In this post, I wanted to hit on a little bit of history in regards to contracting. I think it is important that today’s US tax payers get what they pay for and I do not find fault with this kind of ‘accounting’ scrutiny. I also salute what Truman did back in the day in regards to cutting wasteful spending with contracting companies, and it certainly saved this country a lot of money. And with that said, I do think that today’s Commission on Wartime Contracting Establishment(S.1825) is important–but with a few stipulation.
Invariably these things are more political than just pure business. It’s Capital Hill, and that is what makes the machine move. So I am happy that this proposed Commission is bi-partisan. If this commission can be more like Truman’s, and remain as objective as possible, then I would be happy and I applaud that effort. I will be saddened if this process turns more into a With Hunt, stacked with personal agendas. Honest scrutiny and debate is what the country deserves about this subject, and the end product should be the result of objective hard work. My smart monkey instincts says that this commission will be more ‘politics as usual’.
The other thing that worries me about this Commission, is who will set the pay scales as to what is the proper payment for a contracted security specialist overseas? The government, the companies, who? It has always been a mystery to me, as to what the standard is and most of the companies I have worked for were all over the place with pay and benefits. And that is why I am hoping that this commission will be honest in their assessment of what security contractors are truly worth, and in evaluating what the true cost of doing business in today’s wars is. If the companies are punished in some kind of politically motivated ‘Witch Hunt’, then what will the trickle down effect be for the guys overseas doing the protecting and dying for US government clients? And most importantly, how will this impact the war effort and the security of these US government clients?
And seeing how security contractors really have no union representation on the Hill, then I could totally see how our voice would be just a murmur in this debate. I am sure the big companies have plenty of lobbyists on the Hill fighting for them, and that is great. But for the little guy, I have not seen anything that has impressed me as far as a voice in this field of giants.
I have seen a few unions pop up, with some attempt to organize, but overall there really isn’t much out there. The two unions I have seen are the Pipe Hitters Union and SEIU . I am sure there are others, but I really haven’t heard of any kind of voice for the guys overseas. I could be wrong, and if the readers know of any other unions or associations that are fighting for overseas security contractors specifically, I would love to hear about them. (With SEIU, they are more of a domestic union that is fighting for guards here in the US.)
Now one thing everyone can do, is send letters to your local politicians and to the members of the commission. The letters should be respectful and to the point. The members of this commission are:
Clark Kent Ervin, Grant Green, Linda Gustitus, Dean Popps, Michael Thibault, Charles Tiefer, Dov Zakheim and of course you could also contact Jim Webb or Claire McCaskill(these two came up with the commission)
Below I have posted the details about this latest move in DC, and the history of the Truman Commission. I hope I have come across as objective as possible in this article, and I have no intention of offending anyone. My only intent is to make sure everyone out there knows what is going on. –Head Jundi
——————————————————————
Commission on Wartime Contracting Establishment Act S.1825
* Introduced: July 18, 2007
* Status: Introduced
* Next step: Voted on by Senate
* Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
* Sponsor: Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
——————————————————————
Truman Committee
Truman gained fame and respect when his preparedness committee (popularly known as the “Truman Committee”) investigated the scandal of military wastefulness by exposing fraud and mismanagement. The Roosevelt administration had initially feared the Committee would hurt war morale, and Under Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson wrote to the president declaring it was “in the public interest” to suspend the committee. Truman wrote a letter to the president saying that the committee was “100 percent behind the administration” and that it had no intention of criticizing the military conduct of the war. The committee was considered a success and is reported to have saved at least $15 billion. Truman’s advocacy of common-sense cost-saving measures for the military attracted much attention. In 1943, his work as chairman earned Truman his first appearance on the cover of Time. He would eventually appear on nine Time covers and be named the magazine’s Man of the Year for 1945 and 1948. After years as a marginal figure in the Senate, Truman was cast into the national spotlight after the success of the Truman Committee.