 |
The Homeland Security Department has done a poor job overseeing the purchase of billions of dollars of equipment and technology since the agency was created five years ago, according to a federal report scheduled for release today.
Senior department officials have “not provided the oversight needed” to ensure that purchases “with important national security objectives” function properly and stay on budget, according to Congress’ Government Accountability Office (GAO)…
Oversight? From a government run by prayer and pundits?
Although previous audits have documented problems with individual programs, the GAO report is the first to review Homeland Security’s overall system of buying and maintaining $60 billion of new equipment and technology…
The report found that 45 of 48 major acquisitions were not reviewed regularly by a Homeland Security oversight board created to do the reviews. Fourteen of those projects had cost overruns, delays and shortcomings in how they functioned.
The GAO blamed oversight problems on insufficient Homeland Security staff and limited attention paid by senior department officials.
In other words, Homeland Insecurity has been led by incompetents with the attention span of a cricket.
When Obama is in charge, he will likely fire the top 250 people in charge of this fiasco of an agency.
>> Oversight? From a government run by prayer and pundits?
You forgot “partisan hacks”
No matter how many people Obama fires we will feel the effects of ‘W’ for a long time to come. Unfortunately the new guy will get the blame after enough time elapses.
I believe the Homeland Security is a farce and should be discontinued. By doing away with it, the new administration would protect itself from forward retribution.
#1 “When Obama is in charge, he will likely fire the top 250 people in charge of this fiasco of an agency.”
…and then replace them with 500 equally incompetent Democrats.
If Obama wants real “change” – he should just eliminate the entire DHS agency. Has the DHS or TSA done anything since 9/11 that has made us safer?
One of the people in that picture actualy served two terms in congress for Georgia. Does anyone know which one?
#5 Chuck said
“#1 “When Obama is in charge, he will likely fire the top 250 people in charge of this fiasco of an agency.”
…and then replace them with 500 equally incompetent Democrats.”
You beat me to it.
But…. by inconveniencing millions of people, a few ……….”feel safer”. Such BS!
I am sorry to report that Obama’s (reported) leading choice for the head job in DHS is Ariz governor Janet Napolitano. This is a woman who governs based on political correctness as well as expediency. It is widely believed she consults the polls prior to wiping her ass and even with two hands has been known to miss. By executive decree and against all advice, she renamed an historic landmark in Phoenix. Why? To honor the first Native Am female soldier killed in Iraq. She replaced a name that historic meaning with one most people cannot pronounce. Why? Headlines. It got her national exposure. I believe most Arizonans would say the government has been a shambles since she took office. That said, I guess she can’t screw it up much more than Chertoff has.
So, only 14 of 48 major projects went over budget or were held with delays? I’d put them in charge of the Pentagon or GM.
@6 Les
That would Ben Jones aka Cooter I believe.
Gee, #8 – it must be a stretch for a real American like you to have to honor a Native American woman whose name you can’t pronounce.
I guess we should go back to more statues of dead white people.
Nimby’s view of Governor Napolitano is not shared by the majority of Arizonans. I’m glad I was with the majority in voting for her, myself.
(By the way, what’s so hard about “Piestewa?” Pie-ess-tuh-wah. Easier than some non-Indian names, like Brzezinski, ain’t it?)
#10, we have a winner.
Recall it was Democrats who pushed Bush “to do something” to bring overarching control to the many federal bureaucracies. Bush resisted creating Homeland Security but later agreed.
Though I’m not saying that Bush ran it right. Just typical government.
But what makes anyone think Obama will do better? Oh that’s right – HOPE.
He will make the feds so efficient at everything else. All waste, corruption, etc. in government will be gone. That’s not HOPE – that’s a MIRACLE.
We need only turn to the many fine examples of good he did here in Chicago and Illinois. Much to be hopeful for…
#8, you mean AZ has been in shambles with Napolitano and not like really stable with Mecham and Symington, huh? Hey, how about Joe Arpaio as head of DHS? A low profile smoothie like him would do a bang up job!
#15
Joe will have all terrorists in pink underwear by sundown.
Lets see…
MONEY going to a company to do a JOB, that dont get done??
WHO got the money??
Profit??
Arpaio would be great. Napolitano was busy vetoing all efforts to crack down on illegal immigration.
What’s with that picture? The Dukes had a perfect record of oversight against people with more power, with spectacular outside-the-box thinking for foiling all threats.
I can just don’t get it. Here the Bush Administration has come to totally symbolize inefficiency, disregard for law and regulation, giving high priced contracts to friends, and screwing up beyond belief. Yet there are still those that want to suggest Obama’s Administration, which is still two months away from office are to blame. Too funny.
Lyin’ Mike,
Still trolling.
…doin’ a heck of a job, Chertoff.