the myth of private sector efficiency, continued

Previous post noted need for iron-clad contractual controls when government awards no-bid contracts.

That these controls have not been incorporated in current contracts reflects two dominant characteristics of W's Administration:
1) "Controls" sound a lot like "regulations", and this Administration firmly believes that "regulation" is wrong. The Administration's consistent policy has been to denigrate regulation as the bane of business. Regulation is seen as unwarranted and unhealthy interference in "the market" - even when, as in the case of no-bid contracts, no "market" exists.

2) Including contractual controls in no-bid contracts implies a belief that the Government's job is to govern. This Administration has never believed in governing. Post-war planning? That implies "governing". Coveted government appointments have gone repeatedly to Republican loyalists, as the spoils of electoral victory - seldom to individuals with any competence relevant to the particular job. If, as Thomas Paine suggests, "That government is best which governs least", then W's is one of the best governments in history. W likes to give speeches - and he's given some very good ones! - but there is NEVER any follow-up to take actions that would actually achieve any of the initiatives proposed in these speeches. Saying the words is sufficient.

4+ years on, we face an indefinite presence in Iraq, at a current stated cost of ~$200,000,000,000/year. Our strategic goal? Who knows? Where is the money going? Who knows? BUT... the Halliburtons, Parsons, and KBRs of the world seem quite happy with the status quo... must be good for us all!