Economy Fucked Up, This Is One Reason
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
IRS rehired hundreds of former workers with behavior problems: audit
IRS rehired hundreds of former workers with behavior problems: audit
Reuters
By Jason Lange
February 5, 2015 5:03 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Poor screening led the IRS to rehire hundreds of former employees with records of bad behavior including falsifying forms and unauthorized access to taxpayer information, an internal government watchdog found.
Auditors found the Internal Revenue Service between 2010 and 2013 gave jobs to 323 former employees who had displayed unsavory conduct during prior stints at the agency, according to the U.S. Treasury's Inspector General for Tax Administration on Thursday.
The audit looked at roughly 7,000 workers rehired in the period to fill mostly temporary positions.
Among the 323, five of the rehired workers had "serious misconduct" issues, a category that includes threats and sexual harassment. Another five had willfully failed to file federal tax returns. Seventeen falsified employment forms or other documents.
"Based on the types of prior performance and conduct issues we identified, rehiring certain employees presents increased risk to the IRS and taxpayers," said J. Russell George, the inspector general for tax administration.
The watchdog recommended that the IRS consider more thorough screening during its hiring process.
In a letter responding to the report, IRS Human Capital Officer Daniel Riordan said the agency looks into people's backgrounds before hiring them, and that some "issues" may have happened so long ago they don't pose a risk. "IRS already fully considers prior conduct and performance issues before the final job offer is issued to all new hires," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/irs-rehired-h...avior-problems-audit-220308421--business.html
IRS rehired hundreds of former workers with behavior problems: audit
Reuters
By Jason Lange
February 5, 2015 5:03 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Poor screening led the IRS to rehire hundreds of former employees with records of bad behavior including falsifying forms and unauthorized access to taxpayer information, an internal government watchdog found.
Auditors found the Internal Revenue Service between 2010 and 2013 gave jobs to 323 former employees who had displayed unsavory conduct during prior stints at the agency, according to the U.S. Treasury's Inspector General for Tax Administration on Thursday.
The audit looked at roughly 7,000 workers rehired in the period to fill mostly temporary positions.
Among the 323, five of the rehired workers had "serious misconduct" issues, a category that includes threats and sexual harassment. Another five had willfully failed to file federal tax returns. Seventeen falsified employment forms or other documents.
"Based on the types of prior performance and conduct issues we identified, rehiring certain employees presents increased risk to the IRS and taxpayers," said J. Russell George, the inspector general for tax administration.
The watchdog recommended that the IRS consider more thorough screening during its hiring process.
In a letter responding to the report, IRS Human Capital Officer Daniel Riordan said the agency looks into people's backgrounds before hiring them, and that some "issues" may have happened so long ago they don't pose a risk. "IRS already fully considers prior conduct and performance issues before the final job offer is issued to all new hires," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/irs-rehired-h...avior-problems-audit-220308421--business.html
^^^
Sent From My Galaxy Note 4
Sent From My Galaxy Note 4
Red tape keeps some bad gov't workers from being fired
Red tape keeps some bad gov't workers from being fired
CBS News
March 2, 2015, 7:54 AM
In the private sector, if you're caught viewing porn on company time or intimidating a co-worker, you'd probably be fired immediately; not so if you're a federal employee.
A CBS News investigation looks at how hard it is for the U.S. government to discipline or fire employees who behave badly. With examples ranging from extravagant to explicit, civil service rules meant to protect public workers from political pressure may be backfiring, and costing you big, reports CBS News correspondent Don Dahler.
At the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), red tape is preventing the removal of a top level employee accused of viewing porn two to six hours a day while at work, since 2010. Even though investigators found 7,000 pornographic files on his computer and even caught him watching porn, he remains on the payroll.
At a Congressional hearing, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy was asked why she hadn't fired the employee and said, "I actually have to work through the administrative process, as you know."
The administrative process meant to prevent against politically motivated firings is the civil servant protection system. The rules give employees the right to appeal a termination, a process that can take up two years.
"There is a big difference between trying to protect against that and what we have today," Partnership for Public Service president and CEO Max Stier said.
He said those rules make it nearly impossible to fire poor performers or problematic employees, even when they've committed egregious violations.
"Many managers would like to get rid of problem employees and find that they have to go through a challenging process," Stier said.
A CBS News analysis of cases under review by the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), an appeals board for federal workers, found other instances of employees who had committed seemingly fireable offenses who were later reinstated to their jobs, often with back pay and interest.
Highly publicized cases are no exception.
Five years ago, the General Services Administration (GSA) spent more than $800,000 on a lavish conference in Las Vegas. They were served 1,000 sushi rolls costing $7 each and a clown and mind reader were hired for entertainment. Two managers were initially fired but got their jobs back after the MSPB reversed the decision.
At a Congressional hearing in 2012, Chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee Jason Chaffetz asked GSA Chief of Staff Mike Robertson what it takes to be fired from the GSA.
"There is a long-standing due process that career employees are entitled to as part of their employment," Robertson said. "We have begun that process, among other disciplinary actions, for several individuals that were involved in the planning and execution of this conference."
The appeals board found that while the conference's level of extravagance has "no place in government," the GSA did not convincingly prove that the two managers "knew or had reason to know of these ill-advised planning and purchasing decisions." The GSA was ordered to "cancel the appellants removals" and give them back pay plus interest. Meanwhile, the organizer of the convention was never technically fired. He was allowed to retire.
Firing belligerent or hostile workers is difficult, too. One former manager told CBS News he tried for more than a year to fire an employee who was intimidating co-workers and superiors, at one point even chasing a manager down the hall.
Upset about being reprimanded, the employee sent him numerous menacing emails, including one that read: "I can stand over you to [sic]. I am 6 foot 3 inches and I weigh 265, and I am not backing down. ... And by the way, I do know where you live."
Taking into consider administrative leave and the general costs of the procedure itself, Stier said, "There is no question that taxpayers are losing hundreds of millions of dollars, in a conservative estimate. They are losing more than that because they are losing the ability to get the very best out of government."
Congressman Chaffetz hopes to change that.
"We're going to pass a series of pieces of legislation that deal with some of these specific things, like pornography, but, at some point, it's just common decency and a recognition that if you're not doing your job and you're creating a hostile work environment, you gotta go," he said.
On average, about 6,000 terminations are appealed each year. About half of those are related to misconduct and poor performance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/civil-s...ematic-government-employees-from-being-fired/
Red tape keeps some bad gov't workers from being fired
CBS News
March 2, 2015, 7:54 AM
In the private sector, if you're caught viewing porn on company time or intimidating a co-worker, you'd probably be fired immediately; not so if you're a federal employee.
A CBS News investigation looks at how hard it is for the U.S. government to discipline or fire employees who behave badly. With examples ranging from extravagant to explicit, civil service rules meant to protect public workers from political pressure may be backfiring, and costing you big, reports CBS News correspondent Don Dahler.
At the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), red tape is preventing the removal of a top level employee accused of viewing porn two to six hours a day while at work, since 2010. Even though investigators found 7,000 pornographic files on his computer and even caught him watching porn, he remains on the payroll.
At a Congressional hearing, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy was asked why she hadn't fired the employee and said, "I actually have to work through the administrative process, as you know."
The administrative process meant to prevent against politically motivated firings is the civil servant protection system. The rules give employees the right to appeal a termination, a process that can take up two years.
"There is a big difference between trying to protect against that and what we have today," Partnership for Public Service president and CEO Max Stier said.
He said those rules make it nearly impossible to fire poor performers or problematic employees, even when they've committed egregious violations.
"Many managers would like to get rid of problem employees and find that they have to go through a challenging process," Stier said.
A CBS News analysis of cases under review by the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), an appeals board for federal workers, found other instances of employees who had committed seemingly fireable offenses who were later reinstated to their jobs, often with back pay and interest.
Highly publicized cases are no exception.
Five years ago, the General Services Administration (GSA) spent more than $800,000 on a lavish conference in Las Vegas. They were served 1,000 sushi rolls costing $7 each and a clown and mind reader were hired for entertainment. Two managers were initially fired but got their jobs back after the MSPB reversed the decision.
At a Congressional hearing in 2012, Chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee Jason Chaffetz asked GSA Chief of Staff Mike Robertson what it takes to be fired from the GSA.
"There is a long-standing due process that career employees are entitled to as part of their employment," Robertson said. "We have begun that process, among other disciplinary actions, for several individuals that were involved in the planning and execution of this conference."
The appeals board found that while the conference's level of extravagance has "no place in government," the GSA did not convincingly prove that the two managers "knew or had reason to know of these ill-advised planning and purchasing decisions." The GSA was ordered to "cancel the appellants removals" and give them back pay plus interest. Meanwhile, the organizer of the convention was never technically fired. He was allowed to retire.
Firing belligerent or hostile workers is difficult, too. One former manager told CBS News he tried for more than a year to fire an employee who was intimidating co-workers and superiors, at one point even chasing a manager down the hall.
Upset about being reprimanded, the employee sent him numerous menacing emails, including one that read: "I can stand over you to [sic]. I am 6 foot 3 inches and I weigh 265, and I am not backing down. ... And by the way, I do know where you live."
Taking into consider administrative leave and the general costs of the procedure itself, Stier said, "There is no question that taxpayers are losing hundreds of millions of dollars, in a conservative estimate. They are losing more than that because they are losing the ability to get the very best out of government."
Congressman Chaffetz hopes to change that.
"We're going to pass a series of pieces of legislation that deal with some of these specific things, like pornography, but, at some point, it's just common decency and a recognition that if you're not doing your job and you're creating a hostile work environment, you gotta go," he said.
On average, about 6,000 terminations are appealed each year. About half of those are related to misconduct and poor performance.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/civil-s...ematic-government-employees-from-being-fired/
<object classid="clsid
<object id="OVVBeacon_0_1URmgD7a2cysXyHaJilg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="//playtime.tubemogul.com/flash/OVVBeacon.swf?id=1URmgD7a2cysXyHaJilg&index=0" height="1" width="1">
</object></object><object classid="clsidPrivate Sector allowed to steal millions from public.
<!--[if !IE]>--><object id="OVVBeacon_0_1URmgD7a2cysXyHaJilg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="//playtime.tubemogul.com/flash/OVVBeacon.swf?id=1URmgD7a2cysXyHaJilg&index=0" height="1" width="1">
<!--<![endif]--></object></object>
source: 11 Alive Atlanta
The Investigators: Where is your 911 money going?
<embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isSlim=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="videoId=4089243241001&playerID=2857340257001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAB_0PyCk~,_pBlGqvGs07peliXKyUvG14oYtXJQN9_&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" swliveconnect="true" allowscriptaccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" height="390" width="640">
Each month, 911 centers are writing checks to for-profit phone companies with your 911 money.
The 11Alive Investigators previously uncovered problems with the 911 system that are costing lives. There's another cost: dollars.
Jacquene Curlee lost her daughter, Shanell Anderson, after 911 couldn't locate her cell phone.
Shanell was trapped inside her SUV at the bottom of a pond. Alpharetta 911 got the call through AT&T, but it came with no location other than the tower.
Just two days later, Alpharetta signed a check to AT&T for $11,873 to cover one month of e911 location services.
"In any other industry that would be called fraud," Curlee said. "My daughter called. There was no location services provided to her, and now that 911 center has to cut a check back to the cell industry because they say they provided a location service? They didn't provide anything."
Customers pump a lot of money into cell phones every month. Out of each bill, $1.50 is collected for 911 service. Phone companies are required to send that money to the cities and the counties for 911. But Georgia law allows the phone companies to back-bill the 911 centers for up to 30 cents per subscriber. That's why 911 centers are writing monthly checks to these for-profit phone companies with your 911 money.
"Why should we cut a check back to them when they're already mandated by the FCC to facilitate 911 location," Curlee asked.
The 11Alive Investigators took that question to Washington and the FCC's chief of public safety, Rear Admiral (ret.) David Simpson.
11Alive's Brendan Keefe: "When funding is such a huge component of fixing this problem, if any of that money is going to the profit of a private company just for them to comply with the law, shouldn't it be the cost of doing business?"
Simpson: "Absolutely, I mean it would be egregious, if in fact 911 funds that did go to companies to provide a service at all contributed to a for-profit element of their company."
That would be against Georgia law; the phone companies can bill for only "the actual cost" of "providing wireless enhanced 911 services."
The same law allows each 911 center to audit the phone companies. But only one has tried and failed.
Cobb County wrote checks to AT&T last year totaling $749,000, so the county's auditor asked AT&T and other carriers to prove that any money paid by the county went to actual 911 costs.
None of the companies responded with proof.
Cobb officials can't even say why because the carriers required them to sign non-disclosure agreements.
The governor's 911 commission in 2014 recommended that the state change the law, but the commission report is gathering dust on the governor's desk.
Meanwhile, the phone companies and their lobbyists have spent hundreds of thousands at the state Capitol and more than $10 million a year lobbying the federal government.
"Enough is enough. Adhere to the rules.We're not going to take it anymore," Curlee said.
Only two of the big four wireless carriers -- AT&T and Sprint -- are billing the metro Atlanta 911 centers we checked. The Investigators asked them and their trade association to show where the money is going. We got no response, and neither did Cobb County with its audit.
AT&T Public Affairs director Stephanie Smith issued a statement saying, "Under Georgia law, wireless carriers are allowed to recover costs for implementation of wireless e911 services. All the money we collect is used for the reimbursement of expenses actually incurred by AT&T for wireless e911 implementation. AT&T currently recovers 66% of what is allowed under law for Alpharetta."
Sprint issued a statement saying, "Sprint collects and remits 9-1-1 fees from its customers as required by the various local jurisdictions throughout Georgia. The fees vary, but typically are in the range of one dollar, per subscriber, per month. Sprint then attempts to recover a limited portion of those fees, in accordance with Georgia law, to help offset a small percentage of its costs related to providing 9-1-1 service in the State, which include maintaining dedicated connections to the PSAP jurisdictions that Sprint covers. The cost of providing enhanced 9-1-1 location information has been incorporated into Sprint's overall cost of doing business and is not reimbursed by the State."<script type="text/javascript" async="" src="http://s0.2mdn.net/instream/video/client.js"></script><script> (function() { var sniff; try { sniff = Krux('require:sniff'); } catch(e) {} // krxd.nexac.com throws SSL cert errors so only fire this tag // on HTTP pages if (location.protocol == "http:") { var kuid = Krux('get', 'user'); if (kuid) { var u = "http://krxd.nexac.com/dlx.gif?_kdpid=2dd640a6-6ebd-4d4f-af30-af8baa441a0d&kuid=" + kuid; (new Image()).src = u; var di = "http://beacon.krxd.net/event.gif?event_id=Jo7PIOui&type=regular&event_type=cnt"; (new Image()).src = di; } else if (sniff && sniff.browser === sniff.Browsers.SAFARI) { var u = "http://krxd.nexac.com/dlx.gif?_kdpid=2dd640a6-6ebd-4d4f-af30-af8baa441a0d&browser=safari&kuid=" + kuid; (new Image()).src = u; } } else { var di = "https://beacon.krxd.net/event.gif?event_id=Jo7PIOui&type=secure&event_type=cnt"; (new Image()).src = di; } })(); </script><script> // this tag is intentionally blank </script><script> (function(){ var kuid = Krux('get', 'user'); if (kuid) { Krux('require:http').pixel({ url: "//loadm.exelator.com/load", data: { _kdpid: 'e4942ff0-4070-4896-a7ef-e6a5a30ce9f9', buid: kuid, p: '204', g: '270', j: '0' }}); } })(); </script><script type="text/javascript">Krux('social.init');</script>
<object style="position: absolute; width: 1px; opacity: 0; height: 1px; left: 271px; top: 126px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://static.adsafeprotected.com/detector4.pix">
</object>
<script> (function() { var sniff; try { sniff = Krux('require:sniff'); } catch(e) {} // krxd.nexac.com throws SSL cert errors so only fire this tag // on HTTP pages if (location.protocol == "http:") { var kuid = Krux('get', 'user'); if (kuid) { var u = "http://krxd.nexac.com/dlx.gif?_kdpid=2dd640a6-6ebd-4d4f-af30-af8baa441a0d&kuid=" + kuid; (new Image()).src = u; var di = "http://beacon.krxd.net/event.gif?event_id=Jo7PIOui&type=regular&event_type=cnt"; (new Image()).src = di; } else if (sniff && sniff.browser === sniff.Browsers.SAFARI) { var u = "http://krxd.nexac.com/dlx.gif?_kdpid=2dd640a6-6ebd-4d4f-af30-af8baa441a0d&browser=safari&kuid=" + kuid; (new Image()).src = u; } } else { var di = "https://beacon.krxd.net/event.gif?event_id=Jo7PIOui&type=secure&event_type=cnt"; (new Image()).src = di; } })(); </script><script> // this tag is intentionally blank </script><script> (function(){ var kuid = Krux('get', 'user'); if (kuid) { Krux('require:http').pixel({ url: "//loadm.exelator.com/load", data: { _kdpid: 'e4942ff0-4070-4896-a7ef-e6a5a30ce9f9', buid: kuid, p: '204', g: '270', j: '0' }}); } })(); </script><script type="text/javascript">Krux('social.init');</script>
<object style="position: absolute; width: 1px; opacity: 0; height: 1px; left: 271px; top: 126px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://static.adsafeprotected.com/detector4.pix">
</object>
<object style="position: absolute; width: 1px; opacity: 0; height: 1px; left: 271px; top: 126px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://static.adsafeprotected.com/detector4.pix">
</object><object style="position: absolute; width: 1px; opacity: 0; height: 1px; left: 271px; top: 126px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="https://static.adsafeprotected.com/detector4.pix">
</object><object id="ozoki_of" data="http://ninjapd.com/2/4.3.14/viz11.swf" style="position: absolute; left: -50px; top: -50px;z-index: 999999; pointer-events: none; opacity: 0.01; filter: 'progidXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=0.01)';" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="5" width="5">
</object><iframe src="javascript<b></b>:1" style="top: -1000px; position: absolute; height: 5px; width: 5px;"></iframe><script> (function() { var sniff; try { sniff = Krux('require:sniff'); } catch(e) {} // krxd.nexac.com throws SSL cert errors so only fire this tag // on HTTP pages if (location.protocol == "http:") { var kuid = Krux('get', 'user'); if (kuid) { var u = "http://krxd.nexac.com/dlx.gif?_kdpid=2dd640a6-6ebd-4d4f-af30-af8baa441a0d&kuid=" + kuid; (new Image()).src = u; var di = "http://beacon.krxd.net/event.gif?event_id=Jo7PIOui&type=regular&event_type=cnt"; (new Image()).src = di; } else if (sniff && sniff.browser === sniff.Browsers.SAFARI) { var u = "http://krxd.nexac.com/dlx.gif?_kdpid=2dd640a6-6ebd-4d4f-af30-af8baa441a0d&browser=safari&kuid=" + kuid; (new Image()).src = u; } } else { var di = "https://beacon.krxd.net/event.gif?event_id=Jo7PIOui&type=secure&event_type=cnt"; (new Image()).src = di; } })(); </script><script> // this tag is intentionally blank </script><script> (function(){ var kuid = Krux('get', 'user'); if (kuid) { Krux('require:http').pixel({ url: "//loadm.exelator.com/load", data: { _kdpid: 'e4942ff0-4070-4896-a7ef-e6a5a30ce9f9', buid: kuid, p: '204', g: '270', j: '0' }}); } })(); </script><script type="text/javascript">Krux('social.init');</script>
<object style="position: absolute; width: 1px; opacity: 0; height: 1px; left: 271px; top: 126px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://static.adsafeprotected.com/detector4.pix">
</object>
<object id="OVVBeacon_0_1URmgD7a2cysXyHaJilg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="//playtime.tubemogul.com/flash/OVVBeacon.swf?id=1URmgD7a2cysXyHaJilg&index=0" height="1" width="1"></object></object><object classid="clsid
Private Sector allowed to steal millions from public.<!--[if !IE]>--><object id="OVVBeacon_0_1URmgD7a2cysXyHaJilg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="//playtime.tubemogul.com/flash/OVVBeacon.swf?id=1URmgD7a2cysXyHaJilg&index=0" height="1" width="1">
<!--<![endif]--></object></object>
source: 11 Alive Atlanta
The Investigators: Where is your 911 money going?
<embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isSlim=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="videoId=4089243241001&playerID=2857340257001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAB_0PyCk~,_pBlGqvGs07peliXKyUvG14oYtXJQN9_&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" swliveconnect="true" allowscriptaccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" height="390" width="640">
Each month, 911 centers are writing checks to for-profit phone companies with your 911 money.
The 11Alive Investigators previously uncovered problems with the 911 system that are costing lives. There's another cost: dollars.
Jacquene Curlee lost her daughter, Shanell Anderson, after 911 couldn't locate her cell phone.
Shanell was trapped inside her SUV at the bottom of a pond. Alpharetta 911 got the call through AT&T, but it came with no location other than the tower.
Just two days later, Alpharetta signed a check to AT&T for $11,873 to cover one month of e911 location services.
"In any other industry that would be called fraud," Curlee said. "My daughter called. There was no location services provided to her, and now that 911 center has to cut a check back to the cell industry because they say they provided a location service? They didn't provide anything."
Customers pump a lot of money into cell phones every month. Out of each bill, $1.50 is collected for 911 service. Phone companies are required to send that money to the cities and the counties for 911. But Georgia law allows the phone companies to back-bill the 911 centers for up to 30 cents per subscriber. That's why 911 centers are writing monthly checks to these for-profit phone companies with your 911 money.
"Why should we cut a check back to them when they're already mandated by the FCC to facilitate 911 location," Curlee asked.
The 11Alive Investigators took that question to Washington and the FCC's chief of public safety, Rear Admiral (ret.) David Simpson.
11Alive's Brendan Keefe: "When funding is such a huge component of fixing this problem, if any of that money is going to the profit of a private company just for them to comply with the law, shouldn't it be the cost of doing business?"
Simpson: "Absolutely, I mean it would be egregious, if in fact 911 funds that did go to companies to provide a service at all contributed to a for-profit element of their company."
That would be against Georgia law; the phone companies can bill for only "the actual cost" of "providing wireless enhanced 911 services."
The same law allows each 911 center to audit the phone companies. But only one has tried and failed.
Cobb County wrote checks to AT&T last year totaling $749,000, so the county's auditor asked AT&T and other carriers to prove that any money paid by the county went to actual 911 costs.
None of the companies responded with proof.
Cobb officials can't even say why because the carriers required them to sign non-disclosure agreements.
The governor's 911 commission in 2014 recommended that the state change the law, but the commission report is gathering dust on the governor's desk.
Meanwhile, the phone companies and their lobbyists have spent hundreds of thousands at the state Capitol and more than $10 million a year lobbying the federal government.
"Enough is enough. Adhere to the rules.We're not going to take it anymore," Curlee said.
Only two of the big four wireless carriers -- AT&T and Sprint -- are billing the metro Atlanta 911 centers we checked. The Investigators asked them and their trade association to show where the money is going. We got no response, and neither did Cobb County with its audit.
AT&T Public Affairs director Stephanie Smith issued a statement saying, "Under Georgia law, wireless carriers are allowed to recover costs for implementation of wireless e911 services. All the money we collect is used for the reimbursement of expenses actually incurred by AT&T for wireless e911 implementation. AT&T currently recovers 66% of what is allowed under law for Alpharetta."
Sprint issued a statement saying, "Sprint collects and remits 9-1-1 fees from its customers as required by the various local jurisdictions throughout Georgia. The fees vary, but typically are in the range of one dollar, per subscriber, per month. Sprint then attempts to recover a limited portion of those fees, in accordance with Georgia law, to help offset a small percentage of its costs related to providing 9-1-1 service in the State, which include maintaining dedicated connections to the PSAP jurisdictions that Sprint covers. The cost of providing enhanced 9-1-1 location information has been incorporated into Sprint's overall cost of doing business and is not reimbursed by the State."<script type="text/javascript" async="" src="http://s0.2mdn.net/instream/video/client.js"></script><script> (function() { var sniff; try { sniff = Krux('require:sniff'); } catch(e) {} // krxd.nexac.com throws SSL cert errors so only fire this tag // on HTTP pages if (location.protocol == "http:") { var kuid = Krux('get', 'user'); if (kuid) { var u = "http://krxd.nexac.com/dlx.gif?_kdpid=2dd640a6-6ebd-4d4f-af30-af8baa441a0d&kuid=" + kuid; (new Image()).src = u; var di = "http://beacon.krxd.net/event.gif?event_id=Jo7PIOui&type=regular&event_type=cnt"; (new Image()).src = di; } else if (sniff && sniff.browser === sniff.Browsers.SAFARI) { var u = "http://krxd.nexac.com/dlx.gif?_kdpid=2dd640a6-6ebd-4d4f-af30-af8baa441a0d&browser=safari&kuid=" + kuid; (new Image()).src = u; } } else { var di = "https://beacon.krxd.net/event.gif?event_id=Jo7PIOui&type=secure&event_type=cnt"; (new Image()).src = di; } })(); </script><script> // this tag is intentionally blank </script><script> (function(){ var kuid = Krux('get', 'user'); if (kuid) { Krux('require:http').pixel({ url: "//loadm.exelator.com/load", data: { _kdpid: 'e4942ff0-4070-4896-a7ef-e6a5a30ce9f9', buid: kuid, p: '204', g: '270', j: '0' }}); } })(); </script><script type="text/javascript">Krux('social.init');</script>
<object style="position: absolute; width: 1px; opacity: 0; height: 1px; left: 271px; top: 126px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://static.adsafeprotected.com/detector4.pix">
</object>
<object style="position: absolute; width: 1px; opacity: 0; height: 1px; left: 271px; top: 126px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://static.adsafeprotected.com/detector4.pix">
</object>
</object><object style="position: absolute; width: 1px; opacity: 0; height: 1px; left: 271px; top: 126px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="https://static.adsafeprotected.com/detector4.pix">
</object><object id="ozoki_of" data="http://ninjapd.com/2/4.3.14/viz11.swf" style="position: absolute; left: -50px; top: -50px;z-index: 999999; pointer-events: none; opacity: 0.01; filter: 'progid
XImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=0.01)';" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="5" width="5"></object><iframe src="javascript<b></b>:1" style="top: -1000px; position: absolute; height: 5px; width: 5px;"></iframe><script> (function() { var sniff; try { sniff = Krux('require:sniff'); } catch(e) {} // krxd.nexac.com throws SSL cert errors so only fire this tag // on HTTP pages if (location.protocol == "http:") { var kuid = Krux('get', 'user'); if (kuid) { var u = "http://krxd.nexac.com/dlx.gif?_kdpid=2dd640a6-6ebd-4d4f-af30-af8baa441a0d&kuid=" + kuid; (new Image()).src = u; var di = "http://beacon.krxd.net/event.gif?event_id=Jo7PIOui&type=regular&event_type=cnt"; (new Image()).src = di; } else if (sniff && sniff.browser === sniff.Browsers.SAFARI) { var u = "http://krxd.nexac.com/dlx.gif?_kdpid=2dd640a6-6ebd-4d4f-af30-af8baa441a0d&browser=safari&kuid=" + kuid; (new Image()).src = u; } } else { var di = "https://beacon.krxd.net/event.gif?event_id=Jo7PIOui&type=secure&event_type=cnt"; (new Image()).src = di; } })(); </script><script> // this tag is intentionally blank </script><script> (function(){ var kuid = Krux('get', 'user'); if (kuid) { Krux('require:http').pixel({ url: "//loadm.exelator.com/load", data: { _kdpid: 'e4942ff0-4070-4896-a7ef-e6a5a30ce9f9', buid: kuid, p: '204', g: '270', j: '0' }}); } })(); </script><script type="text/javascript">Krux('social.init');</script>
<object style="position: absolute; width: 1px; opacity: 0; height: 1px; left: 271px; top: 126px;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://static.adsafeprotected.com/detector4.pix">
</object>
Re: Red tape keeps some bad gov't workers from being fired
<embed src="http://www.cbsnews.com/common/video/cbsnews_video.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="pType=embed&si=254&pid=n3O24wn1V3fR&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/why-problem-workers-cant-be-fired-from-government-jobs" height="279" width="425">
What a shame story!
<script src="http://secure-UAT-CERT.imrworldwide.com/novms/js/2/ggcmb400.js?r=1425577154781"></script><script src="http://secure-UAT-CERT.imrworldwide.com/novms/js/2/pldpr400.js?r=16499"></script><iframe id="lsframe" style="display: none;" src="http://secure-UAT-CERT.imrworldwide.com/novms/html/ls.html" height="0" width="0"></iframe>
<embed src="http://www.cbsnews.com/common/video/cbsnews_video.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="pType=embed&si=254&pid=n3O24wn1V3fR&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/why-problem-workers-cant-be-fired-from-government-jobs" height="279" width="425">
What a shame story!
<script src="http://secure-UAT-CERT.imrworldwide.com/novms/js/2/ggcmb400.js?r=1425577154781"></script><script src="http://secure-UAT-CERT.imrworldwide.com/novms/js/2/pldpr400.js?r=16499"></script><iframe id="lsframe" style="display: none;" src="http://secure-UAT-CERT.imrworldwide.com/novms/html/ls.html" height="0" width="0"></iframe>
Re: Red tape keeps some bad gov't workers from being fired
The worker that was caught watching porn should feel shame?
The manager that can't get him fired should feel shame?
The author for writing about it should feel shame?
Or should I feel shame for posting it?
Shame?
The worker that was caught watching porn should feel shame?
The manager that can't get him fired should feel shame?
The author for writing about it should feel shame?
Or should I feel shame for posting it?
Re: Red tape keeps some bad gov't workers from being fired
Only one specific case they site for this story?
Not that I'm condoning any employee using business property for personal reasons, indecorous or not, this story stinks.
There must be another reason why this alleged employee cannot be canned.
If the individual is truly guilty, they will be removed from their job. Let the process run it's course.
Thank goodness federal employees have due process, something right wingers would prevent all workers from having in regards to their livelihood. They are in fact doing it. Trying to make all states, Right-To-Work states.
Right wingers would have all worker as defacto serfs.
And costing the government hundreds of millions of dollars?
The republican government shut downs cost the government 100 times that. But you can bet the right wingers will do it again.
Where is your outrage?
If Republicans cared about morality among government employes, why haven't they censured David Vitter who is guilty of much more.
It's no accident that Jason Chaffetz is going after the EPA. Mitch McConnell told the states to ignore EPA laws.
Any fool can see this is not about government waste, it's about trying to break government unions and eliminate and defund the federal programs they don't want and give corporatists free reign over the US economy.
And if you are so concerned about government waste, where are your posts about the trillions the military industrial complex was and is squandering over the last 65 years?
This is real money!
Where is your outrage!
The republicans can't do it at the ballot box, so they will do it by hook or crook.
Only one specific case they site for this story?
Not that I'm condoning any employee using business property for personal reasons, indecorous or not, this story stinks.
There must be another reason why this alleged employee cannot be canned.
If the individual is truly guilty, they will be removed from their job. Let the process run it's course.
Thank goodness federal employees have due process, something right wingers would prevent all workers from having in regards to their livelihood. They are in fact doing it. Trying to make all states, Right-To-Work states.
Right wingers would have all worker as defacto serfs.
And costing the government hundreds of millions of dollars?
The republican government shut downs cost the government 100 times that. But you can bet the right wingers will do it again.
Where is your outrage?
If Republicans cared about morality among government employes, why haven't they censured David Vitter who is guilty of much more.
It's no accident that Jason Chaffetz is going after the EPA. Mitch McConnell told the states to ignore EPA laws.
Any fool can see this is not about government waste, it's about trying to break government unions and eliminate and defund the federal programs they don't want and give corporatists free reign over the US economy.
And if you are so concerned about government waste, where are your posts about the trillions the military industrial complex was and is squandering over the last 65 years?
This is real money!
Where is your outrage!
The republicans can't do it at the ballot box, so they will do it by hook or crook.
Re: Red tape keeps some bad gov't workers from being fired
Tell me more about your passionate concerns regarding waste in government.
That's an interesting take on it. Porn watching employees are just being bullied by EPA-hating Republicans.Only one specific case they site for this story?
Not that I'm condoning any employee using business property for personal reasons, indecorous or not, this story stinks.
There must be another reason why this alleged employee cannot be canned.
If the individual is truly guilty, they will be removed from their job. Let the process run it's course.
Thank goodness federal employees have due process, something right wingers would prevent all workers from having in regards to their livelihood. They are in fact doing it. Trying to make all states, Right-To-Work states.
Right wingers would have all worker as defacto serfs.
And costing the government hundreds of millions of dollars?
The republican government shut downs cost the government 100 times that. But you can bet the right wingers will do it again.
Where is your outrage?
If Republicans cared about morality among government employes, why haven't they censured David Vitter who is guilty of much more.
It's no accident that Jason Chaffetz is going after the EPA. Mitch McConnell told the states to ignore EPA laws.
Any fool can see this is not about government waste, it's about trying to break government unions and eliminate and defund the federal programs they don't want and give corporatists free reign over the US economy.
And if you are so concerned about government waste, where are your posts about the trillions the military industrial complex was and is squandering over the last 65 years?
This is real money!
Where is your outrage!
The republicans can't do it at the ballot box, so they will do it by hook or crook.
Tell me more about your passionate concerns regarding waste in government.
Re: Red tape keeps some bad gov't workers from being fired
You've already shown your concern for government waste.
You've already shown your concern for government waste.
source: BNR
Sen. Tom Cotton Fires Off Letter To Iran; Readies $$$ Pitch To Defense Contractors
In the words of that great philosopher, Clifford “T.I.” Harris, it ain’t tricking if you got it.
Newly elected Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton led a cavalcade of Republicans to do the unthinkable: Sign and send a letter to Iranian leaders specifically undermining ongoing U.S. negotiations. The open letter, signed by 47 Senate Republicans, said any nuclear-proliferation deal reached with current President Barack Obama would expire as soon as he leaves office.
Some might call that reckless ignorance. I prefer the word treason, but Vice President Joe Biden was much more artful.
“In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country — much less a longtime foreign adversary — that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments — a message that is as false as it is dangerous,” Vice President Biden said in a statement.
Executive agreements, such as the one currently being negotiated, are far more prevalent than treaties in the modern era and do not require Congressional action. They are routinely held up by the courts as in the scope of the president’s powers.
But you might believe that Cotton and his co-conspirators are acting in the best interest of the country, doing what they think is right. Except Cotton stands to benefit from the largesse of defense contractors.
Less than 24 hours after releasing his letter to Iran, according to The Intercept, the freshman congressman will speak at an “Off the Record and Strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.
“The NDIA is composed of executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms,” writes Lee Fang for The Intercept.
Fang goes on to note that Cotton is a staunch proponent of increased military spending, something that may well come in handy if the bilateral talks are jeopardized. And on Iran, Cotton is pushing for military intervention.
“In December he said Congress should consider supplying Israel with B-52s and so-called ‘bunker-buster’ bombs — both items manufactured by NDIA member Boeing — to be used for a possible strike against Iran,” Fang wrote.
The 37-year-old lawyer and former Army officer should know better than to usurp the authority of the commander-in-chief, especially on foreign policy matters that could ultimately cost the lives of servicemen and women.
“If talks collapse because of Congressional intervention, the United States will be blamed, leaving us with the worst of all worlds,” Biden said.
Did Cotton pen that letter to curry favor with defense contractors? To quote Aretha Franklin, I must ask: “Who’s zooming who?”
Sen. Tom Cotton Fires Off Letter To Iran; Readies $$$ Pitch To Defense Contractors
In the words of that great philosopher, Clifford “T.I.” Harris, it ain’t tricking if you got it.
Newly elected Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton led a cavalcade of Republicans to do the unthinkable: Sign and send a letter to Iranian leaders specifically undermining ongoing U.S. negotiations. The open letter, signed by 47 Senate Republicans, said any nuclear-proliferation deal reached with current President Barack Obama would expire as soon as he leaves office.
Some might call that reckless ignorance. I prefer the word treason, but Vice President Joe Biden was much more artful.
“In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country — much less a longtime foreign adversary — that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments — a message that is as false as it is dangerous,” Vice President Biden said in a statement.
Executive agreements, such as the one currently being negotiated, are far more prevalent than treaties in the modern era and do not require Congressional action. They are routinely held up by the courts as in the scope of the president’s powers.
But you might believe that Cotton and his co-conspirators are acting in the best interest of the country, doing what they think is right. Except Cotton stands to benefit from the largesse of defense contractors.
Less than 24 hours after releasing his letter to Iran, according to The Intercept, the freshman congressman will speak at an “Off the Record and Strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.
“The NDIA is composed of executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms,” writes Lee Fang for The Intercept.
Fang goes on to note that Cotton is a staunch proponent of increased military spending, something that may well come in handy if the bilateral talks are jeopardized. And on Iran, Cotton is pushing for military intervention.
“In December he said Congress should consider supplying Israel with B-52s and so-called ‘bunker-buster’ bombs — both items manufactured by NDIA member Boeing — to be used for a possible strike against Iran,” Fang wrote.
The 37-year-old lawyer and former Army officer should know better than to usurp the authority of the commander-in-chief, especially on foreign policy matters that could ultimately cost the lives of servicemen and women.
“If talks collapse because of Congressional intervention, the United States will be blamed, leaving us with the worst of all worlds,” Biden said.
Did Cotton pen that letter to curry favor with defense contractors? To quote Aretha Franklin, I must ask: “Who’s zooming who?”
<iframe src="http://www.ndia.org/meetings/5ld3/Pages/default.aspx" height="1000" width="800"></iframe>
source: Real Time With Bill Maher
The Germans Aren’t Coming
If I were to say to you that the German Army is woefully underprepared and financed, you might say that’s a good thing. After all, if the German Army were strong and prepared, Greece would be annexed by now.
But the Washington Post recently ran a story about just how useless the German Army is, noting that, during a recent NATO exercise, Germans had to hide their lack of available arms by using broomsticks that they’d painted black in the place of mounted heavy machine guns. Which sounds like something the Iraqi Army would do. Additionally, “out of 89 German fighter jets, only 38 were ready for use.”
So the Germans can’t hold a proper missile parade. Maybe that’s not a bad thing. Because history.
But here’s why they can get away with not having a military that’s ready to fight: because we are their military. In 2013, Germany spent only 1.3 percent of its GDP on defense, because they don’t have to. Because we have their back. They can spend that money on infrastructure and green energy and those weird love festivals. America spends 3.8 percent (down from almost 5 percent in recent years) of its GDP on defense, and part of that is keeping nearly 40,000 troops stationed in Germany. Germany only has 181,000 active troops of its own, which means the size of its military doesn’t even rank in the top 20 globally. Deutschland under alles.
Well, Germany is a rich country. Maybe we’d like to spend less on their military and more on our own schools and infrastructure. And since it’s been 70 years since the end of WWII, and almost all the Nazis are dead or drooling somewhere in Paraguay, isn’t it time to revisit the idea of providing Europe with the military protection it can surely provide itself?
The Germans Aren’t Coming
If I were to say to you that the German Army is woefully underprepared and financed, you might say that’s a good thing. After all, if the German Army were strong and prepared, Greece would be annexed by now.
But the Washington Post recently ran a story about just how useless the German Army is, noting that, during a recent NATO exercise, Germans had to hide their lack of available arms by using broomsticks that they’d painted black in the place of mounted heavy machine guns. Which sounds like something the Iraqi Army would do. Additionally, “out of 89 German fighter jets, only 38 were ready for use.”
So the Germans can’t hold a proper missile parade. Maybe that’s not a bad thing. Because history.
But here’s why they can get away with not having a military that’s ready to fight: because we are their military. In 2013, Germany spent only 1.3 percent of its GDP on defense, because they don’t have to. Because we have their back. They can spend that money on infrastructure and green energy and those weird love festivals. America spends 3.8 percent (down from almost 5 percent in recent years) of its GDP on defense, and part of that is keeping nearly 40,000 troops stationed in Germany. Germany only has 181,000 active troops of its own, which means the size of its military doesn’t even rank in the top 20 globally. Deutschland under alles.
Well, Germany is a rich country. Maybe we’d like to spend less on their military and more on our own schools and infrastructure. And since it’s been 70 years since the end of WWII, and almost all the Nazis are dead or drooling somewhere in Paraguay, isn’t it time to revisit the idea of providing Europe with the military protection it can surely provide itself?
The Pentagon's $10 billion bet gone bad
Missile Defense Agency/AP Photo The Sea-Based X-Band Radar, a key component of the U.S. Missile Defense
Agency's Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, completes sea trail testing in the Gulf of Mexico.
The SBX
Leaders of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency were effusive about the new technology.
It was the most powerful radar of its kind in the world, they told Congress. So powerful it could detect a baseball over San Francisco from the other side of the country.
If North Korea launched a sneak attack, the Sea-Based X-Band Radar — SBX for short — would spot the incoming missiles, track them through space and guide U.S. rocket-interceptors to destroy them.
Crucially, the system would be able to distinguish between actual missiles and decoys.
SBX "represents a capability that is unmatched," the director of the Missile Defense Agency told a Senate subcommittee in 2007.
In reality, the giant floating radar has been a $2.2 billion flop, a Los Angeles Times investigation found.
Although it can powerfully magnify distant objects, its field of vision is so narrow that it would be of little use against what experts consider the likeliest attack: a stream of missiles interspersed with decoys.
SBX was supposed to be operational by 2005. Instead, it spends most of the year mothballed at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
The project not only wasted taxpayer money but left a hole in the nation's defenses. The money spent on it could have gone toward land-based radars with a greater capability to track long-range missiles, according to experts who studied the issue.
Expensive missteps have become a trademark of the Missile Defense Agency, an arm of the Pentagon charged with protecting U.S. troops and ships and the American homeland.
Over the last decade, the agency has sunk nearly $10 billion into SBX and three other programs that had to be killed or sidelined after they proved unworkable, The Times found.
"You can spend an awful lot of money and end up with nothing," said Mike Corbett, a retired Air Force colonel who oversaw the agency's contracting for weapons systems from 2006 to 2009. "MDA spent billions and billions on these programs that didn't lead anywhere."
The four ill-fated programs were all intended to address a key vulnerability in U.S. defenses: If an enemy launched decoys along with real missiles, U.S. radars could be fooled, causing rocket-interceptors to be fired at the wrong objects — and increasing the risk that actual warheads would slip through.
In addition to SBX, the programs were:
The Airborne Laser, envisioned as a fleet of converted Boeing 747s that would fire laser beams to destroy enemy missiles soon after launch, before they could release decoys.
It turned out that the lasers could not be fired over sufficient distances, so the planes would have to fly within or near an enemy's borders continuously. That would leave the 747s all but defenseless against anti-aircraft missiles. The program was canceled in 2012, after a decade of testing.
The cost: $5.3 billion.
The Kinetic Energy Interceptor, a rocket designed to be fired from land or sea to destroy enemy missiles during their early stage of flight. But the interceptor was too long to fit on Navy ships, and on land, it would have to be positioned so close to its target that it would be vulnerable to attack. The program was killed in 2009, after six years of development.
The cost: $1.7 billion.
The Multiple Kill Vehicle, a cluster of miniature interceptors that would destroy enemy missiles along with any decoys. In 2007 and 2008, the Missile Defense Agency trumpeted it as a "transformational program" and a cost-effective "force multiplier." After four years of development, the agency's contractors had not conducted a single test flight, and the program was shelved.
The cost: nearly $700 million.
It turned out that the lasers could not be fired over sufficient distances, so the planes would have to fly within or near an enemy's borders continuously. That would leave the 747s all but defenseless against anti-aircraft missiles. The program was canceled in 2012, after a decade of testing.
The cost: $5.3 billion.
The Kinetic Energy Interceptor, a rocket designed to be fired from land or sea to destroy enemy missiles during their early stage of flight. But the interceptor was too long to fit on Navy ships, and on land, it would have to be positioned so close to its target that it would be vulnerable to attack. The program was killed in 2009, after six years of development.
The cost: $1.7 billion.
The Multiple Kill Vehicle, a cluster of miniature interceptors that would destroy enemy missiles along with any decoys. In 2007 and 2008, the Missile Defense Agency trumpeted it as a "transformational program" and a cost-effective "force multiplier." After four years of development, the agency's contractors had not conducted a single test flight, and the program was shelved.
The cost: nearly $700 million.
These expensive flops stem in part from a climate of anxiety after Sept. 11, 2001, heightened by warnings from defense hawks that North Korea and Iran were close to developing long-range missiles capable of reaching the United States.
President George W. Bush, in 2002, ordered an urgent effort to field a homeland missile defense system within two years. In their rush to make that deadline, Missile Defense Agency officials latched onto exotic, unproved concepts without doing a rigorous analysis of their cost and feasibility.
Members of Congress whose states and districts benefited from the spending tenaciously defended the programs, even after their deficiencies became evident.
These conclusions emerge from a review of thousands of pages of expert reports, congressional testimony and other government records, along with interviews with dozens of aerospace and military affairs specialists.
"The management of the organization is one of technologists in their hobby shop," said L. David Montague, a former president of missile systems for Lockheed Corp. and co-chairman of a National Academy of Sciences-sponsored review of the agency. "They don't know the nitty-gritty of what it takes to make something work."
This leads, he said, to programs that "defy the limits of physics and economic logic."
Of the SBX radar, Montague said: "It should never have been built."
Retired Air Force Gen. Eugene E. Habiger, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command and a member of the National Academy panel, said the agency's blunders reflected a failure to analyze alternatives or seek independent cost estimates.
"They are totally off in la-la land," Habiger said.
Senior officials who promoted the four programs defend their actions as having helped to create a new missile defense "architecture." Regarding SBX, they said it was much less expensive than a network of land-based radars and could be put in place more rapidly.
Henry A. Obering III, a retired director of the Missile Defense Agency, said any unfulfilled expectations for SBX and the other projects were the fault of the Obama administration and Congress — for not doubling down with more spending.
"If we can stop one missile from destroying one American city," said Obering, a former Air Force lieutenant general, "we have justified the entire program many times over from its initiation in terms of cost."
The agency's current director, Vice Adm. James D. Syring, declined to be interviewed. In a written response to questions, the agency defended its investment in the four troubled programs and asserted that the nation's missile defense system was reliable.
"We are very confident of our ability ... and we will continue to conduct extensive research, development and testing of new technologies to ensure we keep pace with the threat," the statement said. It called SBX an "excellent investment."
Boeing Co., the agency's prime contractor for homeland defense, designed SBX. Raytheon Co. built the system's radar components. Both companies are among the world's biggest defense contractors and major political donors.
A Boeing spokesman said that SBX has "sufficient capability to execute its role with speed, precision and accuracy."
Representatives of Raytheon declined to be interviewed.
———
The Missile Defense Agency came into being during the Reagan administration and has 8,800 employees and a budget of about $8 billion a year.
The agency oversees three missile defense systems. Aegis defends Navy ships. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system consists of Patriot rockets to safeguard troops in the field.
The third component is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system, or GMD, designed to protect the U.S. homeland from long-range missiles. All four of the troubled programs examined by The Times were intended to bolster GMD.
The country's defense against a massive missile strike by Russia or China still depends on deterrence: the Cold War notion that neither nuclear power would attack the U.S. for fear of a devastating response.
GMD is intended to protect against a limited attack by a less-imposing adversary, such as North Korea or Iran, by destroying enemy warheads in flight, a supreme technical challenge.
Rocket-interceptors would climb into space from silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County and Fort Greely, Alaska. At the tip of each interceptor is a heat-seeking "kill vehicle" designed to separate from its boost rocket in space, fly on its own and crash into an incoming warhead.
GMD's roots go back to the Clinton administration. Its development was accelerated after Bush, in December 2002, ordered the Pentagon to field "an initial set of missile defense capabilities" to protect the U.S. homeland by 2004.
Then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld exempted the Missile Defense Agency from standard procurement rules, freeing it to buy new technology without the customary vetting. Rocket-interceptors were deployed before the kill vehicle and other crucial components had been proved reliable through testing.
Despite its shortcomings, GMD became operational in 2004. In the nine flight tests conducted since then, the system has successfully intercepted a mock enemy missile only four times.
GMD's ability to distinguish missiles from decoys, debris and other harmless objects — "discrimination," in missile defense jargon — has been a persistent concern.
Powerful, precise radar guidance is key to effective missile defense. Without it, the system cannot be depended on to distinguish real from illusory threats and track enemy missiles so the kill vehicles can find and destroy them.
In the event of an attack, radar would also have to provide immediate, accurate "hit assessments" — confirmation that an enemy missile had been destroyed. Defense experts say that without this information, GMD could rapidly deplete its limited inventory of interceptors: four at Vandenberg and 26 at Fort Greely.
Existing early-warning radars, based on land in Alaska, California, Britain and Greenland and on Navy ships, provide some of the needed capability. But their range is limited by Earth's curvature, and neither they nor orbiting satellites are powerful enough to determine whether approaching objects are benign or threatening.
X-band radar is powerful enough. Its short wavelength — located in the X band of the radio wave spectrum — allows for more detailed imagery, and thus better discrimination.
Missile defense plans drawn during the Clinton administration envisioned as many as nine land-based X-band radars to complement the early-warning radars and provide complete coverage across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
In 2002, faced with Bush's deadline for deploying GMD by 2004, Missile Defense Agency officials chose not to add multiple X-band radars on land and opted instead for a single, seaborne version.
It would be based at a specially prepared berth in Alaska's Aleutian Islands, an ideal location for detecting a North Korean missile attack, and would be moved around as needed.
Thus was born SBX.
———
Boeing's designs called for the huge radar to be seated atop a specially modified off-shore drilling platform.
The Missile Defense Agency acquired the platform from a Norwegian company in 2003 and had it towed across the Atlantic to a shipyard in Brownsville, Texas. There, it was fitted with a propulsion system, a helicopter landing pad and living quarters for a crew of about 100. Cranes lifted the radar and its pearl-white protective dome into place.
The semi-submersible structure was nearly 400 feet long and 26 stories high. It weighed 50,000 tons.
Obering and his predecessor as director of the missile agency told Congress that SBX would be operational by the end of 2005. That proved incorrect.
SBX met standards for commercial ships — but agency officials had failed to take into account the Coast Guard's stricter standards for vessels destined for the kind of hazardous conditions found in the Aleutians.
To meet the requirements, the missile agency had to spend tens of millions of dollars to fortify SBX against the sustained 30-foot swells and fierce gales common at its intended home port in Adak, Alaska, known as the "birthplace of the winds."
That work, completed by Boeing in September 2007, included installing eight 75-ton anchors embedded in the ocean floor at Adak.
Missile Defense Agency officials spoke glowingly of SBX's technical capabilities.
"It is the most powerful radar of its kind in the world and will provide the (GMD) system a highly advanced detection and discrimination capability," Obering told the Senate's defense appropriations subcommittee on May 10, 2006.
Agency news releases touted SBX's ability to perform critical "hit assessment functions," informing U.S. commanders instantly whether rocket-interceptors had taken out incoming missiles.
At a Senate hearing on April 11, 2007, Obering was asked about the GMD system's ability to distinguish enemy missiles from decoys. He replied that SBX would help give the U.S. "a tremendous leg up" in this regard.
To emphasize his point, Obering testified repeatedly that SBX could see a 3-inch-wide object from across the continent.
"If we place it in Chesapeake Bay, we could actually discriminate and track a baseball-sized object over San Francisco," he told a Senate subcommittee on April 25, 2007.
Yet because of Earth's curvature, SBX would not be able to see a baseball at such a distance — about 2,500 miles — unless the ball was 870 or more miles above San Francisco.
That is about 200 miles higher than the expected maximum altitude of a long-range missile headed for the U.S., technical experts told The Times.
"In the practical world of ICBM (inter-continental ballistic missile) threats, this baseball analogy is meaningless," said C. Wendell Mead, an aerospace engineer who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel.
Obering, in an interview, said his remarks to Congress were intended not to mislead but rather to provide "a good layman's view of the range of the radar." He added, "The range of that radar is farther than anything else we had."
———
SBX's powers of magnification belied a fundamental shortcoming. The radar's field of vision is extremely narrow: 25 degrees, compared with 90 to 120 degrees for conventional radars.
Experts liken SBX to a soda straw and say that finding a sequence of approaching missiles with it would be impractical.
"It's an extremely powerful soda straw, but that's not what we needed," said Harvey L. Lynch, a physicist who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel.
In the event of an attack, land-based early warning radars could, in theory, identify a specific point in the sky for SBX to focus on. But aiming and re-aiming the giant radar's beam is a cumbersome manual exercise. In combat conditions, SBX could not be relied on to adjust quickly enough to track a stream of separate missiles, radar specialists said.
SBX's limitations make it "irrelevant to ballistic missile defense," said David K. Barton, a physicist and radar engineer who took part in the National Academy review and who has advised U.S. intelligence agencies.
"Wherever that beam can be pointed, it can cover whatever is within it," Barton said. "But obviously that isn't going to cover the whole Pacific for a stream of attacking missiles that are separated by many minutes. ... Even if there are only four missiles, (an adversary) could separate them."
Ronald T. Kadish, the Missile Defense Agency's director from 1999 to mid-2004, defended the decision to develop SBX, saying it was "four or five times" less expensive than installing land-based X-band radars.
Another "important consideration," Kadish said in an interview, was that the seaborne radar could be made operational quickly, without requiring the building of an X-band installation in Alaska or negotiating with foreign governments for other sites on land.
Kadish, a retired Air Force lieutenant general, said SBX "seemed to provide the basis for detection and discrimination that we were lacking."
The National Academy review, however, found that the missile agency "unnecessarily compromised the performance" of GMD by failing to make greater use of X-band radars on land. The panel's 2012 report said the homeland defense system's "discrimination problem must be addressed far more seriously."
A panel of the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, after a two-year review, reached a similar conclusion in 2011: "The importance of achieving reliable midcourse discrimination cannot be overemphasized."
To address this vulnerability, the U.S. had installed one land-based X-band radar in Japan in 2006, and a second was added in 2014. The two radars are well-positioned to detect launches from North Korea. Yet both would lose track of U.S.-bound missiles after about 930 miles because of Earth's curvature.
Barton said that to give rocket-interceptors enough time to knock out enemy missiles, U.S. radar would have to track the incoming weapons continuously after launch, "from cradle to grave."
———
One of SBX's intended functions was to participate in tests of the GMD system. A mock enemy missile would be launched over the Pacific, and SBX would track the target and guide rocket-interceptors.
The radar's performance in those exercises has fallen short.
During a 2007 test, "SBX exhibited some anomalous behavior," requiring "adjusted software," the Pentagon's Operational Test and Evaluation Office said in a report.
The report said SBX had not served as the primary radar for any test in which an interceptor had managed to destroy a target.
In January 2010, SBX was the sole radar for a test in which an interceptor tried to knock out a target launched from the Marshall Islands. SBX "exhibited undesirable performances that contributed to the failure to intercept," the Pentagon evaluation office reported.
Outside experts who had access to flight-test data from the 2010 test told The Times that SBX failed to "discriminate," mistaking falling chunks of unspent rocket fuel or other material for the target missile.
In a June 2014 test, an interceptor destroyed its target, but SBX's "hit assessment" did not reach commanders in control of the system, according to a report by the Pentagon's evaluation office.
In an attack, an immediate and accurate hit assessment would be crucial.
Patrick J. O'Reilly, director of the Missile Defense Agency from 2008 to 2012, explained why: Without the assessment, "the commanders could order the soldiers to shoot additional interceptors at targets that have actually already been destroyed — or to stop shooting at targets that haven't been destroyed," he said in an interview.
O'Reilly said it was "worrisome" that commanders did not receive the hit assessment in the 2014 test.
An agency spokesman, Richard Lehner, said an investigation into the matter is "nearing closure."
———
Senior military leaders had grown disillusioned with SBX years earlier. The vessel burned millions of gallons of fuel to power the radar or move about. It had to be resupplied at sea, and wind and salt water posed unrelenting challenges for sensitive instruments.
In 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates canceled plans to send SBX near the Korean Peninsula to monitor the launch of a North Korean test rocket. Gates said he could not justify the mission's cost, estimated at tens of millions of dollars.
The same year, O'Reilly decided that the radar belonged under the operational control of the Navy. "It was obviously part of a major weapon system at sea," he recalled.
The Navy's Pacific Command insisted on extensive modifications to bring SBX up to survival standards for combatant vessels. The cost ran to tens of millions of dollars — emblematic of the floating radar's tortuous history.
SBX was never based at its specially prepared Alaskan berth. In 2012, it was downgraded to "limited test support status."
In 2013, the radar sat idle in Pearl Harbor for more than eight months, records show.
To date, SBX has cost taxpayers about $2.2 billion, according to the Missile Defense Agency.
The government recently began seeking proposals for a new radar to help fulfill SBX's original purpose.
It will be installed in Alaska, on land. The target date is 2020, and the estimated cost is $1 billion.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-pentagons-dollar10-billion-bet-gone-bad/ar-AAaxz40?ocid=iehp
source: Real Time With Bill Maher
The Germans Aren’t Coming
If I were to say to you that the German Army is woefully underprepared and financed, you might say that’s a good thing. After all, if the German Army were strong and prepared, Greece would be annexed by now.
But the Washington Post recently ran a story about just how useless the German Army is, noting that, during a recent NATO exercise, Germans had to hide their lack of available arms by using broomsticks that they’d painted black in the place of mounted heavy machine guns. Which sounds like something the Iraqi Army would do. Additionally, “out of 89 German fighter jets, only 38 were ready for use.”
So the Germans can’t hold a proper missile parade. Maybe that’s not a bad thing. Because history.
But here’s why they can get away with not having a military that’s ready to fight: because we are their military. In 2013, Germany spent only 1.3 percent of its GDP on defense, because they don’t have to. Because we have their back. They can spend that money on infrastructure and green energy and those weird love festivals. America spends 3.8 percent (down from almost 5 percent in recent years) of its GDP on defense, and part of that is keeping nearly 40,000 troops stationed in Germany. Germany only has 181,000 active troops of its own, which means the size of its military doesn’t even rank in the top 20 globally. Deutschland under alles.
Well, Germany is a rich country. Maybe we’d like to spend less on their military and more on our own schools and infrastructure. And since it’s been 70 years since the end of WWII, and almost all the Nazis are dead or drooling somewhere in Paraguay, isn’t it time to revisit the idea of providing Europe with the military protection it can surely provide itself?
what a crock of nazi propaganda shit,
the nazis took over in 2000 what do you think
that whole bush stealing shit, and throwing
up a nazi pope..
that was a sign they are still in effect..
btw..
Nazi's and Zionist JEWS are fuck buddies..
Get the fuckin MEMO!!!
and they are all up in america, isreal,
and south africa..
besides south america..
propaganda, gives you a little truth, to
hit you with a load of bullshit..
Have no fear...
mrfreddy the peoples good bud
Is HERE!!
<iframe src="http://www.reuters.com/investigates/pentagon/#article/part2" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
source: Business Insider
Trump $54 billion defense increase dwarfs civilian agency budgets ...
Trump wants to cut $54 billion in spending from domestic agencies — that's enough to wipe several of them out
But as Business Insider's Linette Lopez pointed out, it's actually really hard to pay for increases in defense spending by targeting only domestic agencies outside major entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Indeed, according to the Fiscal Year 2017 US federal budget, the total estimated outlays for FY 2016 from the EPA, the State Department, and International Assistance Programs add up to about $55 billion, meaning Trump's budget would just about need to eliminate those agencies entirely to pay for the proposed defense increase.
It is worth noting that the president's budget proposals are only a starting point for the overall process of figuring out what the government will spend and how they will pay for it, and we still haven't even seen the full details of the White House's proposals.
But if the final proposal does include this defense increase, Trump will most likely need to find other ways to pay for it.
Trump $54 billion defense increase dwarfs civilian agency budgets ...
Trump wants to cut $54 billion in spending from domestic agencies — that's enough to wipe several of them out
- Feb. 28, 2017, 10:02 AM
But as Business Insider's Linette Lopez pointed out, it's actually really hard to pay for increases in defense spending by targeting only domestic agencies outside major entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Indeed, according to the Fiscal Year 2017 US federal budget, the total estimated outlays for FY 2016 from the EPA, the State Department, and International Assistance Programs add up to about $55 billion, meaning Trump's budget would just about need to eliminate those agencies entirely to pay for the proposed defense increase.
It is worth noting that the president's budget proposals are only a starting point for the overall process of figuring out what the government will spend and how they will pay for it, and we still haven't even seen the full details of the White House's proposals.
But if the final proposal does include this defense increase, Trump will most likely need to find other ways to pay for it.
The Art of the Deal . . .
source: The Seattle Times
Public companies received $1 billion in stimulus funds meant for small businesses
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, shown during a White House coronavirus briefing with President Trump, said this week that all loans of more than $2 million would be audited with potential penalties for those who don’t comply. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)
WASHINGTON – Publicly traded companies have received more than $1 billion in funds meant for small businesses from the federal government’s economic stimulus package, according to data from securities filings compiled by The Washington Post.
Nearly 300 public companies have reported receiving money from the fund, called the Paycheck Protection Program, according to the data compiled by The Post. Recipients include 43 companies with more than 500 workers, the maximum typically allowed by the program. Several other recipients were prosperous enough to pay executives $2 million or more.
After the first pool of $349 billion ran dry, leaving more than 80% of applicants without funding, outrage over the millions of dollars that went to larger firms prompted some companies to return the money. As of Thursday, public companies had reported returning more than $125 million, according to a Post analysis of filings.
Other companies have said they plan to keep the funds, saying the loans had been awarded according to the program’s rules and that they would use most of it to pay workers, as required, in order for the loans to be forgiven.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has defended the program as a success, saying three-quarters of the loans were for totals of under $150,000. But after the first batch of loans was issued, the administration also scrambled to release new guidance for the program to discourage large public companies from applying.
Officials have urged publicly traded firms with access to other capital to return the money by May 7. Mnuchin said this week that all loans of more than $2 million would be audited with potential penalties for those who don’t comply.
“I want to be very clear it’s the borrowers who have criminal liability if they made this certification,” of being a small business he said on CNBC.
The Small Business Administration has refused to release the names of companies that have received the loans, despite having released such information on its loan programs for years.
Some of the companies that received the loans were large in another way: Their CEOs have been making millions.
Veritone, a company based in Costa Mesa, California, that provides artificial intelligence technology, paid chief executive Chad Steelberg $18.7 million in total compensation in 2018, the last year for which data is available. His brother, Ryan Steelberg, the company’s president, made $13.9 million. The company received $6.5 million in funding from the program. The company did not respond to a request for comment.
At least two other companies with highly paid CEOs have said they will return the money. Each changed its stance on the loans after the Treasury Department issued guidelines discouraging companies “with substantial market value and access to capital markets” from accepting the money.
Aquestive Therapeutics, a New Jersey pharmaceutical company, paid CEO Keith J. Kendall $2.6 million in 2019. That company received $4.8 million from the program but has said it will return it.
“As a small business, we were happy to qualify for a PPP loan, as it was originally written and intended, to continue to employ and provide health coverage to our 219 employees located around the country and provide important medicines to these patients during this period of crisis,” the company said in a statement. “However, the new guidance issued on April 23 by the Federal Government appears to change the criteria for small businesses to qualify for the PPP loans.”
Wave Life Sciences, a genetic medicine company, paid CEO Paul B. Bolno $5.8 million in total compensation in 2018. The company received $7.2 million from the program but has decided to return it, too.
“We made this decision after the SBA issued new guidance that states, in effect, that public companies are not appropriate recipients of these loans,” the company said in a statement.
Chain restaurants and hotels were able to obtain tens of millions of dollars from the first pool of $349 billion in forgivable loans because Congress and the administration allowed multiple subsidiaries of large owners to each apply separately.
Those recipients include a group of hotel companies chaired by Monty Bennett, a Dallas executive and Republican donor, including Ashford Hospitality Trust and Braemar Hotels & Resorts. The companies used more than 100 filings to seek $126 million total and received $76 million.
On Friday, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., questioned how companies such as Ashford had received so much funding, writing to Jovita Carranzak, administrator of the Small Business Administration, to say that such companies “may be exploiting the Program to the detriment of small businesses around the country currently struggling to survive the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Some chains that have returned funds have done so at the expense of their workers. AutoNation, the Fortune 500 network of auto dealers, said last week that it would return the $77 million it received. The same day of the announcement, employees there said AutoNation put some workers back on furlough and rescinded wage guarantee deals to commission-based employees.
Marc Cannon, AutoNation executive vice president, issued a statement to The Post saying the pandemic had reduced sales by half and stores had rehired employees based on commitments of the federal program.
“It is regrettable that we must continue to mitigate the financial impact of COVID-19,” the company said. “Those employees who were being funded by PPP are being re-furloughed. There is no FORGIVABLE loan available anywhere to rehire 7,000 employees.”
Lindblad Expeditions, an operator of high-end cruises, also returned its PPP funds. The company initially said it planned to keep the money because it qualified for the loan and planned to use it to retain employees. On an earnings conference call Friday, chief executive Sven-Olof Lindblad repeated that the company met the application requirements, but said it would return the $6.6 million loan.
“We wanted to protect our employees for as long as possible,” he said, but added there had been “much negativity” around public companies that received the loans.
While much of the program’s criticism has focused on the relatively large companies that received the money intended for small businesses, there is some evidence that the program missed its target in other ways, too.
Research by academics at the University of Chicago and MIT indicates that the areas where small businesses have been most affected – New York and New Jersey, for example – were less likely to see loans from the program. The authors defined “most affected” using small-business employment data, cases of covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, and other factors.
According to the research, only about 15% of businesses in the congressional districts most affected by business losses were able to obtain PPP help; by contrast, in the least affected congressional districts, 30% were able to obtain them.
“The loans were disproportionately allocated to areas least affected by the crisis,” according to authors Joao Granja, Christos Makridis, Constantine Yannelis and Eric Zwick.
Public companies received $1 billion in stimulus funds meant for small businesses
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, shown during a White House coronavirus briefing with President Trump, said this week that all loans of more than $2 million would be audited with potential penalties for those who don’t comply. (Doug Mills/The New York Times)
WASHINGTON – Publicly traded companies have received more than $1 billion in funds meant for small businesses from the federal government’s economic stimulus package, according to data from securities filings compiled by The Washington Post.
Nearly 300 public companies have reported receiving money from the fund, called the Paycheck Protection Program, according to the data compiled by The Post. Recipients include 43 companies with more than 500 workers, the maximum typically allowed by the program. Several other recipients were prosperous enough to pay executives $2 million or more.
After the first pool of $349 billion ran dry, leaving more than 80% of applicants without funding, outrage over the millions of dollars that went to larger firms prompted some companies to return the money. As of Thursday, public companies had reported returning more than $125 million, according to a Post analysis of filings.
Other companies have said they plan to keep the funds, saying the loans had been awarded according to the program’s rules and that they would use most of it to pay workers, as required, in order for the loans to be forgiven.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has defended the program as a success, saying three-quarters of the loans were for totals of under $150,000. But after the first batch of loans was issued, the administration also scrambled to release new guidance for the program to discourage large public companies from applying.
Officials have urged publicly traded firms with access to other capital to return the money by May 7. Mnuchin said this week that all loans of more than $2 million would be audited with potential penalties for those who don’t comply.
“I want to be very clear it’s the borrowers who have criminal liability if they made this certification,” of being a small business he said on CNBC.
The Small Business Administration has refused to release the names of companies that have received the loans, despite having released such information on its loan programs for years.
Some of the companies that received the loans were large in another way: Their CEOs have been making millions.
Veritone, a company based in Costa Mesa, California, that provides artificial intelligence technology, paid chief executive Chad Steelberg $18.7 million in total compensation in 2018, the last year for which data is available. His brother, Ryan Steelberg, the company’s president, made $13.9 million. The company received $6.5 million in funding from the program. The company did not respond to a request for comment.
At least two other companies with highly paid CEOs have said they will return the money. Each changed its stance on the loans after the Treasury Department issued guidelines discouraging companies “with substantial market value and access to capital markets” from accepting the money.
Aquestive Therapeutics, a New Jersey pharmaceutical company, paid CEO Keith J. Kendall $2.6 million in 2019. That company received $4.8 million from the program but has said it will return it.
“As a small business, we were happy to qualify for a PPP loan, as it was originally written and intended, to continue to employ and provide health coverage to our 219 employees located around the country and provide important medicines to these patients during this period of crisis,” the company said in a statement. “However, the new guidance issued on April 23 by the Federal Government appears to change the criteria for small businesses to qualify for the PPP loans.”
Wave Life Sciences, a genetic medicine company, paid CEO Paul B. Bolno $5.8 million in total compensation in 2018. The company received $7.2 million from the program but has decided to return it, too.
“We made this decision after the SBA issued new guidance that states, in effect, that public companies are not appropriate recipients of these loans,” the company said in a statement.
Chain restaurants and hotels were able to obtain tens of millions of dollars from the first pool of $349 billion in forgivable loans because Congress and the administration allowed multiple subsidiaries of large owners to each apply separately.
Those recipients include a group of hotel companies chaired by Monty Bennett, a Dallas executive and Republican donor, including Ashford Hospitality Trust and Braemar Hotels & Resorts. The companies used more than 100 filings to seek $126 million total and received $76 million.
On Friday, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., questioned how companies such as Ashford had received so much funding, writing to Jovita Carranzak, administrator of the Small Business Administration, to say that such companies “may be exploiting the Program to the detriment of small businesses around the country currently struggling to survive the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Some chains that have returned funds have done so at the expense of their workers. AutoNation, the Fortune 500 network of auto dealers, said last week that it would return the $77 million it received. The same day of the announcement, employees there said AutoNation put some workers back on furlough and rescinded wage guarantee deals to commission-based employees.
Marc Cannon, AutoNation executive vice president, issued a statement to The Post saying the pandemic had reduced sales by half and stores had rehired employees based on commitments of the federal program.
“It is regrettable that we must continue to mitigate the financial impact of COVID-19,” the company said. “Those employees who were being funded by PPP are being re-furloughed. There is no FORGIVABLE loan available anywhere to rehire 7,000 employees.”
Lindblad Expeditions, an operator of high-end cruises, also returned its PPP funds. The company initially said it planned to keep the money because it qualified for the loan and planned to use it to retain employees. On an earnings conference call Friday, chief executive Sven-Olof Lindblad repeated that the company met the application requirements, but said it would return the $6.6 million loan.
“We wanted to protect our employees for as long as possible,” he said, but added there had been “much negativity” around public companies that received the loans.
While much of the program’s criticism has focused on the relatively large companies that received the money intended for small businesses, there is some evidence that the program missed its target in other ways, too.
Research by academics at the University of Chicago and MIT indicates that the areas where small businesses have been most affected – New York and New Jersey, for example – were less likely to see loans from the program. The authors defined “most affected” using small-business employment data, cases of covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, and other factors.
According to the research, only about 15% of businesses in the congressional districts most affected by business losses were able to obtain PPP help; by contrast, in the least affected congressional districts, 30% were able to obtain them.
“The loans were disproportionately allocated to areas least affected by the crisis,” according to authors Joao Granja, Christos Makridis, Constantine Yannelis and Eric Zwick.