Sorry, jshore, but your news article proves nothing:
My statement was that political connections play no part in government contracting. Your article did not discuss government contracting. It discussed the very common process whereby an organization, and to a lesser exent, a business can get an “earmark” in an appropriations bill to fund their special project. This is not a matter of government contracting – having an earmark in an appropriations bill completely bypasses the procedure (and government agencies hate earmarking for that reason). The FastShip story you mentioned is a prime example of an earmark. Specter, who has a lofty position on the Appropriations Committee, is in prime position to earmark funds in numerous apropriations bills that benefit organizations and businesses in Pennsylvannia. But you cannot use this story as an example of political connections in government contracting, since it isn’t a case of contracting at all.
Yes, Renob, but perhaps you missed the point that this particular contract is, as near as I can tell, the precise one that is under question…Unless FastShip one two $40 million contracts last year.
So, call it what you will, it sounds like the money in question was awarded through a political earmarking process, not the standard civil service contracting procedure. I admitted in the sentence following the post that I did not see, however, how the Bush Administration fit into the story. Basically, we have one story that talks about a contract awarded by the Bush Administration, another that talks about a contract being awarded through the earmarking process…and as near as I can tell (unless there is some coincidence), they are one and the same contract. Perhaps it was erroneous of the Post to say that the contract was being awarded by the Bush Administration (except in the sense that the executive branch is obliged to award the President signs the bill with this earmark in it)…Or perhaps, there is some additional factor in here that we don’t understand. (I also imagine that the Administration could use its influence, for example, to prevail on the Republican leadership to grant Spector this particular earmark…But I am just speculating here.)
The story is still murky in my mind. A quick investigation might well clear it up. I’d launch it myself if I had the resources and we could put this all to rest and just focus on the Plame Affair, the Chalabi affair, the unsecured weapons in Iraq, …
Does it say something about the way one’s mind works (or doesn’t work) if one has an annoying tendency to use homophones? Perhaps the best I can remember was when I called my advisor “inciteful” in the acknowledgements to my thesis; He figured I did that on purpose…Really I didn’t!
Actually, to be fair, I should note that, looking back at it, the Post did not specifically attribute the contract itself to the Bush Administration but actually said:
That February 2nd date coincides with the announcement by FastShip and Specter on the subject.
jshore, sorry for not reading closer. I still stand by my statement about government contracting, but the FastShip earmark that the Swifboat fellow was involved with was not from a traditional government contract, as you point out. The Post should do a little better job in reporting these things, considering that there is a huge difference between an earmark and a grant.
From my experience with earmarks, it would seem unlikely that the Bush Administration was very heavily involved. Federal agencies tend to dislike earmarks quite a bit, since they do not go through their budget and contracting processes. Most agencies view them as siphoning off money from much needed project to fund pork barrel spending that will do little to enhance an agency’s mission but do a lot to provide jobs or money to a favored state or Congressional district. These projects are funded because of political considerations and not because an agency needs them or wants them. Of course, there is little they can do about them, especially when a high powered Senator like Specter is involved.
It’s certainly possible, though, that the federal agencies (the $40 million price tag makes it likely that many agencies had their budget raided for this pork) actually desired this project and weren’t able to convince the Office of Management and Budget to fund it. So they collaborated with Specter to get it funded. However, I don’t see this as too likely. And even if it’s true, then that means that the White Hosue was not involved with it. If the White House wants it, OMB approves it. Having something earmarked is a sure indication that the White House is against it.
I agree with much of what you say but I don’t see how this sentence is necessarily true. For example, it could have conceivably been that it was in the original proposal that the White House submitted, taken out of the final bill by whoever in Congress when they wrote it up, and subsequently re-inserted. Or, it could have been that the bill just didn’t get down to this level of detail in the spending plan (or that it wasn’t even known about when the White House draw up the proposed budget) and the earmark was put in to require this particular spending to be made in this way…in which case there could or could not have been White House collusion.
I agree that the fact that it is an earmark shows that it was inserted by Specter and does not demonstrate any involvement by the White House. However, I do not agree that it shows that the White House was necessarily opposed to it.
I think this is the most likely interpretation of that particular project.
Have you guys looked at the actual project? It’s wacky. It’s a hail Mary to try to get Philadelphia’s port more relevant, and the local Port Authority there has already upped $10 MM for the thing and has promised to finance another $75 MM if certain benchmarks are met. The whole project has “local boondoggle” written on it in letters almost as big as “certain failure.” (Santorum is in on this thing, too.)
FWIIW, it doesn’t look like any of the federal money is actually going to Fastship. It’s for port improvements so their new-fangled boat, if they ever actually build one, can have a port to pull into. So hopefully after it fails the infrastructure can be used for something else.