Maybe ‘tis I, but things seem topsy-turvy with charges of possible contracting irregularities, bills passing through Congress that aren’t real bills, grant monies going to favored causes, and supervisors not listening to staff. 

First, in the contractors’ corner, we heard Hurricane Katrina’s answer to the $600 toilet seat.  Some of you oldies-but-goodies, like me, may recall years ago that someone in the Defense Department (was it the Navy?) paid hundreds of dollars for a toilet seat (or was it a hammer?) through a contracting device aimed at helping military operations. 

Now we’re told that contractor work to help clean up Hurricane Katrina had so many different layers and players that the “prime” contractor received $1,023 for ensuring that a 20-foot by 30-foot plastic tarp was secured on a roof, of which only $60 was paid to the third-in-line subcontractor which actually installed it.  The first “sub,” as subcontractors are usually dubbed, received $450 from the prime contractor; the second sub got $210, and the final company doing the work got $60.  Assuming my math is right, that means the gross profits received by the prime and first two subs were $573, $240, and $150, respectively.  I’d imagine that the last contractor made some profit from the $60 payment, too, but it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans compared to all the other folks involved. 

An interesting article discussed a budget bill signed into law by President Bush that included key spending cuts to curb out of control spending.  The problem was that this bill was “certified,” but not actually passed by both houses of the legislature, as our civics classes tell is a prerequisite to becoming law.  A constitutional battle looms, as nothing like this has apparently happened since an 1892 Supreme Court decision (Field v. Clark) regarding Benjamin Harrison’s signing a bill “certified” by House and Senate leaders and not through a vote by both houses of Congress.  According to news accounts, the Supreme Court decision then was silent on whether this bill could legitimately become law.  Rather, the Court decided not to decide and told Congress to work it out.

Grant monies are going to causes favored by the administration, we were told in the press.  Ideological allies of President Bush have seen their cozy coffers grow as more money is filtered to faith-based groups dealing with social issues such as abstinence education and anti-abortion programs.  Imagine that.  Money and politics being inter-connected.  Members in the Executive Branch deny that politics is involved in their balanced and objective administering and evaluation of criteria affecting grant awards.

Finally, an FBI agent testified that he told supervisors dozens of times that Zacarias Moussaoui was a threat and requested a search warrant to examine Moussaoui’s belongings, especially his computer.  The agent’s pleas fell on — and this surely is unusual — deaf ears. 

There you have it:  supervisors not listening to employees, contractors charging seemingly excessive rates, politics affecting government programs, and fancy footwork in the Halls of Congress to achieve desired results. 

Now that I think about it, I supposed things aren’t as topsy-turvy as I first thought.  This week wasn’t all that different from any other, was it?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

Comment RSS - Trackback URI