Posted on 03/11/2003 8:05:21 AM PST by liberallarry
The American government is on the verge of awarding construction contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild Iraq once Saddam Hussein is deposed. Halliburton, one of the companies in the running for the highly profitable deals, was formerly headed by the US vice-president, Dick Cheney. Halliburton has already been awarded a lucrative contract to resurrect the Iraqi oilfields if there is a war. Other companies have strong ties to the US administration, including the construction giant Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, and the Louis Berger Group, which is involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Only US companies are on the shortlist of five. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) defended the narrow shortlist. A spokeswoman said: "Because of the urgent circumstances and the unique nature of this work, USAID will undertake a limited selection process that expedites the review and selection of contractors for these projects." The spokeswoman said that it was a policy of USAID to use US companies for projects funded by the American taxpayer. Non-US companies were free, through their governments, to organise their own business, she said. The winning company would get about $900m (£563m) to repair Iraqi health services, ports, airports, schools and other educational institutions. Sources at the companies said the invitation was unusual in that USAID did not ask them to set a price for defined services but rather asked them to say what they could do for $900m. All five bidders have submitted their proposals or are preparing to do so after USAID "quietly" sent out a detailed request soliciting proposals from the likely bidders. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Iraq reconstruction plan will require contractors to fulfil various tasks, including reopening at least half of the "economically important roads and bridges" - about 1,500 miles of roadway within 18 months. The contractors will also be asked to repair 15% of high-voltage electricity grid, renovate several thousand schools and deliver 550 emergency generators within two months. Construction industry executives said the handful of firms are competing fiercely in part because they believe it could provide an inside track to postwar business opportunities. The most highly sought-after prizes are oil industry contracts. The US government is believed to be wary of any backlash against an invasion and is preparing plans for a "hearts and minds" operation that will swing into place as soon as the country is occupied. The government is mindful of the long-term benefits of feeding hungry Iraqis, delivering clean water, and by paying teachers and health workers. "It's a sensitive topic because we still haven't gone to war," said one industry executive. "But these companies are really in a position to win something out of this geopolitical situation." It remains unclear whether Iraqis, Americans or an international consortium will manage the oil industry during an early post-conflict period. Steven Schooner, a George Washington University law professor, said many billions of dollars are at stake. He estimated that $900m would barely last six months given the scope of the projects the administration has sketched out. "The most sophisticated firms that come in first, and establish good will with the locals obviously will reap huge benefits down the road," said Mr Schooner. "These are going to become brand names in Iraq. That's huge."
Let's see. These companies are going to be paid by the U.S. tax-payer. But the bulk of U.S. taxes are paid by the wealthy - whose taxes are being cut. That will drive up the deficit, which will drive up interest rates, which will decrease economic activity and force cuts in social services, which will screw the poor. Right?
Of course, the government will try to offset some of that by selling Iraqi oil cheaply - thus screwing the Iraqis as well.
The Irais won't complain - only those who want to keep the Iraqis under control of the murderous tyrant will oppose this....I guess that means you
Did I say I was opposed to this war? Can you read?
The Iraqis will complain. So will Americans. The numbers don't add up. I'm pointing that out. Krugman did the same in today's New York Times. Here's another disturbing article
Latest Blow to State: the Incredible Shrinking Private Sector
I don't have an answer. You don't either. No one does.
So you punish the company because the FedGov taps one of their employees for an administration position? I think not. Besides, these contracts are awarded on a competitive basis, not because someone who used to work there is now an administration employee, not to mention that Cheney was ELECTED, not SELECTED, so your point is moot.
Why not? Why should the government be filled with people closely linked to the very industries that the government has the function of regulating? People whose long term interests lie with those companies and industries, not the short term they'll spend in government? Note that I'm not talking about all employees, I'm talking about the relatively few corporate officers.
Besides, these contracts are awarded on a competitive basis, not because someone who used to work there is now an administration employee,
And I've got a bridge to sell you. Funny how liberals are so widely suspected of engaging in all kinds of conspiracies, yet big business and government are presumed to have clean hands. It's pretty easy to bury keys in specs such that the specs, while looking neutral, actually are aligned so that a particular company is the only one that can meet them. And then there's ostensibly objective but in fact fairly subjective judgement of whose bid best conforms to the specs.
not to mention that Cheney was ELECTED, not SELECTED, so your point is moot.
I don't care if he was anointed by the Pope. I'm not talking about limiting Cheney's rights, I'm talking about Halliburton's. If they don't like it, let them include in all of their officer's contracts (these guys are all under contract, not wage slave employees like you or me) that they can't run for office or join the President's administration for 5 years after leaving the company.
I hope so.
I think the war is necessary. I think we can improve on what was done by the French and British after WWI, and by the latter-day degenerate Ottomans...and is being done by modern Arab regimes.
But we are also human...and Enron was not a unique aberration.
Bechtel for instance sometimes functions as government agency for hire. Arthur Anderson consulting also functioned as a major government contractor to provide a bureaucracy to perform what we would think of as government tasks.
One interesting thought that has bothered me is that these very companies had very high level executives on the plane with Ron Brown. Although it was widely thought Brown got a hole in his head from a pistol, there was neverany public comment at all from these very important American companies.
Sweat not the bills. To the Victors go the spoils and a liberty tax of a small percentage of revenues will more trhan suffice.
Maybe because they are completely knowledgeable of all aspects in a particular field? It is called a resume. The only time it would cause a problem is in the case of self-interest, as you point out. But...that is why there are criminal penalties for conflict of interest in FedGov positions.
And I've got a bridge to sell you. Funny how liberals are so widely suspected of engaging in all kinds of conspiracies, yet big business and government are presumed to have clean hands. It's pretty easy to bury keys in specs such that the specs, while looking neutral, actually are aligned so that a particular company is the only one that can meet them. And then there's ostensibly objective but in fact fairly subjective judgement of whose bid best conforms to the specs.
Can't sell that bridge here...I work in Govt. contracting on the contractor side. What you are implying is in violation of FAR (Federal Acquisition Regs). Any company that feels it is being unfairly kept out of the competition can file a legal protest. As a former Liaison Officer for the SBA, I know that attempts to limit competition are frowned upon highly.
I don't care if he was anointed by the Pope. I'm not talking about limiting Cheney's rights, I'm talking about Halliburton's. If they don't like it, let them include in all of their officer's contracts (these guys are all under contract, not wage slave employees like you or me) that they can't run for office or join the President's administration for 5 years after leaving the company.
Why would they want to do that? It is in their best interest to have someone familiar with their particular industry in a position of power, the problem only enters when that power is abused to give unfair advantage to the company...again conflict of interest penalties come into play. And yes, you are suggesting limiting the individual's rights when you restrict their employment options. What are they supposed to do, not work for 5 years so they can get a FedGov position? A former CEO is supposed to take a warehouse job for 5 years? The mere idea is laughable. Instead of claiming that corporations ought to restrict future employment of employees...you should be complaining that the FedGov is not investigating claims or enforcing the law in conflict of interest violations. That is the core of the issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.