Month: November 2022

by

Why Is Government So Expensive


For decades Republicans ran for office on the idea that they could bring about smaller, less expensive government. This, of course, was largely unachievable goal. Why? From the earliest days of our country, the necessity of a strong central government was tantamount to holding together 13 diverse states. When Washington took the reins of our new country, he was what was then called a “Federalist.” It was largely the only political party in the early days of the United States. Those who opposed it were call the “anti-Federalists.” In the federal elections of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ran for the presidency against John Adams calling himself a “Democratic Republican.” Upon winning, he kept his promise by first reducing the size of our Navy to an unsustainable small size.

My expertise on this topic comes from having spent 30+ years employed by the Federal Government, 11 years of which was on active duty in the Army. Additionally, I hold a master’s degree in U.S. History. The Federal Government is responsible for working for the good of the entire nation in which the 50 states are seen as one. All government, from local to federal, exists in part to spend monies gain via taxes of all color.

How does government spend money. Let’s take the U.S. Military’s spending. For fiscal year 2023, the Federal Government has allocated $773 billion. The Defense Department must spend that entire amount by September 30, 2023 or lose it. The Defense Department has certain expenses where it can “spend” its money immediately. That is, paying for all employees to include soldiers for that year. The way all parts of the government spends money is that, in the simplest terms, it says it has given those monies to the soldiers and all DoD personnel. After that, it is sort of difficult process of contracts. In 2022, that amount was $338 billion. (www.usaspending.gov)

Throughout its history the Federal Government has relied heavily on the private sector to meet its needs. For example, from its earliest days, the military has relied upon companies like Smith & Wesson, Springfield Amory, Colt, and others for the latest advancement in guns. The DoD decided it needed a gun to replace the M-16 which the Colt company had been manufacturing since the mid-1960s. It told Colt what it wanted in the new gun, the M-4. The DoD awarded Colt a contract to do the research and development for the new rifle. In my non-accurate, for argument’s sake only, the government award Colt a contract right at the beginning of that year $10 million based on Colt’s proposal for how much that year’s R&D budget. There existed a back-and-forth conversation between Colt and the Federal Government. In June the DoD tells Colt it needs to make a major modification in$1 the specification for that new gun. Colt takes that and by year’s end the government has awarded, and Colt has spent $9 million. That $1 million dollars is required to be sent back to the U.S. Treasury. Now in the new fiscal year Colt tells the DoD that it still needs that $1 million dollars from the previous year plus another $15 million. The Federal Government later that year makes another major change and Colt says it is going to need an additional $4 million. That becomes $4 million of unbudgeted spending. Take that example and spread it among its 3.5 million budgets it spends each year and you can start to see where the excesses come in. Politicians and the public alike see this as government waste. The Federal Government has 226 separate agencies that need funding.

At its lowest level, a government contract can take 100s man-hours of work. Next, that agency puts the contract out for bid. The idea that the government must take the lowest bid is erroneous. There are hundreds of companies that via experience, the government has declared habitually underperforming. These companies are not banned from bidding on the contract, but the awarding agency can use the information to take a bid which is higher than that of the underperforming company. But there is a process by which the government is not hamstrung with annual budgeting which would allow for lower long-term costs. That is, by awarding monies to a different Federal Department the money needed to fund a project. This is called “industrial spending” but is a little used tool.

I worked at the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center in Cambridge Massachusetts. For 2/3 of my career there I worked exclusively on DoD funded projects, the last 1/3 on FAA projects. The Volpe Center does not appear on the Federal Budget for what is called “line item” spending. That is, when the DOT puts in its annual budget, the Volpe Center is not listed. That is because the entirety of the Center’s budget comes from contracts awarded to it from other agencies. When those agencies give the Volpe Center its money, the U.S. Treasury sees that as money spent and therefore not bounded by a fiscal year. That is, let’s say the DoD gives Volpe a $50 award. During the fiscal year Volpe only spends $20 of the awarded money. Because the Treasury sees this as spent money, the Volpe Center is not required to return the money to the Treasury. I am suggesting that the entire Federal Government if it found ways to “spend” its money in a matter where it does not have to budget each year for certain programs.

Another way to reduce “waste” is via a process called IV&V, independent validation and verification. This is simply an oversight by another agency to ensure that its awarded monies are being spent in the most cost-effective ways. IV&V is a method where a single person can oversee a large contract at a very low cost. That is, the cost of using IV&V far outweighs the cost were it not used.

The most visible effect of using the above processes is that waste, fraud and abuse can be easily managed if not entirely eliminated in any single contract. It would be a wise move for all portions of the Federal Government to understand exactly how the Volpe Center works and apply it to its own agencies.

by

Revitalizing AMTRAK


There was a time, prior to the Interstate Highway System, that rail travel reigned supreme. Post-World War 2 saw an end to that when the Eisenhower administration took the German idea of the Autobahn and applied it to America. To be clear, this was vital to America’s growth and has proven itself over the decades. But now with oil prices constantly increasing, and the Interstate system in desperate need of a huge influx of cash for repairs alone, we must consider alternative transportation.

In 1971 at AMTRAK’s inception, the idea was to keep intercity passenger rail service alive as private railroads were abandoning service. But AMTRAK made itself unattractive from its inception as it pared the existing intercity service to about 1/4 of what it had been immediately prior. AMTRAK’s service map of 2022 shows only a small expansion since its inception.

Service is lacking to many cities which defies logic. For example, there are no trains traveling from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, an extremely popular road and air route. Why is this? There is no service from Atlanta to Florida, also a very popular road and air route. Why? And to further that point, there is no Chicago to Florida route, one which actually existed at AMTRAK’s inception. Again, why? And there are many other examples, Dallas to Los Angeles, Atlanta to Savannah and Charleston, Detroit to Cleveland, Cleveland to St. Louis via Columbus, Dayton and Indianapolis, Memphis to Atlanta via Nashville, and there are a host of other potential routes, particularly in the densely populated Northeast. For reasons not given the public, California’s inland route extending from the San Francisco area through central California stop well shy of Los Angeles at Bakersfield. Why? Worst of all, I saved the best for last, there is no service from Dallas to Houston! The state of Texas, however, is endeavoring to remedy that situation.

Some of those problems extend from non-receptive Republican controlled states who view AMTRAK as an unnecessary luxury!

Another issue with AMTRAK is its scheduling on existing routes. If, for example, you go to the AMTRAK site and query a trip from New York to Chicago you will find a single train that does not require changing trains, the Lake Shore Limited. The Sunset Limited runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles only 3 days a week. On that route sits Houston Texas and Phoenix Arizona which are the nation’s 4th and 5th largest cities respectively. To be clear, Phoenix actually has no direct connection and residents of that city must travel south to Maricopa to catch a train between the 5th largest and 2nd largest cities.

There are only four areas of the country which receive good, not excellent AMTRAK service: The Northeast Corridor, Boston to Washington DC, California, San Francisco to San Diego. and Florida, Washington DC to several Florida destinations, most notable, Miami. Finally, Chicago with destinations of Milwaukee, Detroit, and St. Louis. I left out Indianapolis, with a metro population of over 2 million people out because AMTRAK allows it a single train that runs only three days a week!

AMTRAK does virtually no advertising. When was the last time you saw a commercial extolling to benefits of rail travel over airplanes. No lines to board, no security checkpoints, and when heavy weather closes airports the trains will still complete their trips excepting the most serious of conditions, hurricanes and blizzards. And even in blizzard conditions, trains may still be able to complete their trips.

Let’s look at a trip from Atlanta to New Orleans. Right now, airlines are publishing 1 hour 45-minute flight times point to point. Add in the 2-hour preflight arrival and the 1-hour post flight from New Orleans airport to downtown, this includes exiting the aircraft, finding ground transportation and dealing with traffic. Now your 1:45 minute flight has turned into a total of nearly 6 hours! The AMTRAK schedule shows a 12-hour trip between those points. Seems to be a negative but is it. Let’s go back to the flight. If you leave Atlanta on your flight at 9AM, considering the 7AM arrival time necessary, you will arrive in New Orleans about noontime, or time for lunch. Now we are at 1PM and only the afternoon ahead. The train leaves 9AM from Atlanta, arrives 9PM in New Orleans and the cost is $39 coach compared to the over $300 coach seat on the airline! In terms of pure economics and also stress, the train suddenly looks like the far superior choice. This is not even considering the people who must go between these two cities, cannot afford the air fare and do not want to sit on a bus. And in most of America, the people who are most drawn to rail travel are those of lesser means. This excludes the Northeast Corridor where businesspeople of all sorts regularly take the train.

The main hinderance to more people taking the train is the lack of choice in trains available and a lack of trains which make truly limited stops thereby decreasing the amount of time between any two points. Right now, AMTRAK simply does not have enough trains equipment to cover the suggestions I have made. Even more, the fleet it does have is aging and in need of replacement.

If we are ever to look like the passenger rail systems Europe enjoys, we are going to have to commit to a very large outlay of money to accomplish this. I can only guess that a 10-year $100 billion commitment might fall short. But in 10 years what are gas prices going to be, and what are air fares going to be. I am also guessing that the American public will be clamoring for exactly the extent and levels of service to which I have alluded. And finally, we can no longer afford the upkeep of America’s sprawling Interstate system which much of it needs extensive repair and replacement.

by

Study: World has 9 years to avert [climate] calamity


First, I must give credit to the Boston Globe, November 12, 2022, p. A4, for that heading, it being, excepting the setoff word, climate, a direct copy of its subtitle to “War may have put climate goals out of reach.”

I found this article absolutely stunning until I read its contents and then did a bit of research. It amazes me the amount climate change deniers still in the world today. Even more, those in political power who take no, or little action towards changing their nation’s responsibility towards reducing our greenhouse gas epidemic. It must be noted that most scientists, probably an overwhelming number, are agreement over our impended doom from these emissions.

The chart below lists the greenhouses emission by each country’s total in descending order. Notice the United States, which claims to be doing so much, is in the number 2 position! This is entirely unacceptable. Number 3 India is an interesting case that along with its status on this chart, it also has the ignominious reputation of have amount the 10 most polluted cities in the world, mixed in are Pakistan and other 3rd world countries.

Conservative Americans are amount the first to deny global warning and liberals are shouting about it. But in truth, it is the liberals who are failing the most simply because most compromise on issues where holding your ground is called for.

For the United States, there needs to be a much more concerted effort to reduce CO2 emissions by about 80% and well before 2031, the deadline. The United States cannot be a world leader in this fight when it comes in 2nd in total emissions worldwide. But the above chart is only referencing CO2 pollution. The chart below is referencing Methane pollution for the purpose of this discussion. I have not been able, thus far, to find a country-by-country accounting for this sort of pollution. In the United States, however, two of the most prolific forms of this comes for natural gas leakage at drilling sites and their pipelines, and also from fracking where the search for oil always finds a collection of natural gas which is supposed to be burned off but that only adds to the CO2 pollution.

For at least 30 years now, Europeans have been taking the problem with pollution seriously. Many cities, excepting England, have taken the tack of making their inner cities less friendly to automobiles, and in some cases, banning them altogether. In place of automobiles, they have doubled down of rail transportation and well set out bicycle ways.

Such tactics in the United States would be met with heavy opposition and politicians bent on saving their political butts would bend to that opposition rather than doing the right thing.

Consider, there is no city in the United States that can properly handle 4 lanes of traffic entering its limits with any ease at all, leading to a 40-mile commute taking as much as 1.5 hours or more. All cities on the East Coast plus Chicago, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, and a host of other cities cannot continue to maintain these roads and the problems that go with them for much longer.

Consider that the average length of a railroad coach is 67′ and that of an automobile almost 15′. Simple math tells us that even the 4 automobiles, were each carrying 3 individuals totaling 12 total is a far cry for the 60 to 100 passengers a single railroad car can carry. A rapid transit car can carry at least 50 people, light rail cars and buses the same. Highway maintenance on average, costs $14,500 per year. By shutting down one lane of a 4-lane highway in both directions for 25 miles saves $750k per year. Now, take the New Jersey turnpike which extends 41 miles from the Garden State parkway to Exit 7, Bordentown and is 8 lanes wide. Remove the 4 inner lanes in each direction, a total of 328 miles, and you have a total savings of $4.7 million a year. New Jersey has an exemplary commuter rail system as well-as an extensive bus system.

In probably every city their existing commuter rail, rapid transit, light rail and buses systems would have to be both modernized and expanded first. But this would give the public several years to plan on the eventual shut down of highway traffic lanes.

Such a bold step forward would cost in the 10s of trillions of dollars to properly implement. Couple that with all cities denying entry to their city center by private automobiles, another public screaming point, and inner-city pollution declines dramatically.

Right now, when it comes to public transportation, the United States is little more than a third-world country. Countries like Italy, Germany, Holland, France and a host of others, put the U.S. to shame in their approach to public transportation. Even China, the world’s greatest polluter, has a rail transportation superior to ours.

Why is this true. First, it America’s continuing love affair with the automobile, next, politicians of all stripes failing to inform the public of what should, by now, be painfully obvious, global warming is happening, and at an ever-increasing rate, just ask Floridians.

There is, however, one form of public transportation, which is one of the largest polluters in the U.S., the nation’s airlines! How do we reduce that? Simple, convince Americans to take AMTRAK on medium length journeys over air travel. This, of course, will require a heavy investment in AMTRAK but the rewards far outweigh the costs. Already, the Northeast Corridor of AMTRAK, from Boston to Washington DC, is heavily traveled by businessmen as well as private travelers. But routes such as Cleveland to Chicago, Atlanta to Miami, Dallas to Houston, Chicago to St. Louis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Detroit.

Americans, living near to large cities, must learn a new way of getting around or be culpable for getting the globe to “point of no return,” that point where warming accelerates at a rate no one can stop. Is that nine years hence? I do not know but it seems many scientists are thinking that way. Who are you going to believe, your next-door neighbor, you politicians, or the scientists?

I am only showing the pollution type below, that of “particulate matter” and in this case, that of plastics.

On final note on this. When I was taking a course in Astrophysics at Harvard University, my professor made a point of saying that anything which produces heat adds to global warming. That polluter is nuclear power and everything else which has the side effect of producing heat.