4 ms·

C-C-C-C-Corruption!

bunderbunder 10y ago
The articles linked in the grandparent post suggest the opposite: That all the procedural barriers the US sets up in an effort to prevent corruption tend to run up the costs. For example, lowest-price bidding rules tend to result in more expensive projects overall because the agencies feel the need to do a whole bunch of up-front micro-planning in order to try and prevent the contract awardee - who, as we already know ahead of time, will be the lowest bidder - from cutting too many corners. Or to put it more simply, we've essentially mandated that public projects have to be the waterfalliest of waterfally waterfall projects. Our "starve the beast" approach to funding public agencies, also inspired by our hysterical attitude about government corruption, comes into play, too. Since agencies end up with limited resources for permanent staffing, they don't necessarily have in-house resources available for project planning. But they can use funding set aside for projects to hire consultants, who are naturally expensive and less worried about what happens to the project 5 years down the line. They'll be long gone by that point.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  You nailed it. There's a whole crazy litany of procurement rules procedures and other nonsense that you have to do. A project like this will have monitory and women owned business goals, which usually translate into somebody's wife forming a shell company fronting money and skimming a profit. There are various labor agreements,which include quotas for various groups. Plus dozens of other crazy legal requirements. I worked in government for many years. The work was great and rewarding, but the absurdity of the procurement process and the waste associated with it was really disheartening to me personally. Re: starve the beast, you're 100% correct. Out of hundreds of projects, I can think of 5 (all huge rollout type things that had to be down quick) where using consultants to run the project was a best value. But probably 70% were done that way, and usually redone by government staff.
- wtbob 10y ago
  I honestly wonder if a little corruption and so-called 'honest graft' might actually be cheaper and lead to better results than what we have now.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    You might be onto something. Phase 2 of the Delhi Metro (77 miles of track, 85 stations in 3 years) cost roughly the same as Hudson Yards (1 mile of track, 1 station in 9 years). Delhi is hardly known for it's lack of corruption.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- hackuser 10y ago
  > That all the procedural barriers the US sets up in an effort to prevent corruption tend to run up the costs. Similarly, one of the leaders in the U.S. defense industry, former Lockheed CEO Norm Augustine, recently had this to say: Q. I often hear people blame procurement regulations for preventing communication between government and industry, but then I’m told there’s actually less communication happening than is even permitted by law. Do you find that to be the case? Is the problem the regulation or people’s understanding of the regulation? A. ... Clearly the regulations are very controlling, ... everybody wants to be very, very careful on both sides. So you sort of build walls that weren't intended. It’s unfortunate, and I think [it] handicaps our system. At the same, time you don't want to have conflicts of interest. Having seen the Defense Department from both sides, and [while] I have my own complaints about the acquisition process, it’s 99.9 percent honest. I can't say that about everything I've seen in federal, state and local levels but the Defense Department by and large is honest. We don't want to lose that. So maybe part of the price to pay is to have this barrier that we live with.
- rtpg 10y ago
  > inspired by our hysterical attitude about government corruption It wasn't too long ago that graft was rampant at all levels of government, and it's still a major issue. We've set high standards, but they used to be pretty low. Honestly, I think bringing more things like construction in house would solve a lot of this. Fly in the Army Engineering Corps? I feel like you could find enough people interested in large works that wouldn't mind being public servants. And since there's no financial incentive, simple budgeting processes could solve most things.
  - douche 10y ago
    I'd rather have them building airports in NJ than airfields in Kandahar. I still think there's a strong case for re-creating a program like the CCC[1] to A.) provide meaningful employment and job-training, and B.) build and maintain neglected infrastructure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  > Our "starve the beast" approach to funding public agencies, also inspired by our hysterical attitude about government corruption, comes into play, too. There's a vicious cycle here: bureacratic rules -> government inefficiency -> perception of government ineptness and corruption -> more bureaucratic rules Back in the day, we had corruption, but that didn't stop us from getting things done. If you look at New York or Chicago during the early 20th of the century, they were dominated by machine politics like Tammany Hall that openly traded votes for party jobs. But they also built most of the modern infrastructure that we take for granted today.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    > Back in the day, we had corruption, but that didn't stop us from getting things done. If you look at New York or Chicago during the early 20th of the century, they were dominated by machine politics like Tammany Hall that openly traded votes for party jobs. But they also built most of the modern infrastructure that we take for granted today. There is a more recent example: the reconstruction of major Japanese cities after WWII. They currently have excellent infrastructure, the best public transit in the world, and surprisingly affordable housing prices whether you rent or buy. There was quite a lot of bribery, kickbacks, and illegal campaign financing going on the whole time between construction companies and politicians, but that may have actually helped. Local officials are a lot more motivated to push a project through the bureaucracy quickly when they are going to get a kickback.
  - venomsnake 10y ago
    I am kinda ok with 10-20% of the money going towards greasing the system. As long as the other 90-80% get shit done and fast.

C-C-C-C-Corruption!

The articles linked in the grandparent post suggest the opposite: That all the procedural barriers the US sets up in an effort to prevent corruption tend to run up the costs. For example, lowest-price bidding rules tend to result in more expensive projects overall because the agencies feel the need to do a whole bunch of up-front micro-planning in order to try and prevent the contract awardee - who, as we already know ahead of time, will be the lowest bidder - from cutting too many corners. Or to put it more simply, we've essentially mandated that public projects have to be the waterfalliest of waterfally waterfall projects. Our "starve the beast" approach to funding public agencies, also inspired by our hysterical attitude about government corruption, comes into play, too. Since agencies end up with limited resources for permanent staffing, they don't necessarily have in-house resources available for project planning. But they can use funding set aside for projects to hire consultants, who are naturally expensive and less worried about what happens to the project 5 years down the line. They'll be long gone by that point.

Spooky23 10y ago
You nailed it. There's a whole crazy litany of procurement rules procedures and other nonsense that you have to do. A project like this will have monitory and women owned business goals, which usually translate into somebody's wife forming a shell company fronting money and skimming a profit. There are various labor agreements,which include quotas for various groups. Plus dozens of other crazy legal requirements. I worked in government for many years. The work was great and rewarding, but the absurdity of the procurement process and the waste associated with it was really disheartening to me personally. Re: starve the beast, you're 100% correct. Out of hundreds of projects, I can think of 5 (all huge rollout type things that had to be down quick) where using consultants to run the project was a best value. But probably 70% were done that way, and usually redone by government staff.
wtbob 10y ago
I honestly wonder if a little corruption and so-called 'honest graft' might actually be cheaper and lead to better results than what we have now.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  You might be onto something. Phase 2 of the Delhi Metro (77 miles of track, 85 stations in 3 years) cost roughly the same as Hudson Yards (1 mile of track, 1 station in 9 years). Delhi is hardly known for it's lack of corruption.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hackuser 10y ago
> That all the procedural barriers the US sets up in an effort to prevent corruption tend to run up the costs. Similarly, one of the leaders in the U.S. defense industry, former Lockheed CEO Norm Augustine, recently had this to say: Q. I often hear people blame procurement regulations for preventing communication between government and industry, but then I’m told there’s actually less communication happening than is even permitted by law. Do you find that to be the case? Is the problem the regulation or people’s understanding of the regulation? A. ... Clearly the regulations are very controlling, ... everybody wants to be very, very careful on both sides. So you sort of build walls that weren't intended. It’s unfortunate, and I think [it] handicaps our system. At the same, time you don't want to have conflicts of interest. Having seen the Defense Department from both sides, and [while] I have my own complaints about the acquisition process, it’s 99.9 percent honest. I can't say that about everything I've seen in federal, state and local levels but the Defense Department by and large is honest. We don't want to lose that. So maybe part of the price to pay is to have this barrier that we live with.
rtpg 10y ago
> inspired by our hysterical attitude about government corruption It wasn't too long ago that graft was rampant at all levels of government, and it's still a major issue. We've set high standards, but they used to be pretty low. Honestly, I think bringing more things like construction in house would solve a lot of this. Fly in the Army Engineering Corps? I feel like you could find enough people interested in large works that wouldn't mind being public servants. And since there's no financial incentive, simple budgeting processes could solve most things.
- douche 10y ago
  I'd rather have them building airports in NJ than airfields in Kandahar. I still think there's a strong case for re-creating a program like the CCC[1] to A.) provide meaningful employment and job-training, and B.) build and maintain neglected infrastructure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
smallnamespace 10y ago
> Our "starve the beast" approach to funding public agencies, also inspired by our hysterical attitude about government corruption, comes into play, too. There's a vicious cycle here: bureacratic rules -> government inefficiency -> perception of government ineptness and corruption -> more bureaucratic rules Back in the day, we had corruption, but that didn't stop us from getting things done. If you look at New York or Chicago during the early 20th of the century, they were dominated by machine politics like Tammany Hall that openly traded votes for party jobs. But they also built most of the modern infrastructure that we take for granted today.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > Back in the day, we had corruption, but that didn't stop us from getting things done. If you look at New York or Chicago during the early 20th of the century, they were dominated by machine politics like Tammany Hall that openly traded votes for party jobs. But they also built most of the modern infrastructure that we take for granted today. There is a more recent example: the reconstruction of major Japanese cities after WWII. They currently have excellent infrastructure, the best public transit in the world, and surprisingly affordable housing prices whether you rent or buy. There was quite a lot of bribery, kickbacks, and illegal campaign financing going on the whole time between construction companies and politicians, but that may have actually helped. Local officials are a lot more motivated to push a project through the bureaucracy quickly when they are going to get a kickback.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  I am kinda ok with 10-20% of the money going towards greasing the system. As long as the other 90-80% get shit done and fast.