Your 2014 Tax Dollars At Work

[Bocefish]

Some of the things our illustrious government has chosen to spend your tax dollars on:

Watching grass grow – $10,000

State department tweets @ terrorists – $3 million

Swedish massages for rabbits – $387,000

Paid vacations for bureaucrats gone wild – $20 million

Mountain lions on a treadmill – $856,000

Synchronized swimming for sea monkeys – $50,000

Pentagon to destroy $16 billion in unused ammunition -- $1 billion

Scientists hope monkey gambling unlocks secrets of free will –$171,000

Rich and famous rent out their luxury pads tax free – $10 million

Studying “hangry” spouses stabbing voodoo dolls – $331,000

Promoting U.S. culture around the globe with nose flutists – $90 million

With no one watching over the vast bureaucracy, the problem is not just what Washington isn’t doing, but what it is doing.” Dr. Coburn said. “Only someone with too much of someone else’s money and not enough accountability for how it was being spent could come up some of these projects.”

“I have learned from these experiences that Washington will never change itself. But even if the politicians won’t stop stupid spending, taxpayers always have the last word.”

Congress actually forced federal agencies to waste billions of dollars for purely parochial, political purposes.

For example, lawmakers attached a rider to a larger bill requiring NASA to build a $350 million launch pad tower, which was mothballed as soon as it was completed because the rockets it was designed to test were scrapped years ago. Similarly, when USDA attempted to close an unneeded sheep research station costing nearly $2 million every year to operate, politicians in the region stepped in to keep it open.

Full report here.


http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/ind ... a0895a9579

 

[LilyEvans]

While I appreciate that the government does not always spend tax dollars wisely, this paper (article? Magazine?) is intentionally sensationalist.

For example, if you read the "Swedish Massage for rabbits" portion, you'll find that the objective was the study the effects of massage on recovery after periods of exercise. Their findings were that rabbits who received Swedish massage recovered more quickly than rabbits who received other types of massage, or no massage at all. This magazine posits that the money could have been better spent in human trials rather than animals trials, yet I have a feeling that in that case they would still express shock and outrage that the government is spending our tax dollars giving Swedish massage to lazy college students who participate in medical trials for money (P.S. Human trials would likely be more expensive for that reason, and since humans are more difficult to control than lab rabbits could likely have outside influence that skew the results of the experiments.)

Similarly, the section on gambling chimps is clearly research that could lead to better understanding and treatment of gambling addictions. While some people would feel that this is money wasted, many would agree that it's a worthwhile endeavor if you phrase it differently than "Scientists hope monkey gambling unlocks secrets of free will", which sounds like a ridiculous ad you'd see under a Buzzfeed article. Moreover, the cost of these trials is $171,361, over the course of 5 years: from 2013-2018. That breaks down to just $34,272 per year which, in the big scheme of tax dollars, frankly is a drop in the bucket.

Then there's the strange tone of the article; there's mention of a National Endowment for the Arts grant to a children's theater producing a family-friendly zombie musical called "Zombie in Love":

While zombies are popular among
young adults, parents probably question
whether a story about the “undead” eating
brains is for children since these aren’t the
typical subjects of tales by Dr. Seuss or other
popular children’s fiction over the years. The
TV series “The Walking Dead,” for example,
“carries a rating of TV-MA, which defines the
content as a program intended for viewing
by people 17 and older.”209 And the recent
reanimation of the “Night of the Living of
Dead” was rated R, in part, for “bloody horror
violence.”210 While “Zombie in Love” is more
lighthearted than these with a more upbeat
message, the underlying premise still may
not be the most age-appropriate story for a
children’s theater.

I mean...really? Don't you think the word ZOMBIE in the title would alert parents who wish to keep their children's brains free of the undead that the musical contained...zombies? Moreover, comparing it to The Walking Dead and Night of the Living Dead is like comparing Sesame Street to Wilfred because they both have a guy in an animal costume.

Again, I definitely do not believe that the government is wholly (or even partially, most of the time) responsible with Americans' dollars, but to present the information in a sensationalist manner is doing a disservice to that argument. There's already plenty of things wrong with federal spending without the need to make decent and necessary things sound like frivolity.

 

[JickyJuly]

Who removes the mountain lion from the treadmill? I wonder how much that job pays.

 

[Bocefish]

While I appreciate that the government does not always spend tax dollars wisely, this paper (article? Magazine?) is intentionally sensationalist.

For example, if you read the "Swedish Massage for rabbits" portion, you'll find that the objective was the study the effects of massage on recovery after periods of exercise. Their findings were that rabbits who received Swedish massage recovered more quickly than rabbits who received other types of massage, or no massage at all. This magazine posits that the money could have been better spent in human trials rather than animals trials, yet I have a feeling that in that case they would still express shock and outrage that the government is spending our tax dollars giving Swedish massage to lazy college students who participate in medical trials for money (P.S. Human trials would likely be more expensive for that reason, and since humans are more difficult to control than lab rabbits could likely have outside influence that skew the results of the experiments.).

From what I understand, this has been an ongoing study for years. http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/ne ... es-recover

I could probably condone it ONCE if necropsies were required for whatever reasons. However, the funding could have easily been obtained from other sources such as the professional sports industry where one player can make several million dollars a year. After all, who will ultimately benefit from the study? I can guarantee you soldiers will never get free swedish massages after a tough mission or wicked workout, lol.

As to the sensationalism, he is also trying to sell his book and attract as many readers as possible.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[LilyEvans]

While I appreciate that the government does not always spend tax dollars wisely, this paper (article? Magazine?) is intentionally sensationalist.

For example, if you read the "Swedish Massage for rabbits" portion, you'll find that the objective was the study the effects of massage on recovery after periods of exercise. Their findings were that rabbits who received Swedish massage recovered more quickly than rabbits who received other types of massage, or no massage at all. This magazine posits that the money could have been better spent in human trials rather than animals trials, yet I have a feeling that in that case they would still express shock and outrage that the government is spending our tax dollars giving Swedish massage to lazy college students who participate in medical trials for money (P.S. Human trials would likely be more expensive for that reason, and since humans are more difficult to control than lab rabbits could likely have outside influence that skew the results of the experiments.).

From what I understand, this has been an ongoing study for years. http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/ne ... es-recover

I could probably condone it ONCE if necropsies were required for whatever reasons. However, the funding could have easily been obtained from other sources such as the professional sports industry where one player can make several million dollars a year. After all, who will ultimately benefit from the study? I can guarantee you soldiers will never get free swedish massages after a tough mission or wicked workout, lol.

As to the sensationalism, he is also trying to sell his book and attract as many readers as possible.

:twocents-02cents:

The problem with getting funding from private organizations is that they often want a very specific result, which can compromise the data they collect. Since this study is being conducted by The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health, my hope is that studies like this could lead, in future, to more people being treated through massage therapy in lieu of addictive narcotics. If Swedish massage turns out to be such an effective therapy, one hopes that this research could lead to massage being covered by health insurance-- yes, even for soldiers. Of course, that could just be wishful thinking on my part.

As far as the guy selling books-- well, you have a point there. I still think it's little more than sleazy clickbait, but most things are these days. Shakespeare gotta get paid, son.

 

[Bocefish]

[The problem with getting funding from private organizations is that they often want a very specific result, which can compromise the data they collect.

Yeah, lobbyists never pay politicians to approve funding for a swayed result study. :lol:

Just sayin'

 

[dilligaf0]

While I appreciate that the government does not always spend tax dollars wisely, this paper (article? Magazine?) is intentionally sensationalist.

For example, if you read the "Swedish Massage for rabbits" portion, you'll find that the objective was the study the effects of massage on recovery after periods of exercise. Their findings were that rabbits who received Swedish massage recovered more quickly than rabbits who received other types of massage, or no massage at all. This magazine posits that the money could have been better spent in human trials rather than animals trials, yet I have a feeling that in that case they would still express shock and outrage that the government is spending our tax dollars giving Swedish massage to lazy college students who participate in medical trials for money (P.S. Human trials would likely be more expensive for that reason, and since humans are more difficult to control than lab rabbits could likely have outside influence that skew the results of the experiments.)

Similarly, the section on gambling chimps is clearly research that could lead to better understanding and treatment of gambling addictions. While some people would feel that this is money wasted, many would agree that it's a worthwhile endeavor if you phrase it differently than "Scientists hope monkey gambling unlocks secrets of free will", which sounds like a ridiculous ad you'd see under a Buzzfeed article. Moreover, the cost of these trials is $171,361, over the course of 5 years: from 2013-2018. That breaks down to just $34,272 per year which, in the big scheme of tax dollars, frankly is a drop in the bucket.

Then there's the strange tone of the article; there's mention of a National Endowment for the Arts grant to a children's theater producing a family-friendly zombie musical called "Zombie in Love":

While zombies are popular among
young adults, parents probably question
whether a story about the “undead” eating
brains is for children since these aren’t the
typical subjects of tales by Dr. Seuss or other
popular children’s fiction over the years. The
TV series “The Walking Dead,” for example,
“carries a rating of TV-MA, which defines the
content as a program intended for viewing
by people 17 and older.”209 And the recent
reanimation of the “Night of the Living of
Dead” was rated R, in part, for “bloody horror
violence.”210 While “Zombie in Love” is more
lighthearted than these with a more upbeat
message, the underlying premise still may
not be the most age-appropriate story for a
children’s theater.

I mean...really? Don't you think the word ZOMBIE in the title would alert parents who wish to keep their children's brains free of the undead that the musical contained...zombies? Moreover, comparing it to The Walking Dead and Night of the Living Dead is like comparing Sesame Street to Wilfred because they both have a guy in an animal costume.

Again, I definitely do not believe that the government is wholly (or even partially, most of the time) responsible with Americans' dollars, but to present the information in a sensationalist manner is doing a disservice to that argument. There's already plenty of things wrong with federal spending without the need to make decent and necessary things sound like frivolity.

Just to clarify, this was written by Republican politician Tom Coburn.

 

[Sevrin]

The destruction of ammunition was probably done because it was considered no longer safe to use. The armed forces need to stockpile ammunition because it takes longer to make than it does to use, should an occasion to use it arises.

 

[Bocefish]

The destruction of ammunition was probably done because it was considered no longer safe to use. The armed forces need to stockpile ammunition because it takes longer to make than it does to use, should an occasion to use it arises.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... e/8145729/

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to destroy more than $1 billion worth of ammunition although some of those bullets and missiles could still be used by troops, according to the Pentagon and congressional sources.

It's impossible to know what portion of the arsenal slated for destruction — valued at $1.2 billion by the Pentagon — remains viable because the Defense Department's inventory systems can't share data effectively, according to a Government Accountability Office report obtained by USA TODAY.

The result: potential waste of unknown value.

"There is a huge opportunity to save millions, if not billions of dollars if the (Pentagon) can make some common-sense improvements to how it manages ammunition," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. "Despite years of effort, the Army, Navy and Air Force still don't have an efficient process for doing something as basic as sharing excess bullets. This Government Accountability Office (GAO) report clearly shows that our military's antiquated systems lead to millions of dollars in wasteful ammunition purchases."

The Army and Pentagon, in a statement, acknowledged "the need to automate the process" and will make it a priority in future budgets. In all, the Pentagon manages a stockpile of conventional ammunition worth $70 billion.

The effect of inaccurate accounting of ammunition for troops at war was outside the scope of the study. However, there were limited supplies at times of .50-caliber machine gun and 9mm handgun ammunition at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a senior military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk about the issue.

"We simply cannot afford this type of waste and ineffectiveness," Carper said. "The (Pentagon) has a responsibility to efficiently manage its ammunition stocks, not only because it is important to be fiscally responsible, but also because our antiquated ammunition inventory systems can shortchange our war fighters and compromise their ability to complete their mission."
---------------------------------------

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/28/why-is-t ... mmunition/

USA Today reports:
Other key findings from the report:

• The services have inventory systems for ammunition that cannot share data directly despite working for decades to develop a single database. Only the Army uses the standard Pentagon format; “the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps operate with formats that are obsolete.”

• The services hold an annual conference to share information about surplus ammunition and swap bullets and other munitions as needed. Data about ammunition left over after the meeting disappears from the books, resulting in an unknown amount of good bullets headed to the scrap heap.

• The Army, although required by regulation, had not reported annually on its missile stockpile until last month, shortly before the GAO study was to be released.

The report illustrates the obsolete nature of the Pentagon’s inventory systems for ammunition. A request for ammunition from the Marine Corps, for example, is e-mailed to the Army. The e-mail is printed out and manually retyped into the Army system because the services cannot share data directly. Not only is this time consuming, but it can introduce errors — by an incorrect keystroke, for example.
The result of this destruction of ammunition not only signifies the presence of an absurd, redundant bureaucracy, but might also signify a concerted effort by the government to drive up the price of ammunition by making it scarcer.

Just days ago, the U.S. Postal Service announced that they are looking for distributors to sell them assorted small arms ammunition. Last year, the Social Security Administration purchased 174,000 rounds of .357 jacketed hollow-point bullets. The Department of Agriculture requested 320,000 rounds and recently, the Department of Homeland Security requested 450 million rounds and the FBI requested 100 million rounds.

Even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration got in on the action and requested 46,000 rounds. Why a weather service needs ammunition remains unclear.

Whether intentional or not, the byproduct of these ammo purchases means less ammunition on the shelves of stores, less ammunition in the hands of civilians and higher costs for those lucky enough to find ammunition.

Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz , recently noted that the DHS is purchasing enough ammunition to allow for each person to use roughly 1,000 more rounds of ammo per person than the U.S. Army. “It is entirely … inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition,” said Chaffetz.

 

[Red7227]

The destruction of ammunition was probably done because it was considered no longer safe to use. The armed forces need to stockpile ammunition because it takes longer to make than it does to use, should an occasion to use it arises.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... e/8145729/

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to destroy more than $1 billion worth of ammunition although some of those bullets and missiles could still be used by troops, according to the Pentagon and congressional sources.

It's impossible to know what portion of the arsenal slated for destruction — valued at $1.2 billion by the Pentagon — remains viable because the Defense Department's inventory systems can't share data effectively, according to a Government Accountability Office report obtained by USA TODAY.

The result: potential waste of unknown value.

"There is a huge opportunity to save millions, if not billions of dollars if the (Pentagon) can make some common-sense improvements to how it manages ammunition," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. "Despite years of effort, the Army, Navy and Air Force still don't have an efficient process for doing something as basic as sharing excess bullets. This Government Accountability Office (GAO) report clearly shows that our military's antiquated systems lead to millions of dollars in wasteful ammunition purchases."

The Army and Pentagon, in a statement, acknowledged "the need to automate the process" and will make it a priority in future budgets. In all, the Pentagon manages a stockpile of conventional ammunition worth $70 billion.

The effect of inaccurate accounting of ammunition for troops at war was outside the scope of the study. However, there were limited supplies at times of .50-caliber machine gun and 9mm handgun ammunition at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a senior military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk about the issue.

"We simply cannot afford this type of waste and ineffectiveness," Carper said. "The (Pentagon) has a responsibility to efficiently manage its ammunition stocks, not only because it is important to be fiscally responsible, but also because our antiquated ammunition inventory systems can shortchange our war fighters and compromise their ability to complete their mission."
---------------------------------------

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/28/why-is-t ... mmunition/

USA Today reports:
Other key findings from the report:

• The services have inventory systems for ammunition that cannot share data directly despite working for decades to develop a single database. Only the Army uses the standard Pentagon format; “the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps operate with formats that are obsolete.”

• The services hold an annual conference to share information about surplus ammunition and swap bullets and other munitions as needed. Data about ammunition left over after the meeting disappears from the books, resulting in an unknown amount of good bullets headed to the scrap heap.

• The Army, although required by regulation, had not reported annually on its missile stockpile until last month, shortly before the GAO study was to be released.

The report illustrates the obsolete nature of the Pentagon’s inventory systems for ammunition. A request for ammunition from the Marine Corps, for example, is e-mailed to the Army. The e-mail is printed out and manually retyped into the Army system because the services cannot share data directly. Not only is this time consuming, but it can introduce errors — by an incorrect keystroke, for example.
The result of this destruction of ammunition not only signifies the presence of an absurd, redundant bureaucracy, but might also signify a concerted effort by the government to drive up the price of ammunition by making it scarcer.

Just days ago, the U.S. Postal Service announced that they are looking for distributors to sell them assorted small arms ammunition. Last year, the Social Security Administration purchased 174,000 rounds of .357 jacketed hollow-point bullets. The Department of Agriculture requested 320,000 rounds and recently, the Department of Homeland Security requested 450 million rounds and the FBI requested 100 million rounds.

Even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration got in on the action and requested 46,000 rounds. Why a weather service needs ammunition remains unclear.

Whether intentional or not, the byproduct of these ammo purchases means less ammunition on the shelves of stores, less ammunition in the hands of civilians and higher costs for those lucky enough to find ammunition.

Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz , recently noted that the DHS is purchasing enough ammunition to allow for each person to use roughly 1,000 more rounds of ammo per person than the U.S. Army. “It is entirely … inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition,” said Chaffetz.

All large bureaucracies have a level of redundancy and inefficiency that is often not worth the trouble of fixing. A billion dollars to destroy how many years of ammunition stockpiles is a very simple and efficient way of resolving an issue by their usual standards. 20 billion dollars on diesel fuel to air condition tents in Iraq in 2007, or the appalling waste of trillions of dollars the F35 program has already cost, makes a billion on destroying ammo look positively sensible.

 

[Bocefish]

[All large bureaucracies have a level of redundancy and inefficiency that is often not worth the trouble of fixing. A billion dollars to destroy how many years of ammunition stockpiles is a very simple and efficient way of resolving an issue by their usual standards. 20 billion dollars on diesel fuel to air condition tents in Iraq in 2007, or the appalling waste of trillions of dollars the F35 program has already cost, makes a billion on destroying ammo look positively sensible.

That's one way to look at it OR you could fix the damn problems and stop wasting billions!

 

[Red7227]

[All large bureaucracies have a level of redundancy and inefficiency that is often not worth the trouble of fixing. A billion dollars to destroy how many years of ammunition stockpiles is a very simple and efficient way of resolving an issue by their usual standards. 20 billion dollars on diesel fuel to air condition tents in Iraq in 2007, or the appalling waste of trillions of dollars the F35 program has already cost, makes a billion on destroying ammo look positively sensible.

That's one way to look at it OR you could fix the damn problems and stop wasting billions!

If its that simple you fix it.

In 2007 the US spent 626 billion maintaining its bases over the world. That is about 500 million per person stationed on those bases per year, but sure, you complain about 1 billion spent destroying ammo stocks.

 

[Bocefish]

[All large bureaucracies have a level of redundancy and inefficiency that is often not worth the trouble of fixing. A billion dollars to destroy how many years of ammunition stockpiles is a very simple and efficient way of resolving an issue by their usual standards. 20 billion dollars on diesel fuel to air condition tents in Iraq in 2007, or the appalling waste of trillions of dollars the F35 program has already cost, makes a billion on destroying ammo look positively sensible.

That's one way to look at it OR you could fix the damn problems and stop wasting billions!

If its that simple you fix it.

In 2007 the US spent 626 billion maintaining its bases over the world. That is about 500 million per person stationed on those bases per year, but sure, you complain about 1 billion spent destroying ammo stocks.

This is far from the only thing that pisses me off and it's not that fucking hard to fix. This type of bullshit waste as part of doing business is unacceptable. Cut off a select few OIC future benefits or advancement potential until it gets fixed and you'd be amazed how fast shit can happen.

 

[Red7227]

This is far from the only thing that pisses me off and it's not that fucking hard to fix. This type of bullshit waste as part of doing business is unacceptable. Cut off a select few OIC future benefits or advancement potential until it gets fixed and you'd be amazed how fast shit can happen.

Its normal for all bureaucracies to some degree. Unfortunately the average human is an idiot and so your average organisation is going to be staffed primarily by idiots. Its always possible to see how a system could be improved, but in practice the idiot tax makes things much harder than it should be. Petty politics is the basis of every organisation no matter what its actual purpose is, and the Peter Principle* means that the majority of managers are incompetent in their roles, while the average staff member is a back biting self absorbed moron only interested in their next pay cheque and how much stationary they can steal.



* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

 

[ACFFAN69]

The destruction of ammunition was probably done because it was considered no longer safe to use. The armed forces need to stockpile ammunition because it takes longer to make than it does to use, should an occasion to use it arises.

Not really related to this thread, but the destruction of ammunition brought to mind the crazy pictures of the giant airplane graveyards that retired planes go to waste away.

 

[MintyFlowers]

Just going on what Lily said in her first post, a lot of time, funding for scientific research is misrepresented in the news.

http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=17791