The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« An Antidote to Partisan Bickering: Progress in Iraq, the NIE, & the Climate Change Conference | Main | CIA Lawyers Authorized Destruction of Tapes?: The Plot Thickens (Updated) »

December 12, 2007



When Congress passed the 1986 amendments to the FCA, they intended that U.S. citizens would act in an oversight capacity to ensure the DOJ does not ignore fraud, waste, and abuse. It's become painfully clear that the current administration has effectively castrated the ability of taxpayers to demand integrity and sound business practices from companies that rely on taxpayer dollars for the bulk of their revenues.

In it's report to Congress regarding the 1986 amendments to the FCA, the Senate Judiciary Committee expressly stated that "Congress did not intend the seal provisions in the FCA to function as a tool permitting the government to unreasonably delay qui tam suits brought by private citizens." In addition, the committe said that "good cause" would not be established merely upon a showing that the Government was overburdened and had not had a chance to address the complaint.

The Senate Report further explained that, the qui tam plaintiff was to act "as a check that the government does not neglect evidence, cause undue delay, or drop the false claims case without legitimate reason."

Rick Monahan

I had to laugh when I read your opening sentence about hiring contractors to provide recurring services "makes no sense to us fiscal conservatives who grap basic math." Are you actually serious? The only reason government contractors exist is to provide recurring services to the government, for as anyone with any knowledge of government service, contractors are MUCH, MUCH cheaper than direct government/military labor. It's why every army post outsources it's fuel, dining halls, etc.

While you may have basic math skills, you might want to refresh your basic economic skills. The entire reason for government contracting is that it is less money to the government...hence the term "free market." While multi-millionaire quacks like Grayson would have you believe profit is evil, the concept of profit leads to competition which actually brings the price down considerably. I would encourage you to do a study on the cost of security contractors in Iraq versus the cost of an American is considerably cheaper to employ the contractor than to maintain the Infantryman in his unit. This does not even touch on the point that who should be getting killed delivering needless supplies...a contractor who knows the risks and is getting paid for them, or a 20-yr old mail clerk who signed up for the college money and has been trained to sort mail, not defeat hi-tech IEDs.

Your point on corruption is well-taken...but is it really there, or is it something that people like Grayson are using to get elected. The non-partisan Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has said, after 4 years of audits, that the fraud in Iraq is only "tens of millions", and not the "hundreds of millions" that people like Grayson would have you believe.

I encourage you to do some research and get your facts straight, not be a political voice for a hack like Grayson who has no chance of getting elected. The guy only raised $10k to the $700k he contributed to his own campaign...less then 20 people gave him money!

D. Cupples

Hi Rick,

Privatization supporters CLAIM that contractors are cheaper, but many studies and court cases show otherwise. Contractor profits, alone, are an additional cost on top of what the taxpayers would pay (non-profit) government employees.

That and cost-plus contracts (common for the DoD -- e.g., KBR's recent contracts) actually create a FINANCIAL INCENTIVE for contractors to inflate costs, because the Govt. pays them their reported costs PLUS a percentage on top of that.

I've been blogging only 6 months, but I've researched contractor fraud for more than 5 years (Florida and federal).

For a few examples, check out our "Government Contractors & Waste" section (right sidebar under "topics").

Also, you can do a search on GAO's website. That site has contractor studies going back to the 90s (maybe even the '80s).


Yes, I think anyone who looks into the facts will conclude that the notion that using private contractors---who are in it to make a profit---saves money is a joke. A bad one.

The comments to this entry are closed.