• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Answer to MRJ on GSA Investigation

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ asked me a question on the recent oversight investigation of the GSA. I watched a part of the hearings and I was waiting on her reply in another topic but I don't guess I will get it. MRJ made the assertion that there are politically motivated investigations in DC and this provides cover for her stance on the OIG investigation of GIPSA.

GSA acts as a catalyst for nearly $66 billion in federal spending—more than one-fourth of the government's total procurement dollars. The agency also influences the management of federal assets valued at nearly $500 billion. These assets include more than 8,300 government-owned or leased buildings, an interagency fleet of 170,000 vehicles, and technology programs and products ranging from laptop computers to systems that cost over $100 million.

GSA basically looks over procurement of 1/4 govt. assets and manages them to a degree (buildings). GSA is tasked with preauthorizing vendors. The GSA has to follow certain rules that are set up to make the organization efficient, fair, and non political.

During the hearings the administrator admitted that she attended a meeting on govt. property as did most of her appointed staff. This meeting was set up by Carl Rove's office and was of a political nature. The Hatch Act prohibits certain political uses of govt. property. This was one possible illegality that the committee uncovered in its hearing. The matter was referred to the investigatory arm of oversight (Investigator General--IG). This kind of infraction was not an infraction the IG investigates and turned it over to the investigative authority that enforces this law.

Another incident involved Mrs. Doan's involvement of a specific contract with Sun Microsystems. Sun had earlier been found to have given better contract terms to non government entities than it gave the govt. A report was made that estimated the increase in cost to the govt. was in the range of $70 million dollars. The GSA's contract officer was hesitant to put Sun on the preferred contract list without qualifications. Mrs. Doan stepped in and ostensibly had the contract officer replaced. The contract with Sun was approved without qualifications. This was reported to the IG for investigation.

Another incident involved Mrs. Doan allegedly awarding a contract to an acquaintance on diversity (women and minorities getting GSA contracts) without it being a competitive bid. The "contract" was later not performed and Mrs. Doan claimed it was not a contract and therefore did not violate the rules against non competitive contracts being awarded (to friends).

During the investigation of Mrs. Doan, it was determined that Mrs. Doan's account was not credible and an investigation into the matter was launched by the IG.

Mrs. Doan moved to make some funds that were part of the IG's budget (pre audit funds) unusable for the IG. The matter was referred to members of Congress. The move by Mrs. Doan was rescinded.

Senator Charles Grassley (republican) came before the oversight committee and argued that the actions of the administrator threatened the IG's office and was not appropriate for government oversight that required independence of the IG's office from those whom it had jurisdiction.

During the hearing, held by Henry Waxman (D), the ranking republican, Mr. Davis, argued that at least in this hearing the republican appointed administrator and IG were present whereas in the Clinton administration, the investigations on Clinton's misuse of the FBI files had many witnesses that avoided the subpoenas of Congress by leaving the country.






MRJ, YES, I BELIEVE THIS IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE TO HOLD THESE HEARINGS AND FIND THE TRUTH. IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO HOLD THE BUREAUCRACIES RESPONSIBLE. THEY HAVE A LOT OF POWER AND OVERSEE A LOT OF MONEY. THESE HEARINGS ARE NECESSARY EVEN IF THEY DON'T FIND ANYTHING.

One of the common threads in this hearing, the AG hearings, and some of the other hearings on the Hill has been the political interference that Carl Rove (sp?) and his office has had on the functioning of the bureaucracies of the government.

Govt. employees have a duty to carry out the responsibility of the appointed position, not use it for political gain. This is becoming all too common in the last two administrations.

To his credit, Charles Grassley -R (who I think is one of the best Senators in the Senate) speaks out against abuses of the govt. and speaks out for the checks and balances the law puts into place regardless of party. Senators like this are credible and serve with integrity. They bring integrity to our government. Congressmen who play the party system, do not.

Govt. power should not be abused for personal or political gain. Appointments should be made so that the office duties are carried out more efficiently. They should not be used for purely political gain of the party in office.

I hope this answers your question on the GSA oversight investigation and would appreciate a response, MRJ.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Econ, thank you for your prompt reply to my question re. the GSA investigation.

Sorry about your typically ungenerous and uncaring comments re. me personally. It seems odd that you just don't get it that some of us have to deal with life and work most hours of the day, so do not have the time to spend on here that you apparently do.

I have not been dodging you Q. re. GIPSA, but want to do some research, and that simply can't be done before next week at the earliest.

Does ANYONE doubt there ARE politically motivated investigations in DC?

Is it impossible that the GIPSA investigation could be so motivated?

I've never said I BELIEVE it was. Typical of you, Econ to interpret my asking a question to mean I'm saying it IS.

What I've said many times, is that I have not seen any PROOF the allegations about GIPSA are valid......such as indictments or charges brought against anyone, followed by convictions. That seems reason enough to raise questions rather than convict 'the perps' in this forum.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Econ, thank you for your prompt reply to my question re. the GSA investigation.

Sorry about your typically ungenerous and uncaring comments re. me personally. It seems odd that you just don't get it that some of us have to deal with life and work most hours of the day, so do not have the time to spend on here that you apparently do.

I have not been dodging you Q. re. GIPSA, but want to do some research, and that simply can't be done before next week at the earliest.

Does ANYONE doubt there ARE politically motivated investigations in DC?

Is it impossible that the GIPSA investigation could be so motivated?

I've never said I BELIEVE it was. Typical of you, Econ to interpret my asking a question to mean I'm saying it IS.

What I've said many times, is that I have not seen any PROOF the allegations about GIPSA are valid......such as indictments or charges brought against anyone, followed by convictions. That seems reason enough to raise questions rather than convict 'the perps' in this forum.

MRJ

Unfortunately, MRJ, I don't know that any of the incompetence at GIPSA is illegal. The only recourse for anyone is to hope that Congress does its job with oversight. I think the same was true for the GSA investigation, except for the Hatch violations which are already codified.

There was nothing that could be done with Fema's incompetent response during Katrina. It requires oversight and management from above. The secretary (Johanns) has made some changes, but nothing of any of substance.

The OIG report contents were not allegations, they were facts uncovered. I haven't seen anyone dispute the findings except people who were not in a position to know anything.

If you find NCBA or others saying the OIG report was not factual, please let me know who they are. You will not see the "proof" from the OIG investigation because they do not publish it. It is accepted by the oversight committee, subject to congressional scrutiny, as a factual report.

If you have any proof to the contrary, please bring it. We would all like to see it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Both Bill Clinton and now GW Bush have been legislating thru the administration by refusing to enforce any of the GIPSA laws along with many others...This is also quite evident with the Mexican border issue and the immigrant problems we have...They are "rewriting" the law by failure to enforce those that Big Corporate interests don't want enforced- while still requiring John Q Public to be law abiders :roll: :( :mad:
To me this is even worse than the Judicial branch legislating thru the Courts-- as in the case of the Administration it is deriliction of their duty and failure to uphold the oaths of office they swore to....
 

mrj

Well-known member
Unfortunately, Econ, I don't have much faith in the Democrat Congress doing anything that is not politically motivated. And we hear only for a moment, if at all, in the national media anything about activities such as those of Congressional spouses business deal benefits of their 'other half' in Congress. Diane Feinstein (sp?) being apparently the most recent example.

Fema may have acted imcompetently, however, how could they act when the governor and other leaders in LA failed to follow the rules in requesting action? There has to be a process followed properly if we are a nation of laws. There has been far too much of just throwing government money at problems, We KNOW that does not solve them. Now, MI, where action was through proper channels, is being blamed for using their political clout because of a Republican gov. to get the edge over Dem. LA. Given the 'forever' politics of LA, it seems a fairly safe bet there was more likely one form or another of imporpriety involved than not.

Why do you so quickly assume it is someone at NCBA who is my sole source of information? It is NOT. Nor is it any one person. I have never claimed to have "proof", but ONLY to be skeptical or to have more questions than answers.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
Unfortunately, Econ, I don't have much faith in the Democrat Congress doing anything that is not politically motivated. And we hear only for a moment, if at all, in the national media anything about activities such as those of Congressional spouses business deal benefits of their 'other half' in Congress. Diane Feinstein (sp?) being apparently the most recent example.

Fema may have acted imcompetently, however, how could they act when the governor and other leaders in LA failed to follow the rules in requesting action? There has to be a process followed properly if we are a nation of laws. There has been far too much of just throwing government money at problems, We KNOW that does not solve them. Now, MI, where action was through proper channels, is being blamed for using their political clout because of a Republican gov. to get the edge over Dem. LA. Given the 'forever' politics of LA, it seems a fairly safe bet there was more likely one form or another of imporpriety involved than not.

Why do you so quickly assume it is someone at NCBA who is my sole source of information? It is NOT. Nor is it any one person. I have never claimed to have "proof", but ONLY to be skeptical or to have more questions than answers.

MRJ

Unfortunately when it comes to politics and our two party system, the best we can hope for at this point is that the opposition party call the ruling party for every little thing they do wrong. It gets bad when both parties are on the take by the same people. Nothing happens.

I don't know if all the dems. are on the take when it comes to the PSA, except that I do know that one of the dems, Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas, does look out for Tyson corporate interests. It was interesting that in the article I posted on the MCOOL donations, that many republicans who were in key positions, took large amounts of corporate money. This included John Cornyn (r-senator from Texas), and rep. Bonilla, chairman of house ag. committee. It is hard to deny these big donations and the lack of oversight by the respective committees. When John Cornyn was confronted with his huge donations from the industry, he replied, "We have a lot to work on". These big donations are related to the self interests you brought up on Diane Feinstien.

I don't explain away all of the mistakes an agency like Fema made in Katrina on the opposite political party. They didn't have the leadership they needed to get the job done. This was even after 911 and knowing of the need to get these systems down. It was a total federal failure. Brownie looking to D.C. and D.C. and Chertoff providing no leadership. A skilled and competent leader was needed and they didn't get it until after they got rid of the political appointees and allowed the military guy (col. I forgot his name) the power to get the job done.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This guy has a pretty good take on how we provide the best government corporate money can buy...And Tam--he is like most in the states-- that when you talk about BSE, that is the disease the Brits and Canucks have.. :wink: :lol:

_________________________________

USDA Against Safety Testing for Beef



by Ed Brayton

ScienceBlogs

April 4, 2007



Here's what happens when the agencies created to protect us are instead used to protect the short term profits of the industry they are supposed to regulate. Would you believe the USDA, which regulates the safety of the entire agricultural industry, actually tried to tell one beef producer that they can't test all of the cattle they send to the market for mad cow disease? That's right, they tried to prevent a company from testing for the safety of the beef they sell. And a Federal judge just told the USDA they don't have that authority.



Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, a meatpacker based in Arkansas City, Kan., wants to test all of its cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. Larger meat companies feared that move because if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too.



Now, let's not overreact to this; the USDA performs spot testing on about 1% of the beef that hits the market and our food supply, particularly on this issue, has been incredibly safe. Of the millions and millions of cattle that go to market every year, a grand total of 2 American cows have tested positive for mad cow disease, as opposed to a couple hundred British and Canadian cows. But if a company wants to play it safer and make sure, why in the world should the government tell them they can't?



This seems to be a rather odd example of rent-seeking, which is a real problem when you've got government agencies who think their job is to protect the industries they're supposed to regulate. Of course, the fact that those industries give huge amounts of money to the parties in power, who in turn often appoint former executives from the largest players in those industries to run the regulatory agencies, is purely coincidental. And in case you think this is unique to Republicans, I suggest you take a look at all of the favors done for Tyson Foods, Archer Daniels Midland and other huge agribusiness interests when Clinton was in office. Numerous regulatory rules were changed on their behalf to protect their profits.




Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and businessman. He is the co-founder of Michigan Citizens for Science and The Panda's Thumb and has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education.



scienceblogs.com
 
Top