3 ms·

did you miss the part where the biggest contractor on the project was shady as fuck? > Oshkosh encountered delays and engineering problems during early manufac

did you miss the part where the biggest contractor on the project was shady as fuck? > Oshkosh encountered delays and engineering problems during early manufacturing runs, and disagreements — and accusations of corporate dishonesty — among executives plagued the production process, The Washington Post reported in December. > Oshkosh was supposed to have delivered about 3,000 vehicles by the end of 2024. Instead it had provided roughly 100 and raised its prices as the Postal Service ordered additional EVs the corporate "looting" as you put it, has already happened. and this part of the omnibus bill stems the bleeding. without any particular judgement on the rest of the omnibus bill, and yes, i believe there is probably looting in the rest of the bill. you should support this part of the bill, if you believe the things that you claim to, such as not having the nation on open fire sale.

mindslight 1y ago
I didn't miss that. I'm just not going to get stuck focusing on mild criticism as a justification for causing another new problem, especially one that is seemingly worse. As I acknowledged in my original comment, our government has massive problems that have festered - like cost overruns and incompetent/incestuous management of private contractors. But despite whatever premium they extracted, they actually did deliver real vehicles which are in use right now. If the unit cost is ridiculous going forward, the USPS should put out a new bidding process for new vehicles compatible with the already built infrastructure. If the additional cost of EV vs gasoline is too high (which I doubt given all of the stop-starts), then they should hold off buying more and prioritize which areas they really make sense for. Whatever the case, they certainly should not be scrapping the current vehicles and the supporting infrastructure that was built! Scrapping them does nothing to right that wrong (that money is gone), while setting up up the government for the next con job - the USPS still needs vehicles. The graft has not "happened" - it is happening, repeatedly. The only reason there are cost cutting measures in this bill is that it can avoid larger congressional processes by being plausibly "revenue neutral". This is one of the reasons why Trump's championed TCJA included tax increases in subsequent years - to be able to call the whole thing revenue neutral. In this context, whenever "savings" are being championed it is really just making a justification for giving it away somewhere else, and such "savings" are likely going to leave the government in a poorer position and having to spend even more later - akin to a high interest loan, but it's not even in terms of simple finances but rather diminished capabilities putting them even further at the mercy of the next set of contractors.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  or... the postal service could use COTS kit.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    So then USPS should be working on designing and testing that solution, demonstrating the costs are lower, and then creating an analysis that the costs of maintaining the few bespoke purpose-built vehicles are higher than additional capital spending on replacing them with the newer "COTS" [0] vehicles. And do all of this in-house with USPS/othergov employees to make it so there isn't a private contractor turning the "COTS" solution into another expensive one. As I've acknowledge twice now, yes there are serious problems with the way the government specs and procures things. The problem here, and why I phrased my comment in terms of a "full stop" to any change rather than merely focusing on this issue, is that naive ideas about how things should be simple are just being used as a cover to enable more brazen looting - this isn't about getting a better vehicle solution for USPS, but rather destroying government assets for cash that can then be pocketed. Talking about progress or reform in the context of anything this administration does is specious. We need to be focusing on not going backwards before we can even think about going forwards. [0] eg there are no "off the shelf" domestic market vehicles with right hand drive.

mindslight 1y ago

I didn't miss that. I'm just not going to get stuck focusing on mild criticism as a justification for causing another new problem, especially one that is seemingly worse. As I acknowledged in my original comment, our government has massive problems that have festered - like cost overruns and incompetent/incestuous management of private contractors. But despite whatever premium they extracted, they actually did deliver real vehicles which are in use right now. If the unit cost is ridiculous going forward, the USPS should put out a new bidding process for new vehicles compatible with the already built infrastructure. If the additional cost of EV vs gasoline is too high (which I doubt given all of the stop-starts), then they should hold off buying more and prioritize which areas they really make sense for. Whatever the case, they certainly should not be scrapping the current vehicles and the supporting infrastructure that was built! Scrapping them does nothing to right that wrong (that money is gone), while setting up up the government for the next con job - the USPS still needs vehicles. The graft has not "happened" - it is happening, repeatedly. The only reason there are cost cutting measures in this bill is that it can avoid larger congressional processes by being plausibly "revenue neutral". This is one of the reasons why Trump's championed TCJA included tax increases in subsequent years - to be able to call the whole thing revenue neutral. In this context, whenever "savings" are being championed it is really just making a justification for giving it away somewhere else, and such "savings" are likely going to leave the government in a poorer position and having to spend even more later - akin to a high interest loan, but it's not even in terms of simple finances but rather diminished capabilities putting them even further at the mercy of the next set of contractors.

throwawaymaths 1y ago
or... the postal service could use COTS kit.
- mindslight 1y ago
  So then USPS should be working on designing and testing that solution, demonstrating the costs are lower, and then creating an analysis that the costs of maintaining the few bespoke purpose-built vehicles are higher than additional capital spending on replacing them with the newer "COTS" [0] vehicles. And do all of this in-house with USPS/othergov employees to make it so there isn't a private contractor turning the "COTS" solution into another expensive one. As I've acknowledge twice now, yes there are serious problems with the way the government specs and procures things. The problem here, and why I phrased my comment in terms of a "full stop" to any change rather than merely focusing on this issue, is that naive ideas about how things should be simple are just being used as a cover to enable more brazen looting - this isn't about getting a better vehicle solution for USPS, but rather destroying government assets for cash that can then be pocketed. Talking about progress or reform in the context of anything this administration does is specious. We need to be focusing on not going backwards before we can even think about going forwards. [0] eg there are no "off the shelf" domestic market vehicles with right hand drive.