Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Nov 6th, 2003, 09:53 AM        Are Republicans in Favor of Defrauding Taxpayers?
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The final version of the $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan is missing provisions the Senate had passed to penalize war profiteers who defraud American taxpayers. House negotiators on the package refused to accept the Senate provisions.

The Senate provision was authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.). It was one of the last major sticking points this week as negotiators worked through the compromise appropriations bill. The conferees narrowly defeated the amendment after lengthy debate, with House negotiators offering no substitute and no willingness to compromise, despite repeated offers from Senate conferees to negotiate the language. Republican and Democratic Senate conferees consistently supported the provision, which had been unanimously accepted during Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the bill. Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin are members of the Appropriations Committee and also of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the criminal justice system.

"Congress is about to send billions and billions of dollars to a place where there is no functioning government, under a plan with too little accountability and too few financial controls," said Leahy. "That's a formula for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would defraud taxpayers, and removing this protection is another major blot on this bill."

"We are about to spend a lot of money in Iraq, quickly and with few real controls on how it is spent," said Feinstein. "The least we can do is prevent private companies from taking advantage of the American Government, its people, and the men and women who are risking their lives every day to make Iraq, and the world, a better, safer place to live. It was a mistake to strip the anti-profiteering provision from the conference report, and restoring it through this bill would send a clear signal that this kind of activity will not be tolerated."

"When the Senate Appropriations Committee considered this supplemental request, Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and I joined together to criminalize war profiteering -- price gouging and fraud -- with the same law that was passed during World War II. Yet this amendment, was stripped out of the final bill," said Durbin. "I fail to understand how anyone can be opposed to prosecuting those who want to defraud and overcharge the United States government and the American taxpayers."

U.S. fraud statutes protect against waste of tax dollars at home, but none expressly prohibit war profiteering and none expressly confer extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas. The Leahy-Feinstein-Durbin amendment would criminalize "war profiteering" -- overcharging taxpayers for any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The bill also prohibits fraud and false statements in any matter involving a contract or the provision of goods or services in Iraq. These new crimes would be felonies, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. Leahy described it as "strong and focused sanctions" that are narrowly tailored to criminalize and create tough criminal penalties for fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin will re-introduce the legislation again as a separate bill and will work to win its passage. But because criminal penalties cannot be made retroactive, the absence of penalties in this supplemental appropriations bill will hamper efforts to crack down on war profiteering that involves funds from this bill.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Buffalo Tom is probably a spambot
Old Nov 6th, 2003, 10:20 AM        Re: Are Republicans in Favor of Defrauding Taxpayers?
You can't expect the Republicans to support a bill that could potentially jail everyone in the Executive Branch. :/
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
  #3  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Nov 6th, 2003, 11:33 AM       
I find it... humorous that Democats are trying to put in anti-wasting of tax dollars into bills. That would be the same as if criminals voted to have tougher penalties against crime.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Nov 6th, 2003, 12:02 PM       
Humorousness aside, what do you think about Republicans axing a measure penalizing contractors for fraud and war profiteering?

Especially since just today the Pentagon has said they are Conindering not extending Halliburton's no bid contract in Iraq because they've been charging us twice the going rate for Gasoline?

I mean, that's a pretty powerful punishment, not extending an open ended no bid contract.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Nov 6th, 2003, 12:08 PM       
Oh, wait, I just re read the piece and it seems Halliburton is only possibly in danger of perhaps loosing an extension on the Gasoline distributrion part of their contract.


US senators say Halliburton to lose Iraq gasoline business


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Army may replace Halliburton as the agent for future gasoline imports into Iraq (news - web sites) following accusations of overcharging, two senior Democratic lawmakers said.


The Army Corps of Engineers was considering switching the business to the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s Defense Energy Support Center, said two Democrats in the House of Representatives, Henry Waxman and John Dingell.

"Given the extraordinarily high prices that Halliburton has been charging to import gasoline, this action could save American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars," they wrote in a letter to the Army Corps.

The Army Corps was not immediately available to comment.

Waxman and Dingell said they learned of plans to switch the business away from Halliburton during discussions with the director of the Defense Energy Support Center, Jeffrey Jones.

"According to Mr. Jones, the Corps asked the Defense Energy Support Center to take over the job of bringing gasoline and other fuels into Iraq," the lawmakers wrote.

The center was now evaluating how long it would take to assume Halliburton's gasoline import responsibilities, they wrote.

Waxman is the senior Democrat in the House of Representatives' committee on government reform and Dingell the ranking Democrat in the House committee on energy and energy.

The lawmakers said they were surprised no one had checked with the Defense Energy Support Center earlier.

"If the center had been consulted before Halliburton was tasked with importing fuel under its no-bid sole-sources contract, many millions of dollars could have been saved," Waxman and Dingell wrote.

The two Democrats have accused Halliburton of charging the US government 162.5 million dollars for 61.3 million gallons of gasoline imported from Kuwait, equivalent to 2.65 dollars a gallon.

They said officials had told them the Defense Energy Support Center was already importing some gasoline into Iraq for military use for less than half that amount.

"According to these officials, the Defense Energy Support Center can even deliver jet fuel all the way to Antarctica for significantly less than Halliburton charges to take gasoline just 400 miles (640 kilometers) from Kuwait to Baghdad," the lawmakers said.

Halliburton's Kellogg Brown and Root engineering and construction division netted a widely criticised, no-bid government contract to help rebuild Iraq's shattered oil industry in March.

Halliburton chief executive David Lesar has rejected allegations against his firm in the past, saying it is a "political target" because of Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s past involvement.

Cheney, who was chief executive of Halliburton from 1995-2000, has denied any role in Halliburton's Iraq contracts.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Nov 6th, 2003, 01:48 PM       
For once I completely agree with Tom. . .


There must be a star rising in the East or something.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Nov 6th, 2003, 09:25 PM       
Why is it that you liberals only care about how much something costs when it comes to 1) making a profit or 2) defending the country?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Nov 7th, 2003, 12:32 AM       
Because its not important how much something costs when it comes to A.) Seeing to the health and welfare of the US Citizenry and; B.) Ensuring that the next generation of Americans whom cannot provide for themselves have basic needs met.

Is national defense important? Yes, but as you have never endeavoured to sacrifice towards that end yourself, you have far less of a place to say so than others such as Bimskalabim, GAsux or even KellyChoas.

Is profit anywhere near the importance of anything mentioned above? I sincerely hope not.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Nov 7th, 2003, 08:44 AM       
Ror, last time I checked I am a citizen of the United States of America, I pay taxes and I vote. I have the ability to talk about whatever the fuck I want. Everyone else has the ability to listen, ignore, dispute or agree with whatever I relay.

How many people have been in the military as compared to the general population? I guess since they pay taxes and vote and are citizens, they shouldn't talk about the military, either.

The goverment is not supposed to worry about the general health and welfare of the citizens of the country. It is supposed to protect us in times of war (which we are in right now) and provide services that the states would be inadequate to do themselves. The govt is not a mother nor a nanny. Seems to me you think that being a mommy is the gov't's job. Sorry, but it ain't.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Nov 7th, 2003, 09:28 AM       
You have the right to say what ever you want. You absolutely don't have the ability.

The reason I (as opposed to Liberals in general, who I can't personally speak for) compain about money wasted in the military more than I complain about money wasted anywhere else is far and away the most money is wasted in the military as a chunk of my tax burden.

But if you feel that way, you should write an article for your website. Then there would be some new stuff there.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Nov 7th, 2003, 09:42 AM       
If you want to write for my site Max I said you can. Don't be ashamed to ask.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Nov 7th, 2003, 09:51 AM       
It strikes me as odd that you find poor people fucking you out of your tax dollars unacceptable, while rich people fucking you out of your tax dollars is A-OK.

Do you ever really think before you say anything?
__________________
"If honesty is the best policy, then, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy. Second is not all that bad."
-George Carlin
Reply With Quote
  #13  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Nov 7th, 2003, 11:05 AM       
I was writting for your website, and Zuch and I were the only ones doing it! I'd still be writting for your web site if you hadn't banned me, you big baby.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Nov 7th, 2003, 04:38 PM       
I kinda doubt that government could do much better...

In my opinion, everything counts as far as inefficiencies. I'm a little more leniant on the military than other things, though.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.