Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by HerrGlock, Apr 30, 2013.
Next up a law saying no federal agency can buy more than 10,000 rounds in a fiscal year without an authorizing act of Congress with a study required to determine if the ammo requirements are in line with past ammo purchases regardless of staffing levels and training requirements.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform had hearings on the subject.
This is part one (fast forward about 8 minutes). There are 4 or 5 parts that can be accessed directly on YouTube.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvYdq0oilJs&feature=em-uploademail"]"Oversight of the Federal Government's Procurement of Ammunition" Part I - YouTube[/ame]
Are you implying that congressional oversight on how money is spent is a bad thing? Or are you saying that jsutification (i.e. a study) of why increased expenditures by government agencies are actually necessary?
I am not understanding you comments. Are you against oversight of spending by the GAO and congress or are you saying there should be oversight by the GAO and congress on how money is spent by govt agencies?
The social security administration officials agents need hundreds of thousands of rounds to make sure those checks/debit cards get there on time!
You do realize that a federal agencies right now cannot spend any money on anything without an act of congress? Congress, and only congress, must authorize federal budgets and/or spending every year. So what changes?
I wonder how much DHS spends on fuel?
What I am saying is that tinfoil hatters or people with poor comprehension are not going to like what the GAO says. So they will ***** and some loon like one of the Paul boys will propose a law that all ammo and firearms purchases must be run past congress prior to purchase with a study and justification for the necessity. Past practice will not be allowed. Of course this will be the only budget area under such scrutiny. They can buy as many pens and notepads as they want. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they have a contract with Staples that essentially reads the same for pens and notepads.
Of course people are lapping up all the hysteria because the politicians with an agenda need cash for the next campaign cycle.
Go check out all the threads where we in LE, you know, subject matter experts, are saying the amount of rounds is not out of line with training needs.
Of course you watch COPS so you know better than people in the business so we are evil jackbooted thugs.
Every time you and others like you open your mouths or type on your keyboards you show just how ignorant and foolish you are. You really should stop. But you can't. I don't really care because in the end you are an outlier.
With the size of DHS and it's adjunct training, I don't think that 1.6 billion rounds is out of reach of it's ammo needs.
I think the point is, that is a wars worth of ammunition. Just maybe there are too many people in the DHS.
Funny, that you extrapolate that. I said nothing about the amount of rounds purchased or used for training. Please show me where I said anything about the amount of ammo used from training. In fact, you have extrapolated something about LE when I expressly said “congressional oversight on how money is spent” and “government agencies”
So, spending is the issue as a previous posted had mentioned fuel usage and you mentioned pens. All spending needs to be carefully looked at because govt agencies are not spending THEIR money, they are spending the PEOPLES money. It is easy for a govt agency to say we need $XXXXXX to be able to do our job because it is not THEIR money and they do not have to worry about earning more of it. They simply take money others earn and have the mentality that there is a never ending fountain of money.
So, yes, if the DHS came with a budget that was 250 pens per employees per year, that is something that needs to be questioned. They may THINK they need 250 pens per year, but maybe they could really get by with only 125 pens and re-use a pen a second day instead of a new one every day.
It is always easy to spend someone elses money.
So lets now get to you comment about ammo. What I would do is give each employee somewhere in the range of $750 to $1000 for ammo per year. They can then choose how much practice they really need. I suspect that if they had the choice of keeping the extra $1000 in their pocket and spending the extra $1000 on ammo, they would keep most of the $1000 and the amount of ammo “needed” would go down a lot.
This is a very similar situation to uniforms. Employees that are given free uniforms tend to go through a lot of them; employees that have to pay for uniforms tend to take better care of them and use their resources more efficiently.
This is where you show your ignorance.
Officers who pay for their own ammo do not practice and put the city at higher risk for lawsuits. Your plan is foolish. The government would be laying out cash that would just go into pockets rather than needed practice. Then the government would have to pay out more money on lawsuits.
Officers who buy their own uniforms wear them until they are trashed. Officers who don't have to buy them just ask for new ones when they are worn.
As to pens. If there are boxes of pens left over then too many pens were bought. If they are scrounging for pens at the end of the year or they have to make a special purchase costing more per pen then if they bought the right amount.
Or in the case of this ammo purchase they secured the right to buy up to a certain amount.
Remember they haven't actually bought all the rounds. They secured the right to buy all those if needed.
There is plenty of outrage to find in government. This isn't one of them unless you just need to find more hate fuel for the police.
You seen to be misunderstanding.
The govt needs to cut 50% of spending. I dont give a damn if it is on welfare recipients, SS, pens, new shiny cars, etc. There is a govt spending problem and I applaud any efforts to get it under control. People in govt tend to see it as a revenue problem and they just arent getting enough of other peoples money.
Golly gee. Didn't I just say that its always easier to spend someone elses money?
If something is important to me, I will spend money on it. If its not important, I probably wouldnt spend my money on it.
Let me give you an example that I see. I fly a few miles per year (ok, more than a few). I like to fly in comfort. when someone else is paying for it, I buy expensive tickets because it is a "necessity". However, when I calculate that to sit in the nice section of the airplane and have a cheese plate and ice cream sundaes for dessert, it costs about $400/hr more (and we are talking 12hrs) than getting no ice cream, it is hard to really justify as a "necessity". How many people in the nice section of the airplane do you think actually pay for their own tickets? How many people in row 79 do you think pay for their own tickets?
Every contract that I have ever seen that guarantees production quantities to be delivered has required significant amounts of down payments that are non-refundable.
If I promise to make X qty of widgets when you demand them, that means I have to have at a minimum production capacity to make X qty of widgets. If I dont have this, I must build up the capacity. I will not build unused capacity in hopes you will buy something; I must have my fixed costs covered for your idle production capacity. The only thing I will not charge you up front is variable costs.
I think the point he was trying to make was that these contracts are all Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. It secures the amount to buy "up to a certain amount" if desired and for a limited period of time. This ammo has yet to be physically purchased and delivered as of yet.
3) Indefinite-quantity contracts limit the Governments obligation to the minimum quantity specified in the contract.
16.504 Indefinite-quantity contracts
(1) The contract must require the Government to order and the contractor to furnish at least a stated minimum quantity of supplies or services.
(2) To ensure that the contract is binding, the minimum quantity must be more than a nominal quantity, but it should not exceed the amount that the Government is fairly certain to order.
So he is trying to make the point that govt has already ordered a minimum quantity and is fairly certain to order this amount. A somehow this means they haven't committed to spend this amount of money?
I don't know what the gov. is committed to doing. I was just pointing out that I do not think they are required to purchase the entire maximum amount that everyone is getting excited about. They may decide to cut their purchases short of that amount at sometime.
That sounds most excellent! I would certainly support a bill like this or something similar.