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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (127202)	7/24/2005 11:02:46 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793725

I question the efficacy of Federal Spending, you attack the military. That's not a discussion, that's a caricature of a discussion. Now you won't talk to me anymore. Fine. It's a beautiful day here.

To: JohnM who wrote (127202)	7/24/2005 12:21:38 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793725

You might start there. Waste and fraud in federal procurement, in addition to being a crime, is also subject to civil lawsuits by whistleblowers, who can earn a nice reward by bringing what is called a "Qui Tam" lawsuit. Not saying it doesn't happen, I know a lady who makes a lot of money specializing in qui tam suits. Unfortunately for me, they aren't common enough. The other watchdogs are the competitors, who are jealous over any bone they feel the guy who got the contract didn't deserve, and also have the right to file lawsuits. So, in addition to their in-house procurement agents, there are Inspector Generals looking for waste and fraud, lawyers and whistleblowers looking for qui tam lawsuits, and competitors looking for illegal contracts. The world of federal contracting has changed radically since the days of the $640 toilet seats.