Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

30 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. overpaid? by notgm · · Score: 5, Funny

    he made $6.00 an hour, and he was complaining about being overpaid?

    nice.

    1. Re:overpaid? by sopssa · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, as a tax payer he probably get fed up paying too much taxes towards his own salary.

    2. Re:overpaid? by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

      My parents bought their first apartment for 6000 pounds back in 1966. Today, the same property is worth around 200,000 pounds. Salaries followed a similar path. $6/hour then would be like $20/hour now.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:overpaid? by srealm · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl .. $6/hr in 1969 is equivalent to $34.78 today. I read it on the internet, so it must be true! :P

      So not too shabby. Not omgwow!, but not exactly minimum wage either.

    4. Re:overpaid? by Madball · · Score: 4, Informative

      This was 1969. $6.00/hr (12,522/year) wasn't so bad. Equivalent in 2009 dollars is $34.87/hr (72,773/year).

    5. Re:overpaid? by Carbonite · · Score: 5, Informative

      His salary was equivalent to about $70,000 today, which isn't too shabby (though hardly "overpaid"). Also, the article mentioned that there was a financial incentive for discovering ways to save money. Davey admitted that he was hoping to get some award from his discovery.

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    6. Re:overpaid? by mangu · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your parents did a very good business. After correcting for inflation, those 6000 pounds became 80000, which means your parents got 6.5% / year interest in real value plus free rent for over 40 years.

    7. Re:overpaid? by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      6000 pounds back in 1966. Today, ... 200,000 pounds. ..$6/hour then would be like $20/hour now.

      Nice, only off by an order of magnitude. Try $200. A pity salaries have not increased like house prices.

    8. Re:overpaid? by Arthur+B. · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Both funny and insightful.

      To put it another way, government employees don't pay taxes, they're payed out of taxes. The fact that they fill out taxes is merely an accounting trick.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    9. Re:overpaid? by David+Chappell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you have to be carefull comparing old prices in the uk because of the change in the value of the pound though decimalisation

      How did decimilizing the pound change its value? It seems to me that only the value of the pence changed.

      (Under the pre-decimal system, there are 20 shillings in a pound and 12 pence in a shilling which makes 240 pence in a pound. After decimilization, there are 100 new pence in a pound.)

  2. Oblig.... by pHus10n · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Ok! Ok! I must have, I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit! I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail."

  3. Michael Bolton.... by VinylRecords · · Score: 3, Funny

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/

    Sounds like the plot to Office Space but in reverse order.

    1. Re:Michael Bolton.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sounds like the plot to Office Space but in reverse order.

      Richard Pryor has something to say to you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Michael Bolton.... by sveard · · Score: 5, Funny

      aka Richard Pryor Art

  4. Ironic, really... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In all likelihood, it will be our own military contractors, too politically powerful to reign in, who will eventually destroy our military effectiveness. We can spend as much as we like(and we already do) but, so long as our spending is a mixture of "what Raytheon feels like producing" and "the ultimate weapon against the forces of the evil empire rolling across Europe in alternate-1979" it won't do nearly as much good as we would like.

    I wonder if this is how the Romans felt?

    1. Re:Ironic, really... by bertok · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also, don't forget that anything major project is managed according to this chart. :-)

      Now the fun part... Try and find the boxes in the diagram where something functional actually gets built!

      Correct link: http://www.dau.mil/pubs/IDA/chart%20front.pdf ... and I have to say: wow.

      This is why military projects start at $billions and go up from there.

  5. CPI in 1969 by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can get the official consumer price index, from 1913 up to now here. $6 in 1969 would translate to approximately $36 today.

    For older historical data, plus many other interesting historical data about prices and economic indicators, this site is very interesting.

  6. Military Contracts!!! by copiedright · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This issue could be considered more of a scapegoat for the horrendous spending and poor budget management of the many poorly managed defense contracts over the last 40 years. Trust me, 10 Billion pales in comparison to what has been directly wasted. Also, 10 Billion dollars may seem a lot, but given its based around 40 years it cuts it down quite a bit.

  7. Show the small waste to mask the Trillions by elkto · · Score: 3, Informative

    Er, you mean force workers into Unions to control them using a open ballot system. Hmmmm, billions since 1969 vs trillions in his first 100 days. Defense vs. Wealth redistribution.... Hmmm.....
    Me thinks people should be skeptical of your type...

    1. Re:Show the small waste to mask the Trillions by gerglion · · Score: 3, Funny

      Larry, Moe, and Curly?

      --
      I know you have come to kill me.
      Shoot, coward. You are only going to kill a man.
    2. Re:Show the small waste to mask the Trillions by theaveng · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>Too bad [Bush] had to inherit the problems created under the 8 years of [Clinton].

      Fixed that for ya. Bush inherited not only a dot-com crash from Clinton, but also the headache of Saddam and Bin Laden. So as long as you're going to be giving Obama a "free pass" and blame today's problems on Bush, then we should give Bush a free pass and blame those problems on Clinton.

      By the way I hate them all. I haven't liked any of our presidents since the Ronald Reagan/Bush Senior combo. Not that they were perfect, but they were far more capable than the bozos we've had since 1993. The next best president prior to them? Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrats.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    3. Re:Show the small waste to mask the Trillions by shma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bush inherited not only a dot-com crash from Clinton, but also the headache of Saddam and Bin Laden.....I haven't liked any of our presidents since the Ronald Reagan/Bush Senior combo.

      For someone who likes Reagan and hates Clinton you don't seem to know much about them. It was Reagan who allied himself with Saddam Hussein and gave him money and weapons. From wikipedia:

      The Reagan administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion in aid in the 1980s to fight Iran, nearly all of it on credit. The U.S. also sent billions of dollars to Saddam to keep him from forming a strong alliance with the Soviets. Saddam's Iraq became "the third-largest recipient of US assistance".

      Reagan's support for the Mujahadeen also played a role in giving Bin Laden more power:

      Alhough there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war.

      So before you start blaming Clinton for everything, you might want to read up a bit on your history.

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    4. Re:Show the small waste to mask the Trillions by Chabo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we just all agree that we haven't had a good president in at least 60 years?

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  8. Re:Money wasn't lost by MrMr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're the guy that thought up both the credit swaps and the bailout for Wallstreet right?
    Without specifying your 'goods and services paid' your 45$ is worth exactly 1$ + Vapour.

  9. It's not directly comparable by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Be careful of these numbers. The range of goods and services available today are different, and this makes comparisons hard to evaluate. In 1969 my father earned about $5/hour. To live in the same house today with the same living standard, with his kids attending the same sort of schools and going to the same sort of university, he would need to earn around $100. This feels about right because his grandchild, in the same kind of job (but where pay rates have increased in real terms) earns nearer to $200/hour. This is because overall living standards have changed upwards. So my feeling is that $120/hour is nearer the mark.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  10. Re:People misunderstand the purpose of spending by omeomi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Contrary to popular belief, the main purpose of most government spending is simply to create new money. This allows subsequent credit expansion and "growth".

    That theory starts to break down when the money your government is spending actually belongs to China...

  11. King of the Capitol Hill by RevWaldo · · Score: 5, Funny

    This sounds like a "King of the Hill" episode, writ large.

    "No, Peggy, you don't understand! They're OVERPAYING ME! I'm stealing from the government, I tell you what! And I can't get them to stop! It keeps me up at night, I tell you what!"

    Forty years later: A Colonel shows up at Hank's door.

    - "Mr Hill? We've responded to your letter, and it turns out you were right. We have been overpaying you all this time."
    - (sighs.) "I always knew this day would come." (hold out his wrists) "I'll come along quietly."
    - "No, no, Mr. Hill! You don't understand. We're implementing the fix you suggested. It'll save the government millions of dollars a year. We just wanted to thank you!"
    - "Oh. Huh. Well, thank you sir. But in that case, can I at least give you back the money?"
    - "I beg your pardon?"
    - "Wait here." (Hank goes to his garage, wheels out a 50-gal drum on a hand truck.) "I've been putting the extra pennies in here since 1969, I tell you what. And now I'm ready to return it."
    - (smiles) "No, you go ahead and keep that. We're cool." (leaves)
    - "Alright! I can go to college now!"
    - "Bobby, go to your room!"
    - "I'm 45 years old! You can't make me go to my room!"
    - "Now, mister!"
    - "Aw.."

  12. Re:Money wasn't lost by mangu · · Score: 3, Informative

    You should study something about economics. Start here.

  13. I'm not quite sure I understand. by sunking2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This guy doesn't work directly for the government. I'll assume its cost plus work that he's doing, so Rockwell charges his hours directly back to the government. However, they don't charge his hourly rate, they charge Rockwells hourly rate for his job position, which is more than his personal calculated take home (or Rockwell would be making no money on his work). So the real losers here would seemingly be Rockwell as they have to pay him out of their pool of money and the $0.02/hr would come out of their profits.

    Employees don't have individual rates. It typically goes by job title/position, ie: assoc engineer time is worth $120/hr, senior is worth $200/hr (purely made up numbers, not sure on the actual rate or title names), etc.

    If its not cost plus then this is even more confusing as Rockwell is working to a contract dollar value and any extra pay again would come out of their profits. The accounting doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Unless this is some special case in which the numbers of people it would affect would seem pretty small.

  14. Re:Besides that... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actors:
    Arnold Schwarzenegger's salary for The Terminator: $75,000
    Arnold Schwarzenegger's salary for The Terminator 2: $15,000,000
    Arnold Schwarzenegger's salary for The Terminator 3: $30,000,000 + 20% of the profits (about 117 million).

    Arnold Schwarzenegger's salary as governor: $206,500 - which he waived cause he already earned over 230 mil. (that is without these 117 T3-millions) over his 30 years in the movies.
    Indicating that he himself felt that he was being overpaid already.

    Same guy, same role, 400 times the original pay.
    Sure, sequels made a lot more money but still - $147,000,000 for a year's work? That is almost $17000 per hour - including being paid for sleeping, eating etc.

    Singers:
    Britney Spears makes about $737,000 per month. That comes out to about $1024 per hour. (Is that a kilobuck or megabuck?)
    Again - getting paid for sleeping.

    HOW is that not overpaid?

    And let us not even start with football, baseball, soccer and other enthusiasts who are little more than overpaid manual labor.
    Getting millions for kicking a ball around? Fuck that! That is not work.
    That is why you never hear about a "job" or "work" or "assignment" of basketball.
    What were the words they use? Aaah.. yes!
    They PLAY a GAME.

    The only group of professional actors/entertainers (IMHO) who are not being overpaid (and are actually underpaid) are porn actors and actresses.
    Anyone who does not agree - you try "performing" in front of cameras for hours and then upload that online for all to see.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens