Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (24199)	12/27/2003 11:35:34 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

KNOW YOUR ENEMY: A guide to everything that is wrong with the right...... rightweb.irc-online.org

To: jttmab who wrote (24199)	12/27/2003 12:52:02 PM
From: bearshark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

>>>Do you know of anyone that has done that exercise?<<< I am not aware of anything like that. It may be possible working with appropriations legislation. However, it would not be easy. You have to understand the programs and know what they do. >>>I saw an article recently where the Joint Tactical Fighter program was going to over run be a mere $5B<<< The best way to keep track of weapons systems is through the Selected Acquisition Reports submitted to Congress from DoD. DoD publishes it every 3 months but one has to understand a bit to decipher them. The latest is here dod.mil On the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)--it is listed as a DoD program and not an Air Force program--they may be deducting from the U. S. price based on contributions from other countries. Other countries are pitching in. I believe this will be an international fighter much the same as the F-16 is. This will be a moneymaker for the Defense industry since they will sell "punk" versions to our allies. I am not familiar with this system's capabilities but the unit price will be relatively inexpensive. Overruns can be hidden in a variety of ways. The easiest is just to lie about it. Sometimes you fib--not quite a lie. Other times, you use sleight of hand techniques or shell game tactics. Here are several examples. Many years ago someone gave me a copy of a Secretary of Defense memo to read. The memo specifically told the Navy that only 3 boats could be purchased. Of course, the Navy wanted 5. What to do? The Navy managed to convince the shipbuilder that the price for 5 boats was the same as the price for 3 boats. A contract was awarded for 3 boats at a very low price. There were two options in the contract--each option for one boat. Technically, the Navy adhered to the Secretary's directive. Of course, the options were exercised. All together, the 5 boats were priced at the price of 3 boats. The goal here is to put the boat in the water, wait until the boat can be recognized as a boat, and then explain that there is an overrun. In this case, things eventually went sour between the Navy and the shipbuilder. The shipbuilder took the Navy to court, gave the Navy a good beating there, and the taxpayer eventually paid for a huge overrun. When Mr. Reagan assumed office, the Navy wanted two aircraft carriers to be built at the same time. It was sold to Congress because of the savings attributable to building two at once. Congress approved it one year and then had second thoughts a year later. Carriers aren't cheap no matter how you build them and Congress wanted to eliminate one of the two carriers. It takes 4 to 7 years to build a carrier so Congress thought it could kill one cheaply. The Navy saw that one coming and took measures to ensure the life of both carriers. As soon as the Navy received approval from Congress, they went out and contracted for long lead items--steel, the reactors, etc. The contractors then subcontracted items, and the subcontractors did their ordering too. Congress found out that it would nearly cost as much to terminate all the contracts and subcontracts as it would to build the 2 carriers. So, the Navy kept its 2 carriers. The current trick is "buy-to-budget" or something like that. It works like this. The agency estimates the cost of a system, sells it to Congress on that basis, and shows Congress how many units can be purchased at that estimate. Congress gives the agency the money and that is what the agency gets for the program. They don't spend anymore. So where is the overrun? Here's the trick. You buy fewer units with the money at a higher unit price. This is the game being played with the F-22. There is more to the story but it will come in future years. After the initial amount of planes are purchased, there will be additional purchases of F-22s at the higher unit price.