Tag Archives: spending

Costly Support

Posted on by
Reply

A bunch of Republican Congressmen object to the increasing cost of the US’ support for Ukraine’s fight against the Russian barbarian, and barbaric, invasion.

From the WSJ‘s front page teaser to the article:

Some lawmakers and a growing share of the American public are skeptical about how much US taxpayers should continue to fund Ukraine’s defense.

It’s a valid concern, but those Republicans are missing the larger problem. The cost has been, to a very large extent, artificially inflated by the Biden administration’s conscious decision to slow-walk, and on too many occasions to outright bar, delivery of the weapons Ukraine needs at the time the Armed Forces of Ukraine needs them and in the amounts the AFU needs them so they could defeat the Russian invasion and drive the barbarian back out much more promptly.

Dragging the war out, the way Biden has done and continues to do, not only runs up the financial cost, it runs up the casualty count of Ukrainian soldiers and Ukrainian civilians.

And it’s been dragged out—those weapons deliveries hold-ups—for two reasons. One is Biden’s timidity: he’s terrified of provoking Putin.

Here is General Philip Breedlove, former SACEUR Commander, quoted by Edward Hunter Christie:

Modern manoeuvre warfare, just like we taught the Ukrainians, starts with battlefield air superiority. Have we given Ukraine what they need to establish battlefield air superiority? No. No, we have not. And so you can be critical all you want, you just sort of demonstrate your lack of understanding of what manoeuvre warfare is and how it begins, and so let me just add one other big example. Manoeuvre warfare, and I would tell you especially American commanders, counts on long-range precise fire. We fight to hold the the enemy at risk before [stresses], before he brings his force to bear on us. We use long range precision strikes to strike them and then if they still persist in attacking, to strike them in depth. In depth and to strike them all along their lines of communication and supply lines before they can actually meet us, even after they begin an attack. And then we use long range precise strike to hold all the transhipment points, airfields and everything else, at risk when the fight is going on. Have we given Ukraine the ability to do that? The answer is no, we have not, and worse yet we in the West have forbidden Ukraine from using any of the kit that we give them to strike deeply and to hit the enemy before the enemy can bring his forces to bear on Ukraine. We have built sanctuary all the way around Ukraine. On the map, from Belarus in the Northwest all the way around through the East into Russia, all the way into the South, into the Black Sea, we have forbidden Ukraine from using our kit to strike into Russia and so [it] amazes me that people expect them to do manoeuvre warfare under that. So here’s my answer that was all to set the stage for my answer: we should give Ukraine what we would take to the battlefield. We should give Ukraine what it needs to set conditions on the battlefield like we would set conditions on the battlefield. We’re expecting Ukraine to fight a world superpower shorthanded and certainly demonstratively short of the kind of kit that we would use to fight that superpower.

I think, though, that Christie is being generous: this administration failure isn’t so much do to any ivory tower theoriticals so much as it’s due to Biden’s terror of Putin’s harsh rhetoric.

The other is arrogantly stupid: DoD Know Betters insist they know what Ukraine needs better than the AFU does, even though the AFU is the force actually in field facing the barbarian. These Wonders of the Puzzle Palace, comfortable and safe in their summer and winter climate-controled offices, are so full of their precious theories–Christie is correct to this point–that they have no contact with the realities of the battlefield inflicted on the Ukrainians by the barbarian.

Ukraine might not survive another year of Biden’s timidity or of Republicans’ misapprehension of the problem.

That’s the true cost.

Oil Buyback

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden now plans to buy 2.7 million barrels of oil to put back into our oil strategic reserve.

Couple things about that.

We had 630 million barrels of oil in our strategic reserve before Biden took office and started selling it to the People’s Republic of China while claiming he was doing it to slow the gasoline price inflation his spending was causing. As recently as 24 November last, our reserve was down to 351 million barrels. According to my second grade arithmetic, that means Biden had reduced our reserve by 279 million barrels in just those two years and 10 months. My third grade arithmetic tells me that those 27 million barrels he’s buying for the reserve is just 1% of what he’s taken out of it. Which makes buying that oil an insulting effort to distract us with his pretense of refilling our reserve after his dangerous reduction.

The other thing is that he’s buying that oil at $79/barrel, which means he’s spending $213.3 million to buy that 1%. To replace all 279 million barrels, he’ll have to pay more than $22 billion at those $79 per. When the prior administration (the Trump administration for those following along at home) refilled the reserve after the Obama admin draw-down, Trump’s buyers paid $30-$55 per barrel. Call it, for this back of the envelope estimate, an average of $42.5 per barrel. At that price, Biden could replace the oil he removed for a total cost of $11.8 billion dollars. Bidenomics is going to cost us ordinary American taxpayers more than $10 billion at today’s actual price. That is, if Biden follows through on refilling our strategic oil reserve.

Update: third grade arithmetic tells me that those 27 million barrels should have been third grade arithmetic tells me that those 2.7 million barrels. Fershlugginer keyboard….

Heat Pump Efficacy

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve mentioned earlier the level of energy efficacy of heat pumps. Here is an example of the level of fiscal efficacy of heat pumps. The fronted lede:

A two-year project to convert a public housing building to an electrically powered heat pump system is nearing completion on the Upper West Side. The 58-year-old 20-story tower at 830 Amsterdam Avenue (100th Street), part of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) Frederick Douglass Houses development, is being retrofitted to provide heating, cooling, and hot water for residents—and to serve as a possible template for converting more of the 2,410 buildings NYCHA maintains citywide.

The strewn about and buried lede:

The $28 million project….
…
…to replace the aging boilers at 830 Amsterdam Avenue with a heat pump system, called variable flow refrigerant, that would deliver heat, hot water, and cooling to the building’s 159 units.

According to my third-grade arithmetic, and using up all my fingers and toes, that works out to $176,100 per unit.

Then there’s this:

If the 830 Amsterdam project is deemed successful, it could be repeated at other buildings operated by NYCHA or private landlords.

Successful by what measure? That’s certainly not a financial success.

Even accounting for the intrinsic fiscal inefficiency of government projects, this is an expensive template; more, it’s just foolish and negligently wasteful. And disastrous for the city’s taxpayers and for those private landlords. And that’s on top of the city’s taxpayers already seeing truly essential services, like policing and facilities for homeless residents (however inefficiently this one is done by a government), severely financially curtailed in favor of another virtue-signal, housing for illegal aliens in the sanctuary city.

I Have a Thought

Posted on by
Reply

(Yeah, yeah)

The Energy Department’s Office of the Inspector General says that the Department

faces major management challenges ranging from hacking vulnerabilities to foreign espionage and could create “massive new risks to the taxpayer” as it spends tens of billions of dollars in new spending from President Joe Biden’s signature infrastructure initiative[.]

The OIG goes on to say that the fraud risk is similar to the realized fraud from the Federal government’s Wuhan Virus Situation (my term, not OIG’s) spending, where taxpayers now lost an estimated $200 billion government wide.

The OIG also noted that

Fast money must be balanced against the need for thoughtful and effective internal controls and independent audits[.]

In truth, this sort of thing isn’t limited to DoE’s current plan or to the government’s Wuhan Virus response. It’s all too typical of government spending programs.

Here’s my thought. Balancing fast money with thoughtful and effective internal controls and independent audits is necessary, but insufficient. There must be attention-getting sanctions applied, also, for failure to perform, both ante facto and especially post facto.

Congress should, under its dozen allocation bills, proceed with allocations to DoE—and to the other Departments and Agencies—but with these requirements: the funds allocated will be withheld from actual disbursement to the Departments and Agencies until they certify that they have instituted controls that will greatly mitigate the ability for fraud to occur.

Then, if after the allocated funds are disbursed, fraud is discovered greater than, say $5 million dollars in any Department or Agency, that facility will have its subsequent year’s operating budget reduced by the amount of the fraud. If fraud is again discovered in the second year, that facility will have its operating and its personnel budgets each reduced by the accumulated amount of fraud, less any that was recovered from the prior year. In each subsequent year, the facility will have its operating and personnel budgets—again each of them—reduced by the amount of accumulated net fraud.

The facility must either shape up or disappear. The only facilities that can’t actually disappear, though they can be substantially reduced, are the constitutionally implied Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury. The rest of the Departments and all of the Agencies in the Executive Branch are later creations of Congress in conjunction with the President, and they can be eliminated by Congress if they prove unable to control their own fraud.

That will be hard to effect politically, but it’s a Critical Item fiscally.

Disregard and Pass Their Own

Posted on by
Reply

DoD has submitted a budget request that includes $114 million for diversity, equity, and inclusion claptrap [emphasis added].

The Defense Department’s fiscal year 2024 budget request shows the federal agency’s emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion, including “ensuring accountable leadership with continued emphasis and investments in sexual assault and harassment prevention, suicide prevention, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA), and Insider Threat Programs.”
The DOD document shows that DEI is at the forefront of DOD policy.
[The request said] The Department will lead with our values—building diversity, equity, and inclusion into everything we do[.]

And this:

Six months ago, President Joe Biden asked for cuts in federal spending for border control [and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas defended them], which had lawmakers asking questions about why the president was reducing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) budget when the border was out of control.
[Now,] Mayorkas told the House Homeland Security Committee last week that his department was “under-resourced” and needed $14 billion in emergency funding to address the situation at the border.

These are two more reasons for the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to simply and routinely ignore Biden administration budget requests as wholly unserious. The House, instead, should put together its own budget de novo and pass its own dozen allocation bills within that framework.