Your tax dollars at work...
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Homeland Security spent $430M on radios its employees don't know how to use
DHS has spent $430 million over the past nine years to provide radios tuned to a common, secure channel to 123,000 employees across the country. Problem is, no one seems to know how to use them.
Only one of 479 DHS employees surveyed by the inspector general's office was actually able to use the common channel, according to the report. Most of those surveyed—72 percent—didn't even know the common channel existed. Another 25 percent knew the channel existed but weren't able to find it; 3 percent were able to find an older common channel, but not the current one.
The investigators also found that more than half of the radios did not have the settings for the common channel programmed into them. Only 20 percent of radios tested had all the correct settings.
Homeland Security spent $430M on radios its employees don’t know how to use | Ars Technica
DHS has spent $430 million over the past nine years to provide radios tuned to a common, secure channel to 123,000 employees across the country. Problem is, no one seems to know how to use them.
Only one of 479 DHS employees surveyed by the inspector general's office was actually able to use the common channel, according to the report. Most of those surveyed—72 percent—didn't even know the common channel existed. Another 25 percent knew the channel existed but weren't able to find it; 3 percent were able to find an older common channel, but not the current one.
The investigators also found that more than half of the radios did not have the settings for the common channel programmed into them. Only 20 percent of radios tested had all the correct settings.
Homeland Security spent $430M on radios its employees don’t know how to use | Ars Technica
No road to it? There are also no floats to tie a boat to and no fuel dock. I wouldn't worry too much about the road
until the rest of the harbor is up and running.
Just took a look at Akutan in Google Earth. There are (or were) some good-sized ships docked presumably beside the processing planet near the seaplane base. I'm wondering why a new airport and waterport would be necessary. Having no road between there and the town itself is no big issue in the winter (ice makes a pretty good road), but having only a footpath between the plant and the town in the summer would be a problem, I'd think.
It's an odd issue alright.
Personally, I'd have put a few of those millions into a rail system where a budcar or two could shuttle goods between the processing plant and town in seasons with little or no ice and maybe develop the existing docks and seaplane base a bit more.
It's an odd issue alright.
Personally, I'd have put a few of those millions into a rail system where a budcar or two could shuttle goods between the processing plant and town in seasons with little or no ice and maybe develop the existing docks and seaplane base a bit more.
I worked on an assignmet in Washibngton, DC and lived in Maryland and rode a Commuter Train to work. When I would exit the train in the Capitol I could smell a dank nasty odor. It never would subside and when I reached my office building and entered the smell would immediately disappear. The custodial personnel told me the HVAC system filters in the building had to be changed out daily to assure a elimination of that odor. Maybe corruption has an oder to it do you think?
7 absurd ways the military wastes $
"The Pentagon ... runs a staggering 234 golf courses around the world, at a cost that is undisclosed."
more
7 absurd ways the military wastes taxpayer dollars - Salon.com
"The Pentagon ... runs a staggering 234 golf courses around the world, at a cost that is undisclosed."
more
7 absurd ways the military wastes taxpayer dollars - Salon.com
"much of the money spent on Mr Obama’s family goes to perks such as entertainment and household expenses.
For example, the White House contains a movie theatre which is manned by projectionists 24 hours a day in case one of the family feels like a trip to the cinema.
And even the Obamas’ dog Bo costs the taxpayer thousands of dollars – his handler is reportedly paid over $100,000 a year."
Obama Family Costs U.S. Taxpayers $1.4 Billion Per Year | Opinion - Conservative
For example, the White House contains a movie theatre which is manned by projectionists 24 hours a day in case one of the family feels like a trip to the cinema.
And even the Obamas’ dog Bo costs the taxpayer thousands of dollars – his handler is reportedly paid over $100,000 a year."
Obama Family Costs U.S. Taxpayers $1.4 Billion Per Year | Opinion - Conservative
lol Just found this: Will $77 million airport in Akutan Alaska prove inaccessible? | Alaska Dispatch
Misleading thread title, those aren't my tax dollars. No siree, my tax dollars are hard at work paying nitwit bureaucrats in Ottawa $114,000.00 a year thank you very much.
I've been thinking. Did you see the smoke?
Anyhoo. It's in the perfect location to be a jet refuelling point on the Great Circle like Gander is heading east.
Great Circle Mapper
I gotta give myself a greenie for that one.
WTG Pete +1
Perfectly justifiable to build there and spend the money.
Anyhoo. It's in the perfect location to be a jet refuelling point on the Great Circle like Gander is heading east.
Great Circle Mapper
I gotta give myself a greenie for that one.
WTG Pete +1
Perfectly justifiable to build there and spend the money.
Last edited:
NSA Leaker's $200k a Year: Why Are Federal Workers Being Replaced With Pricier Contractors?
"Why is a 29-year-old high school drop-out making more as a low-level contractor than any senior manager in the federal government short of the President himself?"
NSA Leaker's Six-Figure Pay Should Spark Debate: Why Are Federal Workers Being Replaced With Pricier Contractors? - Forbes
"Why is a 29-year-old high school drop-out making more as a low-level contractor than any senior manager in the federal government short of the President himself?"
NSA Leaker's Six-Figure Pay Should Spark Debate: Why Are Federal Workers Being Replaced With Pricier Contractors? - Forbes
I have a feeling that town is setting up for its next life - as a very private playground for the very rich. Why pay for anything yourself that the plebes can be made to pay for?
The new defense spending bill includes $120 million for tanks that the Army has repeatedly said it doesn't want.
For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. The Army suggested that production lines could be kept open through foreign sales.
Each time, Congress has pushed back. Last week, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015.
In a statement, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said that Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected."
Turner chairs the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee and will retain that position in the next Congress. The General Dynamics Land Systems plant in Lima, the only U.S. manufacturer of tanks, is in the district of Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Turner's office did not respond to several requests for comment on why Congress went against the recommendation of Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, to suspend tank production.
Todd Harrison, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analyst, said it was open to question whether the Army and the Marine Corps needed more tanks on top of the estimated 9,000 already in their inventories. However, he noted that it was not unusual for Congress to go against the military's recommendations on the budget.
"It's just one example and it's not unique to this year," Harrison said. "In some cases, Congress is using its appropriate role of oversight. In some cases, Congress can act out of purely parochial interests."
The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno testified that "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."
Odierno lost then too. Congress voted for another $183 million for tanks despite Odierno's argument that the Army was seeking to become a lighter force. He told the Associated Press at the time that "if we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way" than spending it on 70-ton Abrams tanks.
The current Abrams upgrade program approved by Congress in the NDAA calls for improving gas mileage by decreasing idle times and also calls for improvements to the tank's sights and sensors.
Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want | Military.com
For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. The Army suggested that production lines could be kept open through foreign sales.
Each time, Congress has pushed back. Last week, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015.
In a statement, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said that Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected."
Turner chairs the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee and will retain that position in the next Congress. The General Dynamics Land Systems plant in Lima, the only U.S. manufacturer of tanks, is in the district of Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Turner's office did not respond to several requests for comment on why Congress went against the recommendation of Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, to suspend tank production.
Todd Harrison, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analyst, said it was open to question whether the Army and the Marine Corps needed more tanks on top of the estimated 9,000 already in their inventories. However, he noted that it was not unusual for Congress to go against the military's recommendations on the budget.
"It's just one example and it's not unique to this year," Harrison said. "In some cases, Congress is using its appropriate role of oversight. In some cases, Congress can act out of purely parochial interests."
The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno testified that "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."
Odierno lost then too. Congress voted for another $183 million for tanks despite Odierno's argument that the Army was seeking to become a lighter force. He told the Associated Press at the time that "if we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way" than spending it on 70-ton Abrams tanks.
The current Abrams upgrade program approved by Congress in the NDAA calls for improving gas mileage by decreasing idle times and also calls for improvements to the tank's sights and sensors.
Congress Again Buys Abrams Tanks the Army Doesn't Want | Military.com