General News

Is there a military term for metrosexual? How about egregious waste?

Andrew B. Einhorn — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:15:00 GMT

Please fasten your seat belts, put up your tray tables and make sure your seat backs are in their full upright and locked positions...unless of course you are an Air Force general traveling in one of their newly designed and reupholstered 'comfort cabins.' Then you can just recline in your leather lazy-boy and marvel at the flat screen television before your eyes.

In the midst of the most expensive war in U.S. history, Air Force generals are busy primping and pimping their rides. Yesterday, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), a non-profit Washington-based government watchdog group, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that raises questions about two little-known programs to build "world-class" luxury aircraft accommodations for the military and senior civilian leadership.

The accommodations-called SLICC (Senior Leader In-transit Conference Capsule) and SLIP (Senior Leader In-transit Pallet)-were justified as filling a "deficiency gap," but emails obtained by POGO show that there was significant internal dissent within the Air Force over this extravagant waste of taxpayers' funds.

Air Force documents obtained by POGO and authenticated by the Washington Post spell out how each of the capsules is to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule." These lavish "necessities" included business class seating, beds, a couch, a table, a flat-screen TV of "at least 37 inches" with stereo speakers, a full-length mirror, "aesthetically pleasing wall-to-wall carpeting, wall treatments, and ceiling treatments," self-adjusting lighting, and universal remote controls.

The Air Force originally requested $16 million to fund the new SLICCs, but the estimated cost of the first prototype SLICC is currently up 64 percent over original estimates at $2.735 million. The reason? The colors were just all wrong.

In an action eerily similar to hit reality-TV makeover shows, General Robert McMahon expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the color of the seat leather and type of wood used, following procurement of the first SLIP. He then directed that the leather be reupholstered from brown to Air Force blue leather and to replace the wood originally used to "cherry."

Cost to the Air Force: $21,000 for the first slip, $113,000 for the first four slips, and $493,000 for all other retrofits and additional after-market customizations. Joy from a General embracing his metrosexuality: priceless.

In one email between Air Force personnel, it states, "Gen McMahon's concern is so significant that we need assurance by the end of the week from AFRL [Air Force Research Laboratory] that the SLICC will be ‘World class' inside. While we know the requirements document says ‘business class', we all know there are levels of that."

The cost was so appalling to General Kenneth Merchant that he wrote, "How'd we get to $113K for 4 pallets? Please tell me this is for all 4 pallets...I could carpet and upholster a couple of houses for $113K..."

Those who optimistically believe that the design changes were all necessary for nationality security, secure communications, etc, should read the following statement from POGO's press release: "Contract documents obtained by POGO reveal that these accommodations do not provide any additional operational capabilities (e.g. communications advantages) beyond those currently existing."

The good news is that if the President wants to throw an airborne party and Air Force One is in the shop, there's a backup fleet for P.Diddy's entourage.

Now that's news that makes you want to say, OhMyGov!

Also Interesting:

Republicans uptight about GOP T-shirts
McDonald's franchise fined one million dollars for employing illegal immigrants
Sex scandals on the Hill...coming to a home theatre near you
Former #1 U.S. Prosecutor On Terror Watch List

McDonald's franchise fined one million dollars for employing illegal immigrants

Andrew B. Einhorn — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:24:00 GMT

Yesterday, Mack and Associates Inc., a company that owns 11 McDonald's restaurants in Nevada, was fined one million dollars by a federal court after pleading guilty to employing 58 illegal immigrants.

The court found that the company purposefully hired the illegal immigrants, offering them names and social security numbers to use that belong to other U.S. citizens, said the US Justice Department.

In a Las Vegas federal court, Mack and Associates corporate officers pleaded guilty to "conspiracy to encourage and induce an alien's unlawful residence in the United States and aiding and abetting an alien to remain in the country," the department said. Meanwhile, the company's former vice president pleaded guilty to inducing an illegal alien to remain in the United States and faces up to five years in prison and a 250,000 dollar five.

The case is an anomaly among government raids, which typically only end in the prosecution and deportation of the illegals due to the difficulty in proving high ranking officers knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

In May, the largest Immigrations and Customs Enforcement raid in history ended with the arrest of 389 employees of an Iowa meat-packing plant. Two supervisors have been charged with aiding and abetting the use of fraudulent identification, yet the Justice Department has yet to produce charges against Agriprocessors Inc. or its corporate officers.

Some in Congress are upset about this trend, and worry about the damage these types of raids and deportations cause on the families of those deported.

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) announced yesterday that they will visit those most impacted by the May 12, 2008 ICE raid of the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa on July 26th.

"As the Bush Administration and ICE crack down on, criminalize and imprison workers, nearly 400 families in Postville have been left with an impossible daily struggle to feed their children. Meanwhile, their employers—accused of wage and hour violations, child labor and physical and sexual abuse—face no charges," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) in a press release.

CHC members, and many others in Congress, are pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, a buzz word that encompasses the prosecution of those who hire illegal immigrants, a revamping of visa rules, increased border security, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the country, and various other programs designed to attract and retain hard-working, intelligent immigrants.

Across the political aisle that can appear more like an ocean some days, many republicans are cheering the ICE raids and hoping for more. Following a series of ICE raids on the Swift & Co. plants in Colorado, Rep. Tom Tancredo sent a letter to ICE Assistant Secretary Julie Myers to commend her for a job well done.

“This kind of enforcement action by ICE has been sorely missing over the past decade and I urge you to expand such operations to other industries.”

Regardless of your stance on the immigration debate, one thing is for certain: a supply of illegal immigrants in the U.S. will always exist so long as there is demand for their services from business owners. Like the drug war, tackling supply without addressing the demand will simply lead to an unwinnable campaign against a group of people simply looking for a better life.

No Voter Registration, No Voter Fraud - That's North Dakota!

Joseph Rendeiro — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT

In Washington state's 2005 gubernatorial race, Democrat Christine Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi by a mere 129 votes, the slimmest margin in the state's history. Every vote counted - or so the state thought - until it was revealed that 24 votes were credited to dead people.

It's these hiccups in the election system that give North Dakota Secretary of State Al Jaeger confidence in his state's voter registration process, or rather, its lack of one.

"When people ask us about voter registration, I point out that dead people don't vote in North Dakota," Jaeger says. "From what I gather, dead people, even dogs have voted in other states. Not having voter registration helps prevent that."

Dating back to the early 1800's, voter registration has been used by states as a means of ensuring that only eligible people are voting in elections. States control access to the polls to prevent voter fraud. One of the first states to have required voter registration, North Dakota is currently the only state to have abolished the practice. Now, the people themselves safeguard the validity of their elections.

"North Dakota is a rural state and its communities maintain close ties and networks," states a document from the Elections Division of the Office of North Dakota's Secretary of State. "North Dakota's system of voting, and lack of voter registration, is rooted in its rural character by providing small precincts."

By establishing small precincts, the state hopes to ensure that the election boards can adequately detect who should and should not be voting. Each precinct has a list of residents who voted in previous elections. If a voter's name is on the list, he provides valid form identification, and his address can be verified, then he may vote.

"We are a very rural state and in a lot of cases people know who's supposed to be voting and where they are supposed to be voting," says Danette Odenbach, the HAVA Coordinator for the North Dakota Association of Counties.

North Dakota currently has just over 635,000 residents, giving them three electoral votes in the upcoming presidential election. Odenbach says that often the county auditor knows everybody who should be voting. In cases where a voter is not on the list, a poll worker can vouch for the person, who may be allowed to vote.

"In a sense, same day voter registration and what we're doing here is the same thing," Jaeger says. "People come in and as long as they meet the legal requirements they can vote. People don't have to deal with the bureaucracy related to voter registration."

However, voters can be challenged at the polls if their names do not appear on the voter lists and nobody can vouch for them. In these instances, voters are asked to sign affidavits stating that they are qualified electors for the state of North Dakota.

"We still haven't had many issues. People are pretty honest and we give them the benefit of the doubt," Odenbach says.

However, she also maintains that all affidavits are reviewed by the County Auditor and the County States Attorney. The maximum penalty for fraudulent voting is up to a year imprisonment and a $2000 fine.

The Elections Division says that although voter fraud is possible, they have yet to encounter a widespread problem.

"I honestly have never heard of any concern over fraud," Odenbach adds. "It's usually more of a curiosity thing. People asking ‘Really, how does that work?'"

Odenbach says that the state sometimes sees residents voting in the wrong precincts, but those voters are notified of their error. North Dakota currently has no documented cases of voter fraud.

"All I can say is that it works," Jaeger says. "We don't have any fraud that we can point to."

North Dakota's politicians seem to agree. Ever since Senate Bill No. 61 repealed mandatory voter registration in 1951, all attempts to reinstate registration have failed. One attempt as recent as the 1999-2001 biennium was shot down.

"North Dakota was resigned to not having it because of how expensive it was to operate and because we really hadn't had a need for it," Odenbach says.

But according to Elections Division's documents, the Secretary of State's Office does foresee some changes in the future, as rural communities continue to grow larger. They are currently in the process of compiling a state data system, which would combine all of the poll books from the different counties into one database. Jaeger says that this is not a step toward registration, but only a better way to keep records of people who have already voted.
"This will help alleviate concerns if there has been fraud, which we think is very isolated," Jaeger says.

And, don't look for voter registration anytime soon.

"To me this is the way it works best," Odenbach says. "I hear from my counterparts some of the legal problems they face with voter registration...We really don't have the problems that other jurisdictions have and I don't see why you would fix something that isn't broken."

Former #1 U.S. Prosecutor On Terror Watch List

Mark Malseed — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:37:00 GMT

What did the one U.S. homeland security database say to the other?

Nothing -- they've never talked.

This is the conclusion, anyway, after former Assistant Attorney General Jim Robinson, a senior Clinton Administration official, said his travel plans have been "significantly" disrupted because his name appears on a U.S. terrorism watchlist.

Robinson, the former head of the Justice Department's criminal division, said he thinks his name matches that of someone added to the government terror list in 2005.

"I suppose if I were convinced that America is a safer place because I get hassled at the airport, I might put up with it," Robinson said, according to CBS News. "But I doubt it."

A consolidated terror watchlist was created after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to thwart future plots. But the names of many innocent Americans have ended up on the list as well, causing them to undergo extra security checks, or at worst, prohibiting their air travel altogether.

Some 30,000 Americans have asked the Department of Homeland Security to remove their names from the list, which is maintained by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center. About 400,000 individuals are believed to be on the watchlist, 95% of whom are not U.S. citizens or legal residents, according to an FBI spokesman.

How does a former senior government official, who recently had his top-secret security clearances renewed by the FBI, manage to snag a spot on the list? Many things could be at work here: Robinson might just be unlucky and have the same name as a suspected evildoer. Or his name might have been used by a clever terrorist who figured that senior U.S. government officials would never be flagged on a watchlist. Even though, we now know, they are.

Watchlists are truly scary things - necessary perhaps, but nonetheless tools of state control over citizens that have been abused and mismanaged in the past. DHS, FBI and the other security agencies have to start talking more to prevent the terror watchlist from becoming bloated with false positives. Because I don't know what all the other Mark Malseeds out there are up to. And frankly, next time I'm at the airport, I don't want to find out.

Also Interesting:

Nelson Mandela no longer considered a terrorist by the U.S.
D.C. Metro station manager accused of running a prostitution ring -- from the station!
Anti-Gay Alabama Attorney General Caught Being Gay
Top 10 Worst Congressional Actions of the 110th Congress
Signs of poverty changing in Dallas

Boring but important: Senate passes 3.9 percent civilian pay raise

seniorexec — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:03:00 GMT

In defiance to the administration's support of the federal workforce to provide a meager 2.9 percent raise for civilian employees next year, and a 3.4 percent raise for those in the military, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a spending bill that would increase civilian federal employees' pay by 3.9 percent in 2009.

The goal of these increases is to provide for a cost of living adjustment as well as make military pay commensurate with civilian pay for similar jobs. While the increase sounds nice, it hasn't been signed into law yet, because the Congressional Budget is far from being finalized, and if you recall how the process went this past year, don't count on seeing it until February.

Hopefully though, Congress and a lame-duck President can get their work accomplished quickly and prevent unnecessary inconvenience to families.

Of course, we all realize that with the increasing costs of fuel, food, energy, and housing this 3.9 percent increase will really be a small pay cut, but that's a topic for another day.

TSA grants $1.2 billion human resources outsourcing contract to Lockheed Martin

Andrew B. Einhorn — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:23:00 GMT

The Transportation Security Administration this month inked an eight-year, $1.2 billion deal with Lockheed Martin Corp. to provide TSA with comprehensive human resources support.

The outsourcing trend is fueled by a recognition that in-house HR methods are behind the times and unresponsive to growing needs. Agencies across government are seeing large-scale turnover of their staffs because of retirements, and that means accelerated recruiting, hiring and training. The move, proponents say, will enable agencies to employ smaller HR staffs that can focus on crafting strategic hiring plans and pay-for-performance systems.

Teach for America gets a bad grade from the Department of Education

Andrew B. Einhorn — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:41:00 GMT

Teach for America, the nonprofit that places college graduates and professionals as teachers in needy schools, was recently slammed by the Department of Education's Inspector General for keeping lousy records.

With its 5,000 teachers-in-training and a $75 million budget, Teach for America has become a major force in educational reform over its eighteen year history. Each year, the group receives almost 20,000 applications from talented college graduates for 2,500 teaching spots. But since one-third of its funding comes from the local (11 percent), state (9 percent), and federal government (13 percent) collectively, it is subject to periodic auditing.

When the audit finally came from the Inspector General's Office, the organization was failed for mishandling their records. Apparently,, Teach for America couldn't account for half the money audited. From food bills to lodging expenses to training costs, Teach for America failed to provide adequate book keeping and receipts, leaving some wondering if there's something more than sloppy record keeping happening.

"Alarm bells start to go off usually when you start seeing a recipient of a grant or an earmark not being able to provide basic information," said Leslie Paige of government watchdog Citizens Against Government Waste.

Teach for America vice president Kevin Huffman says they just have poor organization and that most of the money does go to teachers. "We're confident, we're confident that we spent the money on the training of new teachers," Huffman said.

Perhaps before the organization gets its infusion of $12 million from the federal government next year, the group should teach itself Accounting 101.

Also Interesting:

D.C. Metro station manager accused of running a prostitution ring -- from the station!
Will the President Keep his Word?
Raising the visibility of public service
Florida teaching water conservation through playing cards

Will the President Keep his Word?

seniorexec — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:05:00 GMT

Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki raised the prospect of "setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington." Despite promises to adhere to the wishes of the Iraqi government if the nation's leader asked for the U.S. to leave Iraq, Bush rejected the proposal to offer a withdrawal schedule.

In an April 24, 2007 interview with Charlie Rose, the President stated he would remove troops if asked by Iraq, but he predicted that Maliki would not ask for a withdrawal:

ROSE: But if he said get out now, we don't want you anymore -

BUSH: I don't see how we could stay. It is his country.

ROSE: But if he said that, it would lead to the catastrophe that you have suggested.

BUSH: That's why he's not going to say it.

ROSE: You don't think he'll say it?

BUSH: I don't. No, I don't.

Be thankful, the Commander and Chief and Chief Executive is not a soothsayer, but in case it was not clear, Iraq's National Security Adviser, Muwaffaq Al-Rubaie, said to reporters: "Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq."

The Iraqi proposal specifies, once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility in all 18 of Iraq's provinces, U.S.-led forces would then withdraw from all cities in the country, with reviews every six months to determine when U.S.-led troops would pull out entirely.

While it is not always easy to understand exactly what politicians, whether U.S. or Iraqi, mean, it seems pretty clear that Maliki didn't say he'd like, someday, well into the future, when Iraq is hunky dory, to maybe think about sending U.S. troops home. What his office said, in writing, is that Maliki is working on an agreement whereby U.S. forces would either leave or "put a timetable" in place to schedule our leaving.

And that's clearly not White House policy.

Given this, and the White House's repeated assurances that U.S. troops would only stay as long as welcomed, should federal employees expect greater focus on the other governmental functions like health care, infrastructure, energy alternatives, the mortgage problems, etc.? Don't get your hopes up. From all perspectives, this really is the task of another administration, since the U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S. presence in Iraq expires at the end of 2008. An inconvenient truth for sure.

D.C. Metro station manager accused of running a prostitution ring -- from the station!

Mark Malseed — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:31:00 GMT

The Red Line has apparently gone Red Light.

A station manager at Washington D.C.'s Dupont Circle Metro station has been charged with running a prostitution ring from her post inside the subway station, including arranging trysts with fellow Metro employees.

Sharon Waters, 42, was nabbed in a Metro Transit Police investigation that was responding to tips she had been circulating flyers promoting sex trips to Brazil as a representative of the Blossom Travel Agency. In an undercover sting operation in June, Waters was approached by a Metro policeman posing as an out-of-town businessman who inquired about the flyers.

Waters pulled out a book featuring "numerous nude and sexually explicit pictures of women from Brazil that were available on the trips," according to the affidavit. She also mentioned a sex party in the D.C. area with a $100 cover charge, and gave the businessman her phone number. When contacted later, Waters offered to set the man up with women for sexual encounters.

At a subsequent meeting at the Dupont Circle station, Waters got on the public loudspeaker system to page "Pam," another Metro employee who then offered to engage in sex acts for $200. That woman, Pam Goins, 45, is also being charged. During the conversation between Waters, the undercover cop and Goins, the affidavit said, Goins "made numerous references to different sexual acts she wanted to perform with (the officer) and grabbed his crotch/groin area."

Waters, of Bowie, Maryland, had been a Metro employee since 1990 and was making $56,657 base salary as of 2006. Her husband is also a Metro station manager, reports the D.C. Examiner, though it's not known whether he was involved in the ring.

Hot on the heels of the "D.C. Madam" and the Eliot Spitzer affair, this latest prostitution case may peter out quickly, as a D.C. Superior Court judge has agreed to allow charges to be dropped if Waters successfully completes a rehabilitation program. The four-month, six-hours-a-week "diversion" program, called Angel’s Project Power, is designed to give women arrested for prostitution a second chance. Among the "life skills" classes being taught is entrepreneurship, something Waters and company don't exactly seem to be lacking.

At the very least, they've given us something new to smile at every time we see the subway's boring "Metro Opens Doors" slogan.

TOP STORY: Toxic trailers from FEMA still source of debate and concern

Briana Kerensky — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:32:00 GMT

As the three-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina rolls near, the government is still learning its lesson about disaster preparedness and effective responses. But it seems that responsibility for the formaldehyde-laden trailers sent to Katrina victims has yet to be fully assigned.

On Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing entitled "Manufacturers of FEMA Trailers and Elevated Formaldehyde Levels." While the original purpose of the hearing was to figure out how and why the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was giving homeless Katrina survivors trailers built with dangerous levels of the chemical formaldehyde, the meeting quickly dissolved into squabbles and the blame game. Nothing seems to have been resolved.

Since 2006, FEMA and the manufacturers of the trailers have been receiving complaints from trailer occupants. People have been citing lingering odors, burning eyes, sore throats, headaches, and nausea - all symptoms of formaldehyde poisoning.

Formaldehyde is typically present in homes, no matter what type of home it is. It is often used in materials such as carpet, wood and vinyl, and trace amounts are present in fish, chemical cleaners, and even our breath. But testing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Sierra Club, FEMA, and some of the trailer manufacturers have shown that the homes they gave to Katrina victims contain hazardous levels of the chemical.

The average house has between 10 and 20 parts per billion (ppb) of formaldehyde. (A part per billion is the equivalent of adding one pinch of salt to ten tons of potato chips, or one eye drop of a substance added to 500 barrels of water.) At 100 ppb, formaldehyde is at a level of concern for the National Cancer Institute. And according to the American Society of Heating and Air Conditioning Engineers, 100 ppb is the maximum formaldehyde level for continuous indoor air concentration.

Chart showing formaldehyde levels

Results from the Sierra Club's study showed that 83 percent of the 52 trailers they tested contained formaldehyde levels above 100 ppb. An independent test showed that occupied trailers from trailer manufacturer Gulf Stream contained formaldehyde levels of 590 ppb, while some of their unoccupied trailers, still sealed from the factory, contained a toxic 2,000 ppb.

So the question is, who is at fault for these high levels of formaldehyde? The trailer manufacturers, who chose the materials and didn't give FEMA full testing results? Or FEMA, who left the trailers sealed up tightly in the sun, exacerbating formaldehyde release inside the trailers, and then distributed them?

The answer seemed to vary with party lines, and as of yet, there is no clear majority opinion.

Rep. Eleanor Norton (D-DC) believed that the trailer manufacturers had a large hand in the situation, and had a moral responsibility to tell trailer occupants about the hazardous living conditions.

Testifying at the hearing were the heads of the four largest trailer suppliers to FEMA. When Norton asked Jim Shea, the chairman of Gulf Stream, whether or not his company disclosed to FEMA that the unoccupied trailers they tested had up to 2,000 ppb, his answer was that he thought the information was "irrelevant."

"Irrelevant?" Norton asked. "Why was that irrelevant? These are unoccupied trailers about to be distributed to human beings in the Gulf Coast. I wonder if the companies have learned anything from this experience."

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-IL) agreed. He said, "Those unoccupied trailers became occupied trailers. Somebody should be held accountable for not telling families they are moving into hazardous situations."

The Republicans were more focused on blaming the government, rather than the manufacturers.

"The customer in this situation was FEMA," Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) said. When there was a problem, Gulf Stream went to the customer: FEMA. The trailer manufacturers are just caught in a lingering tempest of government scapegoats."

In 2006, Gulf Stream asked FEMA if it should test trailers. But according to Shea, FEMA said no.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) played the middleman and decided both parties are at fault.

"This was a failure of government. The government should have set standards, should have told the public about the danger of formaldehyde, and the government failed. But it was also a failure of industry," Waxman said. "Some of you did testing, and found there was a problem, and then that was the end of it. You did tests and didn't follow up."

Although Waxman assigned blame to both parties for the formaldehyde debacle, no one from FEMA attended the hearing. The only person from a federal agency to testify was a director from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). So much for government accountability.

Oversight Committee members discussed the reasons FEMA's voice could not be found that day. But they couldn't agree when FEMA was actually invited to testify, with answers ranging from early June to last Thursday.

Blame shifting and truancy aside, the question of what is going to be done about the toxic trailers still lingers? While Congress plays the blame game, 15,000 potentially hazardous trailers are still occupied by Katrina victims. And just last week, the CDC released a report stating that anyone living still living in a FEMA allocated trailer with over 500 ppb should move out immediately. That same week, FEMA began allocating new trailers to flood victims in Indiana.

Indiana State Agriculture Director Andy Miller, who is overseeing Indiana's disaster recovery, said the flood victims won't be using the same type of dwellings some Katrina victims blame for giving them frequent headaches, nosebleeds and other ailments. Miller wet on to say that the Katrina victims lived in trailer homes meant for shorter-term use.

In the meantime, federal officials have vowed to test all trailers shipped to Indiana flood victims for formaldehyde before allowing anyone to live in one. Michael H. Smith, the federal coordinating officer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said the Army Corps of Engineers will oversee testing of about 700 unused mobile homes that have been stored at south-central Indiana's Camp Atterbury.