4 ms·

lol. Have you ever dealt with government procurement? His problem wasn't that he wanted something to help him with his disability, his problem was that he wan

lol. Have you ever dealt with government procurement? His problem wasn't that he wanted something to help him with his disability, his problem was that he wanted something as part of a government job. Getting rid of DEI won't change the way government procurement works.

dqv 2y ago
Their argument is that, because the DEIA department is apparently ineffective, nothing is better than something.
- imgabe 2y ago
  It literally is. Something costs resources. If it’s not accomplishing anything, then get rid of it.
lazide 2y ago
It very well might. ‘Veteran owned’, ‘Black owned’, ‘Women owned’, or the real meal ticket - ‘Black Women Veteran owned’ is a huge thing in gov’t procurement. To the point where if you aren’t those things, you’d better be a major (near monopoly) provider and have your own congressman or two ensuring you’ll get bids. If they remove the affirmative action requirement in contractors, it’s going to be a bloodbath. Not so much from an actual ‘which company does what’, but rather in all the various borderline (or actual) fraudulent corporate structures that have been setup to game the system. This has been going on (and well understood) for at least 30 years that I personally know about.
SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
It will. For example, a 2023 executive order (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/22/2023-03779/further-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/22/2023-03..., sec. 7) established a procurement quota for minority-owned small businesses, and required all agencies to work with the SBA to optimize their procurement processes around this. I'm not claiming this is the only problem with government contracting, but it's an example of exactly the kind of policy which leads to the source article's complaint. The author may have identified a vendor with a cheaper and better product, but if they let everyone go around making such decisions how would they know whether they're hitting the quota?

dqv 2y ago

Their argument is that, because the DEIA department is apparently ineffective, nothing is better than something.

imgabe 2y ago
It literally is. Something costs resources. If it’s not accomplishing anything, then get rid of it.

lazide 2y ago

It very well might. ‘Veteran owned’, ‘Black owned’, ‘Women owned’, or the real meal ticket - ‘Black Women Veteran owned’ is a huge thing in gov’t procurement. To the point where if you aren’t those things, you’d better be a major (near monopoly) provider and have your own congressman or two ensuring you’ll get bids. If they remove the affirmative action requirement in contractors, it’s going to be a bloodbath. Not so much from an actual ‘which company does what’, but rather in all the various borderline (or actual) fraudulent corporate structures that have been setup to game the system. This has been going on (and well understood) for at least 30 years that I personally know about.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

It will. For example, a 2023 executive order (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/22/2023-03779/further-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/22/2023-03..., sec. 7) established a procurement quota for minority-owned small businesses, and required all agencies to work with the SBA to optimize their procurement processes around this. I'm not claiming this is the only problem with government contracting, but it's an example of exactly the kind of policy which leads to the source article's complaint. The author may have identified a vendor with a cheaper and better product, but if they let everyone go around making such decisions how would they know whether they're hitting the quota?