want to.

idk what the effect on tuition prices will be - but that's the general idea is that we can't have money be a barrier of entry for education.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[I_Like_Dirt]

well when i say k14 or k16, i mean making college/trade schools free - not compulsory attendance. tough to tell legal adults that they have to go to school if they don't want to.

idk what the effect on tuition prices will be - but that's the general idea is that we can't have money be a barrier of entry for education.

I'd go one step further and make it that we can't have money be a barrier of entry for the labor force - specifically the well-paying portions of the labor force. It acts as gatekeeping protection for the wealthy and causes a massive social wake as loads of people try to leap that wall, some make it and others die trying.

I'm not sure if I agree with it or not but there is an argument to be made that making portions of education that aren't tied to the labor market wide open in terms of costs. Education is so intrinsically tied to the labor market, though, that it's extremely tricky to separate things like that in reality.