Comments on: We’re From the Government. We’d Rather Pay for It.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:10:11 +0000

Should it not be insanely difficult to give things to the government? This would deter people from voluntarily subsidizing The Beast.

By: C. S. P. Schofield

C. S. P. Schofield — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:57:49 +0000

“Haines should use the marble to construct a monument to government waste.”

I would say he already has.

By: supercat

supercat — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:28:48 +0000

The city of Troy accepted a donation of a rather large wooden horse. It wasn’t “free”.

While I doubt that Mr. Haines intends anything bad by his donation, an general willingness to accept such donations would make the government vulnerable to those who would.

Mr. Haines should try to find someone who do the paperwork necessary to ‘sell’ the stone on a contingency basis. The government will probably want to have the stone assayed according to protocol XYZQ-7, and have a report from that assay included in the bid. The costs of performing the necessary work should be included in the bid price.

While such paperwork may seem wasteful, a lot of it is necessary to ensure that the stone is of good quality and that the government has clear and uncontestable title to it, both formally and informally. It’s important that Mr. Haine not be able to claim in any way that he did the government a ‘favor’.

By: Andrew Williams

Andrew Williams — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:16:10 +0000

“Fuckin’ fuck these fuckin’ fucks.”

Quoted for truth.

By: Andrew Williams

Andrew Williams — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:13:57 +0000

John Haines did the right thing and is now getting a verbal beatdown from the gov’t? And this is supposed to dissuade from not cheating on my taxes and not badmouthing these stupid motherfuckers?

By: Furious George

Furious George — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:58:57 +0000

It’s funny that no one here wants to blame the legislative branch. They pass the laws that govern federal procurement. These are implemented through the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). There can be serious punishment to those who violate the procurement laws especially if one is a warranted Contracting Officer. So please, let’s quit letting our legislators off the hook in these comments.

By: bozbob

bozbob — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:45:25 +0000

Radley distorts the picture here. The donation is $31,000 for the marble, the $2million for sculpting would still be paid. Getting the marble donated creates a liability problem. If something goes wrong the $2million spent on sculpting could be lost with no legal recourse against the supplier. With the normal bidding process the government would have recourse against the vendor. Taking shortcuts around well defined procurement process is usually a penny-wise pound-foolish bargain. This is why any well run business has a well defined procurement process.

By: A.G. Pym

A.G. Pym — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:16:45 +0000

If he really wants to get it to them, he should just drop an anonymous tip to the right ears that someone had smoked a joint while standing next to it; the next thing you know, the American Military Cemetary Commission’s SWAT team will show up and excercise their right to establish forfeiture – and there it’ll be! (As long as there’re no dogs hanging around the quarry).

By: andyinsdca

andyinsdca — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:51:33 +0000

That makes as much sense as the city of Boston accepting a $5K windmill/turbine that produces a tiny amount of electricity (enough to power 19 lightbulbs) then getting a $8K fine for not bidding out the thing, etc.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_09_10_Wind_turbine_plan_spins_out_of_control

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:35:18 +0000

The actual marble is the smallest part of the total price.

80K for bidding.

One has to assume that involves actually verifying that the selected block is usable for the project, as well as allowing for a fair bidding process.

90K to purchase and transport the block.

This can only be done after the block is selected and verified. How do they know the block in question is usable for the project?

Then the lion’s share of the cost:
2.03 MILLION for carving the block into the actual monument.

So… just for fun… Let’s assume they accept the guy’s donated block without going through the procurement process. And…

Oops! It’s too short! Or, Oops! It’s not right for whatever reason. It’s a can of worms.

The ACTUAL donation is 31K, plus a promise of transportation donated from other sources. And that involves no guarantee that the block is even usable for the project.

I wouldn’t accept it, either. Noone with any sense would. I would tell the guy to put in a bid of 31K for the block. In addition, I wouldn’t accept the ‘donated transportation’ either. I would line up the best transport possible.

By: Heidi

Heidi — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:02:55 +0000

Perhaps he could start a non-profit corporation to establish a “Tomb of the Unknown Taxpayer” and donate the slab of marble to it.

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:49:19 +0000

#13. well said. If I could give you 50 thumbs up, I would. Fuck these fucking fucks.

By: Dave_D

Dave_D — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:49:51 +0000

If they don’t want it he could sell it back to the quarry and send me the money. At least he would make one veteran happy. Oops, I don’t need it now. I just got an email saying I’ve won 1.4 mil in a lottery I didn’t even enter. Isn’t the internet wonderful?

By: Mike T

Mike T — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:19:16 +0000

Better that the government spend $170,000 merely to solicit a bid, then another $2.2 million on the actual marble, because who knows what kind of bargain marble Haines is donating?

Actually, it’s because they have to appear to be fair and not taking any sides. Under the current system, if the US were under invasion, and you offered them enough 30.06 rifles, magazines and ammo to outfit a batallion for a year, for free out of patriotism, they would accept it on the grounds that it was an unbid contract.

Number 1 in Battlestar Galactica said it best: “bureaucracy MUST be served.”

By: chance

chance — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:12:36 +0000

Also, after looking up what I believe to be the applicable regulation, I believe there is no reason (legal or bureaucratic anyway) to deny the donation. Here is the reg:
(from AR290-5)
1–10. Donations.
a. Policy. Under Department of the Army policy, proffered donations or gifts for beautifying Army national
cemeteries may be accepted from legitimate societies and organizations or from reputable individuals, subject to the
following provisions:
(1) The society, organization, or individual does not associate the name of the Department of the Army in any way
with soliciting for the donation or gift.
(2) Delivery is made to the cemetery or to another point designated by the Department of the Army without expense
to the Government.
(3) Installing, constructing, placing, or planting is in keeping with the planned development of the cemetery and the
donor agrees to the use of the gift at any designated place within the cemetery.
(4) The donor is not permitted to affix any commemorative tablet or plaque to the items donated or to place one in
the cemetery or elsewhere on Department of the Army property.
b. Processing. All proffers of donations to Army national cemeteries will be referred to HQDA (DAAG–PEM),
WASH DC 20314, with the recommendation of the cemetery superintendent as to the action to be taken.
c. Conditional gifts. The Secretary of the Army is authorized, at his discretion, to accept, receive, hold, administer,
and expend any gift, devise, or bequest of real or personal property on condition that the item be used for the benefit
of, or in connection with, the operation, maintenance, or administration of the two national cemeteries under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. The Adjutant General will take appropriate action on conditional gifts as
prescribed in AR 1–100.
d. Unconditional gifts. All proffers or donations of gifts which are unconditional will be accompanied by a report
stating all material facts in connection with the source, nature, and purpose of the gift.

So unless his donation violates one of these rules, I believe they should be free to accept it.

By: chance

chance — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:53:42 +0000

Another point is that there is still a great deal of controversy over whether the tomb monument in fact needs replacing at all. In the opinion of many, repair is the better option.

By: Billy Beck

Billy Beck — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:48:51 +0000

“Maybe he should start etching the names of all the fallen soldiers from Iraq into the marble and then deliver it to the steps of the Capitol.”

As far as that goes, he might as well just spray-paint the goddamned thing full of commie-bromide graffiti-bites and dump it in front of some big-ass bureaubot-hive around town. (Department of Education might work.) Call it “art” and go have a beer.

Fuckin’ fuck these fuckin’ fucks.

By: Michael Chaney

Michael Chaney — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:44:10 +0000

I’m with Zappa – I think somebody already has a seller lined up.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:36:57 +0000

Sorry, but the government has a point here. Suppose they do accept it, and at some point in the future it becomes well known that this guy was responsible for it. What if he demands that his name be displayed somewhere on the tomb? It may be an unreasonable request, but it won’t stop people from demanding that the government show gratitude. At the very least he will receive alot of ‘free’ publicity for sponsoring something this well-known.

Would it be fair for him to receive that kind of publicity and/or free advertisement? Might it not eventually prove to be worth more to him than the cost he paid for the marble? I don’t know, but I hope you see my point.

There are a million other reasons why the gesture cannot be accepted. So, I think that as much as the gesture is appreciated, the guy would be better off making a donation to Veteran’s Assistance or some other benefit.

By: HD

HD — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:29:11 +0000

Not to defend bureaucrats, but almost every bureaucratic rule regarding procurement at any company/agency/department got put in place because someone abused the system. It’s easy to imagine that this rule was instituted because someone tried to drive a competitor out of business by donating a similar product until the other guy went broke. The problem is trying to outline all human conduct by making new rules, instead of having judgement, but that’s what bureacrats do. Newspaper headlines don’t make allowances for subtleties of judgement.

Yes, someone ought to have the authority to say “This is ok”, but it’s easy to see that authority being abused also.