Reader Question - Social Security Reform

Share

Will the President’s social security reforms include putting members of Congress into the same plan the rest of us will have?

In short the answer is, “No.” The President’s plan for Social Security reform does not include a provision to place members of the U.S. Congress under same. This is a matter of law, not a matter of policy.

One of the most important doctrines implied, though not expressed, in the Constitution is the doctrine of the “separation of powers” between the Legislative and Executive branches of government. That being said, the President does not have the authority to propose legislation that would affect Congressional members. Additionally, the Legislature is the only body with the authority to actually draft legislation. Therefore, even if the President desired such a change, it would still be left to the discretion of the Congress as to the scope thereof.

Part of the legislative changes adopted by the Republican-lead Congress following its 1994 electoral victory was to agree that Congress would not enact legislation to which it was immune. This was part of the Contract With America. In principle this means that they should take the initiative and apply to themselves whatever changes are implemented. I can think of a plethora of legal and fiscal reasons why this should not be done however it is still valid, in principle.

Reader Question - Union Violence

Share

I need to know a little history on whether there were violent clashes between union and management members, along picket lines during the 1920's and 1930's.

Also, was there a communist connection to the general labor unrest in that time period...a la the AFL-CIO?

It is a well-established fact the early days of the Labour Movement was marked by a violence that, were it to occur today, would be called by its rightful name, "terrorism." The three most popular incidents which worked to turn public attention against the Labour Movement were the Homestead Riots, the Haymarket Massacre and the Pullman Strike. The only incident in which the government took proactive measures to address the problem involved the Pullman Strike lead by Eugene V. Debs (founder of the Communist Party USA). Grover Cleveland used the forces of the US Army and Navy to ensure that this rail-workers' strike was brought to an end. This however did not end the violence of the Movement. The US government did not take specific legislative and enforcement measures to end Labour violence until the 1970's.

The Labor Movement unofficially began with the Freemasons. The Freemasons however spawned two offshoots shortly after the Civil War: The Knights of Labour and the Knights of the Imperial Klan (KKK). Both were secretive social organizations whose membership was limited to white males and neither was opposed to the use of violence to achieve its objectives. The primary differences between them is that the KOL did not exclude Catholics from its ranks and at times defended the rights of Jewish and Italian immigrant workers. KOL was founded by a Marxist named Uriah S. Stephens. Another Marxist, Samuel Gompers, interested in bringing the Labor Movement into the mainstream sought to organize the official labour unions under a single umbrella. This was the beginning of the American Federation of Labour.

It is important to point out here that many encyclopedias euphemistically refer to the Communist Party USA as the Socialist Party USA. These were actually two separate organizations. The Socialist Party was formed by Communist Party members dismayed over the party's support for and loyalty to Joseph Stalin. The two groups remained bitter enemies for most of the 20th century. This relationship was strained even further by certain members of the Socialist Party's support for HUAC and the McCarthy hearings.

Halliburton’s “No-Bid” Contract: Fact or Myth?

Share

What is really meant by the use of the phrase “no-bid” when describing Halliburton’s contracts associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom? What is implicit in the statement is a claim that Halliburton was awarded a contract that included a blank-check for the services they provide and that said contract was awarded in contravention of the competitive bidding process. Unfortunately the truth is quite the opposite.

The Pentagon, with few exceptions, has traditionally conducted logistics and reconstruction services through its own forces under the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. However, in the early 1990’s, in an attempt to reduce standing forces and costs, the Pentagon developed the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (a.k.a. LOGCAP). LOGCAP provides for a multi-year agreement with the Pentagon wherein a company agrees to be on-call to provide any and all services needed as bid. The operative phrase there is “as bid.” Companies wishing to do business under a LOGCAP Agreement must submit bids for same. The contract, once awarded, becomes a standing agreement for a pre-determined period thereby alleviating the necessity of obtaining competitive bids each time a need arises.

In 2001 KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), a subsidiary of Halliburton, won a LOGCAP Agreement. Under this agreement KBR was called-upon in 2003 to provide post-war oil well fire containment and reconstruction at a maximum cost of $1 billion. The Pentagon reasonably presumed that the Iraqis would torch or otherwise destroy their oil wells as happened in Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War. While there were some oil well fires, the numbers thereof was nowhere near that which was expected. No competitive bids were solicited as said service fell under the parameters of an existing LOGCAP Agreement. Describing the KBR agreement as a “no-bid contract” is therefore a misnomer.

Many Conservative pundits have argued that the Clinton Administration issued Halliburton a no-bid contract for its efforts in the Balkans. Under the strictest meaning of the terms Halliburton’s deal with the Clinton Administration does fit the definition of a no-bid contract. Halliburton’s original LOGCAP Agreement issued in 1992 actually expired in 1997. To quote Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, “The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream.” In fact, Al Gore’s Reinventing Government Panel praised Halliburton for its work in military logistics in the 1990’s.

Additionally, it is noteworthy here that under LOGCAP Agreements, the Pentagon determines the amount of compensation, not the company. The company is under obligation to provide the needed services within the budgetary constraints established by the Pentagon even if its costs exceed the value thereof.

While the use of the expression “no-bid contract” with respect to U.S. efforts in Iraq fails to measure up in most cases, such contracts do exist. Government entities occasionally award contacts to specific companies without obtaining competitive bids for a host of reasons. It is almost impossible to resist the urge to attribute such deals to some form of political favoritism as the recipients are at times, large campaign contributors and/or otherwise associated with government power brokers. Notwithstanding, there are legitimate non-nefarious reasons why a company would be awarded such a “sweet-heart” deal.

Certain companies have experience and capabilities in particular industries which makes them ideal candidates for providing certain services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. In many cases it is the sheer size and reputation of a company that affords it a competitive edge. This is particularly so when a government agency has a limited amount of financial resources and/or a project that must be completed within a short period of time. It is advisable under these circumstances to seek out a company that will agree to provide the needed services within existing budgetary constraints rather than taking the time to shop for competitive bids. Some of these are known simply as ID/IQ Agreements. Both Halliburton and Bechtel have been recipients of same.

ID/IQ Agreements are basically contracts to provide specific products and services at a fixed-price for an indefinite delivery period and in an indefinite quantity. Contrary to Congressman Henry Waxman’s assessment this type of agreement is not “bad for taxpayers.” In actuality this is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the government and the company involved. The government has established a ceiling above which it will no go and the companies then compete to provide the products and services at or below that level. Real-world costs are dynamic, not static and when costs exceed the agreed-upon maximum, the overrun must be absorbed by the company. On the other hand, when costs fall below the agreed-upon maximum the company can factor in a reasonable markup. The safeguard against unconscionable markups is found in the ability of the government to conduct unannounced audits. As you may recall this procedure is what lead to the finding that Halliburton had overstated its costs on several invoices to the Pentagon. I call this a substantial tax-payer benefit. When a private company overcharges the tax-payer we are able to recoup the costs however when the government is the service provider that tax-payer has little or no recourse.

For these and other reason, Halliburton has been awarded no-bid contracts for work in Iraq.

In a war logistics is of utmost importance and time is of the essence. The idea of the perfect, unalterable plan of war and occupation only exists in the minds of Leftist politicians. Real wars on the other hand, are fluid and unpredictable. Military personnel and their civilian overseers have to ready and willing to make split-second decisions which can sometimes mean the abandonment or reorganization of existing goals and timetables. It has been said that “no plan of battle ever survives the first engagement with the enemy.” How true this is. For a plan of battle is only as good as the willingness of your enemy to comply.

The Death of Democracy

Share

Louisiana District Court Judge William Morvant, took it upon himself to overturn a voter-approved constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Tuesday, October 05, 2004.

This should a serve as a warning like no other to all Americans that their Democracy “of the people, for the people” is fast becoming a Democracy by the courts for the courts. It was bad enough when courts overturned the acts of legislators on grounds having more to do with the judge’s ideology than jurisprudence. Now they have gone so far as to overturn a constitutional amendment passed by 78% of the electorate who bothered to take part in the process.

The reasons for the judge’s actions notwithstanding, the court should not have had jurisdiction to rule on a constitutional amendment. The sole reason for the amendment was to protect Louisiana’s existing laws banning such unions. These laws are not in the State’s constitution rather are the result of legislative actions and prior judicial rulings. Supporters of the amendment correctly believed that it was in their best interest to put this matter to a vote of the people in the form of an amendment to the Louisiana constitution to avoid the possibility of a judge following the path laid out by those in Massachusetts. Unfortunately the courts have proven that they view themselves as being above any and all laws.

For this democracy to survive we have to reign in the power of the judiciary. We have allowed the courts to assume powers never imagined by this nation’s Founders and unless and until we establish reasonable boundaries for judicial review no vote of the people or acts of duly elected legislators will be worth the paper upon which they are printed. This is the beginning of the death of our Democracy.

The End of Ideology?

Share

I recently had the pleasure of reading The End of Ideology by Daniel Bell, one of the four “New York Intellectuals” as they were called. I came across this particular gem by sheer accident while browsing a local bookstore that specializes in rare and antiquarian books.

Bell essentially agued that the problem with the intellectual community of his day (early Cold War era) is that it was ideological. He did not argue that some of those who comprise the intellectual community were ideologues, rather he opined that ideology was itself the culprit. With all due respect to Mr. Bell, he could not have been more wrong.

We all have ideologies, or a basic world-view. What is a world-view but a conceptual framework born of our environment, our knowledge and our experiences. This framework provide us with a basis upon which we live our lives and view our world. Ideology includes, but is not limited to, religion, culture, politics and philosophy. The problem with some intellectuals is not that they have ideologies but that they allow their ideologies to control their view of the world rather than guide it. The difference manifests when despite reason, logic, facts and evidence we begin to cut and trim reality, so as to make it fit within the parameters of our world-view. In essence our world-view serves as a prism through which we filter our view of reality whether past, present or future and as a result we become Ideologues.

What really spurred Daniel Bell’s treatise was the inability of Communist and Fellow Travelers to come to grips with the fact that the realities of Communism, particularly the Soviet Union, was at odds with the fanciful image they so passionately wanted to believe. They had given up the scientific search for the truth that was and had become engineers endeavoring to create a truth that never existed.

It seems the old adage is true: those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it.

Im Baaack!!!

Share

It's been a while but I am back in action just in time for Election 2004. I promise to be here at least twice a week or as often as world events mandate. Thanks for being there and continue sending me your questions.