Morning Smoke: Chest-Thumping Panda Mocks US Defense Spending in Taiwanese Animation

MORNING SMOKE

Where there's smoke, there's fire. POGO's Morning Smoke is a collection of the freshest investigations, scoops, and opinions related to the world of government oversight. Have a story you'd like to see included? Contact POGO's blog editor

 

National Security

Wicked Video Mocks - In Mandarin - US Defense Spending
Colin Clark, Aol Defense

Chorus Growing Louder: Military Brass Should Oversee Weapon Acquisitions
Sandra Erwin, National Defense Magazine

Slack Budgeting at Defense
Walter Pincus, The Washington Post

Pentagon Chief Admits US Is at War in Pakistan
Spencer Ackerman, Danger Room

US Officials Guided Filmmakers on Bin Laden Raid Movie
Tony Capaccio and Gopal Ratnam, Bloomberg

Senate Republicans Demand Details on Coming Sequestration from Obama
Daniel Strauss, The Hill

Open Government

Intelligence Director Summoned to Capitol Hill to Discuss Media Leaks
Ed O'Keefe, The Washington Post

Government Oversight

Tougher GSA Oversight Part of New Legislation
Matthew Weigelt, Federal Computer Week

Financial Oversight

US Groups Tussle Over Investment Adviser Oversight
Suzanne Barlyn, Reuters

Regulator Concedes Oversight Lapse in JP Morgan Loss
Ben Protess, The New York Times

Comments

[Dfens]

Procurement programs run amuck and yet nobody is held accountable, the study says. To a degree, because of Goldwater-Nichols, the oversight of acquisition projects has never been greater, and yet nobody is truly responsible, the panel concludes. "In the last 10 years, the department has walked away from over $50 billion in weapons that either did not work or were overtaken by newer requirements given the average 15-18 year development cycle. We were unable to determine if anyone was ever held accountable for this $50 billion of expenditures that went to the dustbin of history," writes Retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro, chairman of the DBB. - National Defense

I have an idea for a study POGO could do to demonstrate what is wrong with the way the Department of Defense buys weapons. The study would use shoppers in a mall who agree to buy POGO what it "needs" per a set of written specifications. You know, shirts, shoes, mall stuff. One group would spend their own money on these goods which they would later sell to a POGO buyer (at a negotiated rate, knowing POGO has the option to buy from someone else) to meet their requirments, and another would constantly bill POGO for everything they buy at a profitable rate of $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend as long as it satisfies the requirements.

Which group do you think would cost the least, those that bought goods with their own money to sell to the government later -- if the government buyer agrees the item is a good deal, or those who made a guaranteed $1.10 for every dollar they spent as long as it met the letter of the requirements?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the group getting $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend is going to spend on anything they can even remotely imagine justifying per the "requirements". The other group, with their own money at stake, is going to be much more judicious in what they buy focusing mainly on bargains. I bet if you created a video of your study and its results, it would "go viral" on YouTube, just like the video that Coast Guard whistleblower made about the ships that didn't work.