Pentagon Lost Billions, Pennies At a Time

Hugh Pickens writes "MSNBC reports that in 1969, Walter T. Davey, an aeronautical engineer at North American Rockwell, discovered he was being overpaid by roughly 2 cents an hour, or one-third of 1 percent of his pay. Davey submitted the discovery to his superiors and suggested a simple fix. 'It was so simple to correct,' said Davey, a 79-year-old retired Air Force colonel, 'just change a few digits in the coding software.' The Project on Government Oversight, which reviewed Davey's findings last year, estimated the change could save taxpayers $270 million a year. Multiply by 40 years — the length of time since Davey made his discovery — and the figure grows to an astounding $10.8 billion. Legislators ignored Davey's letters, federal auditors deferred to Congress, and lobbyists 'descended on it and tore it into a piece of Swiss cheese' but legislators aren't eager to challenge the powerful defense lobby about a figure that's a relative pittance in the overall defense budget — even if it exceeds $100 million annually. 'A lot of people have taken advantage of the system to reap as much in taxpayer dollars as possible,' says Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight. 'But when you're going up against the contractor lobby — whether you're an individual across the country or a public interest group or a government employee — it's a tough road.'"

Comments

The two cents extra..

[jDeepbeep]

... was compensation for the time he spent participating on /. while at work.

Re:It's not directly comparable

[theaveng]

>>>4 cents placed in a plain-old savings account would actually also equal a dollar today.

That's zero growth in wealth. 4 cents could buy you a hamburger back in 1910, and if it grows to a dollar over one hundred years, well it still only buys you a hamburger. Not something to brag about.

>>>Invested in bonds or an index fund, that $0.04 would now be worth $9

Unless I was German, in which case the 1910 bond would now be worthless paper, due to the devaluation of their currency during the 1920s. I would feel more secure buying gold in 1910, such that even if the government collapses, the metal still holds value.

>>>Inflation drives the economy forward.

It makes the numbers bigger, but I don't see any real increase in wealth. As I mentioned before an ounce of gold in 1910 or 2009, still buys you a new suit. The numbers printed on the ticket grew larger, but the real value of the commodity has not altered or "moved forward".