|
Sen Charles Grassley's (R IA, then Ch. Sen Finance Comm.) letter to SECDEF Rumsfeld, May 22, 2001, outlining fraud and mismanagement in the DoD IG's office. In the words of a congressional staffer with long experience in audit matters:
Forging workpapers (I cannot over-emphasize how bad this is) means that DoD IG reports can no longer meet GAGAS standards and are therefore unreliable until the DoD IG can demonstrate that no other workpapers were forged for any other report and that they have implemented procedures to ensure this will never happen again. Thus, the DoD IG has literally self-destructed itself.
"Government at the Brink," Vol 1 (632 KB .pdf) and Vol 2 (651 KB .pdf). Report by Sen Fred Thompson (R TN), then-Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, June 2001. Documents the extent of waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the government. DoD section begins on p. 17 of Vol 2. Waste and even corruption are reaching levels generally associated with third world countries.
New! CANCELED DOD APPROPRIATIONS: $615 Million of Illegal or Otherwise Improper Adjustments, GAO-01-697, July 2001. DoD's refusal to correct known errors in just one accounting system caused it to make $146 million in illegal adjustments (over and above those simply "improper") in just one category in just one fiscal year. To the extent that the department no longer has funds in these accounts to correct the illegal adjustments, DoD could be in violation of the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1351.
Testimony of the Deputy DoD Inspector General, Robert J. Lieberman to the House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, May 8, 2001. Candid statement of the problems still facing anyone trying to understand how DoD spends its money and what the taxpayers get in return. Examples: Although the FY 2000 DoD budget was "only" around $290 billion, there were over $4 TRILLION in accounting adjustment entries (roughly $ 1 trillion unsupported); only 7 of DoD 167 major financial management systems met adequate standards (cost to fix = at least $2.3 billion).
"Information on the Use of Spare Parts Funding is Lacking," GAO 01-472, June 1002 (182 KB .pdf). For FY 1999, Congress gave the Pentagon an extra $1.1 billion in emergency supplemental funds specifically earmarked for spare parts. We know that $87 million actually did go into an account for Navy aircraft spares; the rest disappeared into general operations and maintenance accounts and could have been used for most anything.
Reforming the Management of the National Defense: Can the National Defense Afford Congress? "The national defense is a thoroughly gerrymandered pork barrel. Apparently, the enormity of the problem is not yet enough to pry the problem loose from vested legislative interests." So concludes noted attorney Herbert L. Fenster in this brilliant but largely ignored 1989 paper. Excellent introduction to how our current military-industrial complex evolved and one of the few places to address the problems of the industrial component.
"Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Defense" (GAO-01-244, January 2001) In this important and well researched report, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that DoD's business practices fail to approach the standards of excellence demanded of troops in the field. In particular, "power games" such as front loading (basing program decisions on unrealistic assumptions) waste money that could be used to improve readiness and support modernization. The report reiterates the importance of fixing DoD's unauditable financial systems (which is mandated by the Constitution, as well as simply being good management practice) as the basis for reasonable decisions.
Comment #169, "The Constitution, Situational Ethics & the Phony Debate Over More Defense Spending," now with all references. Inside the Pentagon reported that DoD has apparently successfully opted out of the Constitution's "Accountability Clause" (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7). Commentator Chuck Spinney explains why this should outrage Americans of every political viewpoint.
"Commentary & Analysis: UN War Crimes Tribunal Delivers a Travesty of Justice,"
By Robert M. Hayden, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. A contrarian view, perhaps, of the applicability of force to solve human rights abuses.
"Humanitarian Military Intervention," by Jules Lobel and Michael Ratner, a tightly-reasoned critique of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention.
The latest DoD IG report on the unauditable state of the Pentagon's financial management system (on the QDR page).
About the Comments (Full text of the references are available on Infowar)
|
