Slashdot Mirror
Dissecting a $231 Million High-Tech Boondoggle
The L.A. Times takes to task the U.S. Congress, the Obama administration, and various military agencies for their combined role in supporting the expenditure of vast amount of money on a system called the Precision Tracking Space System. All told, according to the paper, the PTSS program -- which was to have provided early warning of missile launches, and precision tracking of the missiles themselves -- ended up blowing through more than $230 million before being cancelled. After talking to defense experts and reviewing hundreds of documents, the Times comes to what probably sounds like an easy conclusion for any big-budget military program that never reaches operation: it shouldn't have even left the drawing board.
I'm waiting for Wall Street to repay the country for causing the Great Recession. I was out of work for two years (2009-10), underemployed (working 20 hours per month) for six months, and filed for chapter seven bankruptcy in 2011. I'm still trying to recover from that five years later.
For government projects, isn't $231M "never leaving the drawing board"?
blame sub prime housing loans, enacted under president Clinton for the majority of what happened there. I was in the exact same boat
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I blame Bill Clinton for repealing the Glass-Seagall Act, which turned boring old banks into high octane casinos. But Wall Street is ultimately responsible for pushing the repeal and gaming the system.
In addition to all the other comments about $231 million being chump-change, recognize something else about advanced technological research: sometimes it doesn't pan out.
That doesn't mean that we should never try to research new things though. Not everything can be discovered the way the Japanese like to do it, through hundreds of small polishes to an existing working design. Sometimes you need to think big to make a real breakthrough.
I would also put this story and some of the kneejerk responses to it in the category of "why the US isn't as successful as it once was". If the 60s were like today, with anti-science teabaggers controlling half of congress, would we have made a manned mission to the moon? Especially given that every one of those missions could easily have ended in disaster?
No people. Even the vaunted Solyndra failure came out of a program that overall had a better success rate than most private funding, and in the end, not only advanced technology, it made a considerable profit for the taxpayer. The willingness to scream and cry and throw tantrums by the anti-technology/pro-fundamentalist haters, every time some risk doesn't come out out 100% perfectly, is a cancer on the body politic. And we're sinking due to the over caution that results.
large uncontrolled budget, with unlimited spending increases, and zero common fiscal sense.
In terms of military budgets, $230M is nothing. We have other boondoggles that have burned through a thousand times that. In fact, this program is such a trivial amount, I suspect it is being emphasized to distract people from the real waste. The F35 program burns through $230M every three days.
A typical republican budget plan.
This program was proposed by the Obama administration, and passed by congress with plenty of votes from both parties.
Prob is, he signed off on it to get other shit done and didn't think about the repercussions.
Not quite. Citigroup was in technical violation of the Glass-Seagall Act when it bought Travelers Insurance. Not surprisingly, the Citigroup CEO was a campaign contributor to Bill Clinton. As well all know too well, money speaks loudly to the Clintons.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/12/investing/citigroup-john-reed-glass-steagall/
so you are saying the republicans killed this boondoggle, yet you are going to make the claim that they only did it because...obama?
is there anything, anything at all that is obamas fault to folks like you??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Yes they were voting against absolutely everything back then because...obama - please try to keep up.
Spite is a very childish way to run an opposition and shows utter contempt for the country but it can be effective at times.
The recession was inevitable, and we still haven't dealt with all of the fallout. Sub prime housing loans were the straw that broke the camels back, but even that is only a symptom of a much larger underlying problem.
Economists don't understand the economy. They are experts at trying to explain why banks, debt and money don't matter. When in the real world, they matter a great deal.
Until economists study and understand the actual role of bank debt, and act to constrain lending to constructive activities, we will continue to make the same mistakes.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
wondering why housing loans are cheaper than school loans, which anyone can tell you a home has value, an associates in womens studies has none
Student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy court. Another perk that the Wall Street lobbyists wrote for themselves. Private student loans have higher interest rates than federal student loans because the banks want to milk their borrowers for every dime that they can legally get. Student loans should be cheaper than housing loans since an education is an investment in the future.
Prior to the Great Recession, Wall Street analysts considered it impossible for homes to lose value as most price drops were limited to regional markets. That assumption got turned upside when the entire housing market in the United State went kaput. A neighborhood of empty houses are quite worthless to the banks.
And Bush for idly watching the whole thing happen through two terms in office? And the bankers for ignoring the many warnings from their quants?
Not everyone has enough for a nest egg of safety.
When 75% of your income goes to rent the cheapest place you can find you aren't going to have a lot left overto live on.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
No, it's because the federal government has the business sense of a lump of clay.
If the government had any business sense whatsoever, it would banish the predatory banks from the student loan market and make past student loans eligible for refinancing at lower interest rates. Student loans are the next ticking time bomb in the economy. Only the government can step in to relieve the pressure before it blows a hole in the economy.
Investments are intended to have a positive return.
I wish Wall Street would apply that standard during the run up to the Great Recession. So many subprime loans and Collateralize Debt Obligations (C.D.O.s) wouldn't have been issued, as requiring positive returns is the opposite strategy of maximizing fees and damning the consequences.
Allowing someone to borrow money so they can party for a few years isn't an investment in the future.
The country doesn't need anymore lawyers. We need more plumbers, electricians and carpenters.
TL;DR: it wasn't Clinton's fault, moron.
Never mind that the Clintons are still hip deep with Wall Street, the CEO of Citibank/Travelers was a campaign contributor, and the Clintons still deny to this that the repeal has anything to do with financial crisis.