backtop


Print 39 comment(s) - last by NellyFromMA.. on Dec 12 at 2:58 PM

Project suffered an excess of ambition, irresponsible contractors, and a broken management structure

The plan was to consolidate a slew of expensive and largely redundant data service platforms at the U.S. Air Force (USAF) down to a more cohesive collection.  The move was supposed to yield billions in savings by locating and selling redundant parts (roughly half of the USAF's $31B USD in parts is thought to be redundant or unneeded).  The new platform of services would come online, just in the nick of time to complete a massive looming 2017 audit.

I. Too Much Ambition, Too Little Execution

Grover Dunn, the Air Force director of transformation at the time remarked, "We’ve never tried to change all the processes, tools and languages of all 250,000 people in our business at once, and that’s essentially what we’re about to do."

However, the transition never finished.  And last month the USAF was forced to make the embarrassing admission that after investing $1.03B USD since 2005, the transformation was being scrapped after it was deemed that the program had failed to yield "any significant military capability".

Air Force computer center
The USAF is being forced to stick with dated hardware stretching back to the 1970s, after fumbling a major infrastructure upgrade bid. [Image Source: A1C-Meyer]

The decision was also made when contractor Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC) -- the lead system integrator -- gave a dire prediction that the project would not be ready until 2020, would only implement a quarter of the original promised scope, and would cost $8B USD.

The military plan, which was based off of commercial off-the-shelf software (“COTS”), would be rather ambitious for a more homogenous large corporation.  Amidst a defense division with a myriad of special needs it was incredibly over ambitious, as Director Dunn's comment suggests.  

II. Experts Predicted Program Was in Trouble

So the question people are asking is why it took the USAF $1B USD -- mostly handed to CSC -- to recognize the futility of the effort.

Jamie M. Morin, assistant secretary of the Air Force, testified before a subcommittee of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee and did not mince words about the astonishing nature of the software services SNAFU.  He comments, "I am personally appalled at the limited capabilities that program has produced relative to that amount of investment."

Paul K. Ketrick and Graeme R. Douglas of the Institute for Defense Analyses warned of the upcoming failure last year, and suggested the sinking USAF effort was not alone.  In their 2011 report they estimated that since 2009 $5.9B USD was spent on such software across the U.S. Department of Defense, with only some smaller programs showing success.

The pair believe that a key determinant of success or failure is the size of the program and whether the DoD makes the mistake of appointing a single director over an overly broad effort, as with the USAF program.  Comments Mr. Douglas to The New York Times, "[The successes] got there because they had strong leadership who committed to the program and had the authority to make the changes necessary for success.  It’s rare that a single leader in the Department of Defense has the authority over the span of activities [as with the USAF]."

Money down the drain
USAF has terminated the $1B+ USD data project, and now may lose up to $15.5B USD in savings the project would have gained by cutting redundant parts. [Image Source: Unknown]

Now left with software and hardware that dates as far back as the 1970s, the USAF is expected to have to try to scrape by on the 2017 audit with the old platforms.  Most expect the audit to go poorly.  So is the USAF to blame for poor planning?  Experts certainly think so.  

But so far there haven't been reports of cohesive repercussions for the DoD officials and contractors involved.  The USAF is carrying on as if the situation is normal when in fact it is all [fouled] up.

Source: The New York Times



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By NellyFromMA on 12/10/2012 2:24:20 PM , Rating: 4
Don't get me wrong, I don't think DoD is without blame, but the contractors obviously milked them for the money. The DoD are not software, network or IT experts, so its' not their fault for trusting the contractor's to, you know, be experts.

Obviously, they are responsible for coordinating benchmarks/milestones for measuring the project but just going on what I know greater than 50% of the blame falls on these contractors. As amatter of fact, that they would milk DoD for so much without settling for a lesser ammount given their fault in the matter should frankly be boycotted by any other business including government contracts.

Thats wreckless to say the least and predatory to say the worst. Worst is, in reality they milked all tax paying Americans. Pricks.




By RufusM on 12/10/2012 2:41:21 PM , Rating: 3
The DoD must have recourse against CSC for this. I've been involved in any manner of county government bids and they all had performance metrics the vendor needed to adhere to along with milestones and timelines. There is usually some flexibility to account for minor changes to deliverables along the way but it's typically laid out clearly.

I would be shocked if the DoD didn't go after the contractor, CSC, for a large part of the money unless they themselves were ultimately to blame. Maybe the DoD couldn't make up its mind or kept changing requirements?


By NellyFromMA on 12/10/2012 4:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah that doesn't deviate too far from what typically happens in the private sector in my experience, depending on the particulars, of course.

I agree, either the contract wasn't met due to insufficient needs assesment resultant on DoD supplied information and agreed upon by DoD or they will surely go after CSC.


By Manch on 12/11/2012 10:00:47 AM , Rating: 2
"the ever moving goal post" is a common term here in the DoD. See: F-22, F35, B1B, ABL, AFTR, TBA, etc.


By Jaybus on 12/11/2012 12:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
MACs (Multiple Award Contracts) are where multiple companies are awarded contracts and then they compete against each other continuously by bidding on individual tasks. It is supposed to reduce costs, but of course in order to get a piece of the pie, it now means that contractors have to bid low. It pretty much guarantees that every single task will be over budget and makes it impossible to accurately estimate a total project cost. And naturally, with so much red tape the contractor ends up with too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Then there is the problem of dividing the job into tasks. If there are closely interdependent tasks and different contractors are involved with them, then the situation becomes the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. The end result is completed tasks that when combined don't work together as a whole.


By SwampEagle on 12/11/2012 1:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Another important point is that when they started doing this, they did not increase the number of gubment folks doing the reviews/oversight. So now you have 3 contractors competing that need oversight...and the same number of gubment folks that used to oversee one. How do you think that's going to work? Fail. Gubment folks simply cannot devote enough time to properly oversee the multiple contractors in the competition. It's failed before it got started.


By JonnyDough on 12/12/2012 5:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
Use English. Gubment? Erm...

Anyway, the government doles out cash to mega corps to design and estimate costs for production. They have to oversee even this research process, because if they do decide to go with any of the proposed options then it must be secure from the start.

Just PLANNING something like a superior fighting aircraft or naval ship costs in the multi-millions. Actually building it will cost so much more if proper research isn't done ahead of time, because if they have to do research to figure issues out as they're building it then they have wasted waste time/material/payroll, The original estimated building costs will have to be raised and spiral out of control. This makes the DOD quite unhappy but these mega corps have to remain profitable and canceling a project midway is not good for anyone's business. Switching plans would simply cost the government double. Once they choose a design plan they must stick with it, even if it seems to be a poor choice (ie the JSF).

This is why the DOD forces companies to compete within set limitations, and why it scruitinizes plans so heavily. You have to realize though, that making a choice on proposed plans from multiple defense contractors also costs the government a lot of money. So at some point they have to curb THOSE costs and just make an educated decision to the best of their ability. We should all know that with state-of the-art technologies sometimes things don't work quite as they should. As an aircraft mechanice, I know that it often takes years to iron out issues with aircraft. What seems like a minor change can affect flight quite a lot. Maintenance practices change, maintenance schedules change, parts change, pilot pre-flight checks change, etc. It's a lot more complicated and livid than people realize.

Modern day aircraft have little in common with an automobile, but many people still think they do. Most people don't even understand how a jet engine works even though it is perhaps the simplest of any engine, or how an airfoil and differentiating pressures above and below a wing cause lift.


By othercents on 12/10/2012 2:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
The American tax payer money was spent by the DOD dis-regardless of what contractor they choose or how their contract was written. So in the eyes of the public the DOD should have spent more time with the contractors doing proof of concept designs on a smaller scale prior to getting in bed with one contractor.

However yes the contractor is to blame for accepting a contract that they could not fulfill. I would suspect that the contract was written more towards the contractor than the DOD, so there were outs in the contract based on changes in design due to changes in expectations. IE. the contractor had better lawyers.

Other


By Fallen Kell on 12/10/2012 2:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The DoD are not software, network or IT experts, so its' not their fault for trusting the contractor's to, you know, be experts.


And that is the problem right there. How can you tell if the "experts" you are hiring (at the lowest bid by the way), are actually "experts" and not just good at plating the stuff that comes out of a bull's rear end? The only way to do that is to actually have your own experts in house that know what they are doing. But more and more, the places do not have those kinds of people on staff, and are more and more reliant on the hired "experts".


By RufusM on 12/10/2012 3:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
Typically, you have some expert consultants come in to help identify and document the requirements in conjunction with the employees that know the processes. This consultant is completely independent of the contractors bidding for the work.

Once everything is identified and documented, the RFP is created and it should have certain performance benchmarks and stipulate the penalties for missing them. The penalties typically range from dollars deducted from overall payments or forfeiture of the RFP if the contractor is clearly inept. Most RFPs also require disclosure of previous, similar projects as well as references to contact for some validation the contractor is capable.


By Strunf on 12/11/2012 7:51:11 AM , Rating: 2
You don't call yourself expert if you don't have references, IT companies usually provide examples of their work, and you can of course verify them, it's no different than when you write a C.V. if they verify them or not that's another question.


By nafhan on 12/11/2012 12:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The DoD are not software, network or IT experts
I've personally known a number of people, in the Air Force, that ARE experts in these fields. Now if you were talking about the Army... kidding!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your statement about the level of expertise in the AF is simply not true. They do have experts, just not enough of them to complete massive one off projects like this on their own - nor should they.

It really sounds like you're saying the AF should be let off the hook because they are too dumb to know what's going on. Really, that wouldn't be a valid excuse even if it was true. None of this is to say that the contractors aren't at least partially responsible of course. I just feel like you're trying to let the AF off easier than you should.


By JonnyDough on 12/12/2012 5:39:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The DoD are not software, network or IT experts, so its' not their fault for trusting the contractor's to, you know, be experts.


Say wha? In the guard we have people who work in the IT industry and then come to work and deploy...

The DOD helps write the book when it comes to codes/security

As for gov contractors, they all milk it. If you want to know where the gov is losing money, that's the biggest spot. Spend more than half a year overseas and you'll realize that the military is pretty good at being frugal when compared to the civilians there.


By NellyFromMA on 12/12/2012 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
Surely there are many technical folks throughout all of the the DoD and various domestic and military branches.

However, they are not in the commercial business for which they sought out a professional business to carry out said work clearly valuing the professional value that in theory should exist within that company's organization.

Ugh, misappropriation of our tax money drives me nuts...


Not SNAFU
By danjw1 on 12/10/2012 4:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
Nope this if FUBAR, not SNAFU.




RE: Not SNAFU
By Azethoth on 12/10/2012 6:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, I'm sticking with Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.

Defense procurement is just not something that ever goes smoothly which means this situation is extremely recognizable. That makes it FU but not FUBAR.

Actual novel news would be a story about a successful project coming in on budget and on time.


RE: Not SNAFU
By WinstonSmith on 12/11/2012 10:09:54 AM , Rating: 4
"Defense procurement is just not something that ever goes smoothly which means this situation is extremely recognizable."

Precisely. And why? Because of a military culture perhaps not unique to the USAF.

Officers with no real expertise in a technical subject are assigned to program manager positions, spending just a few years in that position before being sent somewhere else, all in the name of rounding out their experience for promotion purposes. When they inherit some program that's totally screwed up, assuming they have the expertise to even recognize that it's screwed up, the easiest thing to do during their short time in control is to proceed as if there are no core problems, listening to glowing reports from contractors and hiding the problems from superiors who are often equally ignorant in the technologies involved.

How do I know this? Because in my 21 years in the USAF, I dealt with exactly this issue, not as a program manager, but one who had to interact with them. And this is not attacking their character. Many are handed programs so messed up that it would take a gargantuan effort to fix them, seriously pissing off everyone along the way by revealing the truth, getting the program delayed or canceled, all the while hoping that somewhere in their chain of command there'd be someone who'd realize they were doing the right thing and not kill their career.

Want a PERFECT example of this? Watch the excellent film based on a true story, "The Pentagon Wars" based on a book of the same name by Colonel James G. Burton, USAF (retired) It's both funny and true.


RE: Not SNAFU
By SwampEagle on 12/11/2012 1:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
Most of that is true. Let's be clear though, that it's not the officers' choice to be hung out to dry like that. It's "the air force way" of developing leaders. That may work for pilots who grow to lead squadrons, wings, etc, but acquisition is different. You need people that can stick around to learn the system, and become familiar with what's going on. True, we have some experts (Aerospace is a big one) that we can consult, but if we're just going to turn to the Aerospace guy and ask him what should be done, why in the world do we have military acquisition people in charge of the program??? How about just using them as advisors for the "military perspective" and let the civilians that stay around be the PM??


RE: Not SNAFU
By mitchebk on 12/11/2012 2:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
so, you're example is about 20 years old--times have changed a bit. I also disagree with your main point regarding lacking expertise. that's not the case with the working-level PMs and engineers that work these programs. its the leadership that doesn't always understand the ins and outs of complicated software products or simple to use COTS products that are made for a market segment and not the DoD, specifically.


Geez...
By Florinator on 12/10/2012 2:26:19 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, come on, some heads must roll...




RE: Geez...
By superstition on 12/10/2012 2:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do Americans regard the military so highly?

The military is perceived as more effective than other institutions in achieving its goals.

Why would heads roll? The military is more effective than other American institutions. That's what the LA Times says and that's what the public thinks, according to the polls.
quote:
The military is an institution where accountability matters, and this may also account for its popularity.

But, who needs accountability for such an effective organization?


RE: Geez...
By StevoLincolnite on 12/10/2012 3:58:44 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is... The Military's money, the Governments money, the money spent on this project... Is the Taxpayers money and no one elses.

If a contractor fails to meet the contracted obligations, then the money should be refunded in my opinion.


Monumental task
By Beenthere on 12/10/2012 5:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
The scope of this project is so monumental it would not surprise me if it cost 100x the amount of the so called "wasted funds". While there may very well of been some waste, more than likely a lot of the real issues were discovered and solutions formulated to start to make some sense out of an incredible volume of data from countless sources that really needs to be properly structured.

It's easy to write sensational headlines and make uninformed comments when you have no clue of what actually transpired and you are getting a news feed third hand.




RE: Monumental task
By arthur449 on 12/11/2012 2:35:56 AM , Rating: 3
Stop being so reasonable. This is the internet; we have a reputation to uphold.


RE: Monumental task
By been-there on 12/11/2012 11:03:01 AM , Rating: 2
The scope is the problem. Hundreds of system across multiple commands. Each system is part of someone's fiefdom,each system is maintained by a different contractor, because in today's AF, all of the IT expertise has been outsourced. Now in order to be a success you have to collect specs and get cooperation from all of the people who will be out of a job when the project is completed. In addition, experience teaches that in 2 to 3 years everyone involved will have moved on, and a new and improved technology that will solve everything will be presented as the real solution to all of the problems.

In this environment small projects that grow work, and massive projects fail. In a decade of working around Air Force Material Command at WPAFB, I have never seen a large project successfully deployed.


Software "engineering" in it’s infancy
By dnoonie on 12/10/2012 4:30:00 PM , Rating: 3
My engineering mentor-ship happened in the 80's. I didn't mix well with many of the other computer educated folks supporting business systems and ended up in an engineering organization. They all had engineering experience and were either retrained as programmers or also had computer software degrees. They were applying engineering discipline to making software. I was mentored by them in the engineering discipline, it was great, and a real eye opener.

After experiencing how most software is made:
1) Make a dummy interface
2) Put a database behind it
3) Make a half way effort to document what you did and call it a "design".

It's not surprising that the DOD project tanked. Probably just your typical programmers were design is at best a secondary thought.

Unfortunately most people are hung up on what something looks like rather than how it works. How your data is stored and how the software works is much more important than what the interface looks like.

Many people too easily impressed by software that looks cool. The is the age where software is form more than function. Software is a new discipline that lacks discipline.




By wempa on 12/11/2012 10:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
From the sound of it, it seems like they were trying to take hundreds or thousands of different systems and processes and establish some uniformity. There should have been very extensive analysis with a detailed report on the chances of this succeeding. Wasting $1B before you determine that it is going to fail just seems ridiculous to me. Any software person with large systems integration experience knows just how complicated such a task is and the amount of unexpected problems you are likely to encounter, especially at this scale. Granted, I don't know the whole story, but this sounds like a serious management failure.


Where is the problem?
By DrApop on 12/10/2012 11:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
So where/what is the problem? Yeah, the plan didn't work but I don't see why we, the American people, should be out 1 billion.

It was put out on contract, correct? Companies bid on the project based on certain specifics, correct? Companies bid on the project indicating that they could complete the project by a certain time and for a certain dollar amount, correct?

Seems the company that got the contract couldn't do what they said they could do. So why did we pay them? And why are we not expecting to get our money back since they couldn't do what they said they could do?

The rules need to change. If you bid on a contract and then get the contract you need to do the work, complete the work, and do it correctly by the date specified. If you can't, then you pay back the money you were given to do the project in the first place! Then there would be no problem with the exception that the project wasn't completed. But at least we, the people, aren't being screwed out of hard earned cash.




RE: Where is the problem?
By SwampEagle on 12/11/2012 1:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, that's a tad idealistic. I agree with the concept, but if we did that, no one would bid on a gubment contract. And if we started to play hardball by refusing to pay for the time/effort the company put forth, a LOT of people would be out of work. Not to mention the pissed off congress people that would be impacted because their constituents are impacted. So the congress people go to the pentagon, and ask to keep programs that should be killed, ask for programs that the pentagon doesn't want, etc, etc. At the core, if congress isn't willing to take the hit when something like this happens, the military people they control surely can't do anything. Read around, this happens all the time (2nd engine for F35, etc).


I Told Them This Wouldn't Work...
By DougF on 12/11/2012 2:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
I watched this effort and told the USAF this was doomed from the start. Unfortunately the people I told were way down the totem pole and had no choice but to go along with this wast of time, effort, and money.
The USAF spends 10's of millions of dollars every year trying to make sense of the crap they have for data. Why? Because the systems are so old that they don't/can't repair/upgrade so they killed error reporting and just let the maintenance guys pretty much put in whatever they want. In particular, the C-130 database is so corrupted with meaningless data it takes 5 to 10 analysts several months to sort out the data from just one subsystem. We poured through millions of data entries to get just a few thousand sound data bits on trends. The maintenance guys (and I'm one of them) aren't the real problem, they're working 12hr shifts and the last thing they want to do is upload all the work they've done during the shift. They are motivated to go home and drink beer, not type on a computer trying to access a database half a world away and constantly getting reject notices. So, they figure out what data the system will take and just plug/chug/go home.
I told them the only way to succeed is to cut the old systems (G081, G054, G099, etc) off completely and start from scratch. Don't even try to import that crappy data. If it's really important they'll find some money to sort it out and add it to the new database. But the best solution is just import some functioning system from a large aerospace corporation or other maintenance intensive corporation and change how the USAF does business to match it.




RE: I Told Them This Wouldn't Work...
By knutjb on 12/11/2012 9:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
I know what you mean, a major fix project for the 135 was from a flightline Pro Super's hand written notes because the "database" couldn't track it. I know the major corporations all have issues with this too. It is only exacerbated the longer you push the problem down the road.

What was Oracle, SAP or MS's bid on this. The low bid process costs more in the end than does doing it right the first time. I know because I helped the Corp of Engineers with my, yet again hand written notes, show that the low bid doesn't work on its own. Now, or at least they did when I left, have a process to compare bids apples to apples value rather than bid only.

If you think this is bad now wait till they run your healthcare. (insert long cynical laugh rolling into sad crying from life in tricare)


SNAFU
By DaveLessnau on 12/10/2012 2:29:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The USAF is carrying on as if the situation is normal when in fact it is all [fouled] up.


You are aware the the acronym "SNAFU" (which you used early in the article) stands for "Situation Normal, All [Fouled] Up?" So, yes, it is and they are.




The Same Game..
By rippleyaliens on 12/12/2012 1:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
Back in the Early 80's it was the Infamous $500 toilet seat.. Then jumped to the $25,000 TOW Missile.. IE just the shuffling of money around per DOD.. Now with software.. We have a MASSIVE Integration Project.. Just HARDWARE Alone is Mind Boggling..
Most people associate DOD with something like War Games, the movie.. I Can Guarantee you, that it is no-where near that old now.. The Money being Dumped into Airforce ALONE, IS Insane.. Think about it.. We have remote control planes doing hunter kill missions.. ACCROSS the Entire GLOBE.. AH yah, the DOD does indeed have a massive Infrastructure..
IMPOSSIBLE for 1 single contractor to build correctly.. IF SO, they would have ORACLE+MICROSOFT SIZED commands, just for this.. The Entire DOD=3.3 Million PEOPLE.. $$550 BILLION Dollar Budget.. And they bidded this out to contractors?? YAH.. Right..
It would take a rather large force of technicians alone, just to install new computers.. Let-alone, Consilidate 100's of Propriety computer systems.. ranging from as400/intel/sparc.... yada/yada..

This is just an easy way to hide money.. BY having delays, decisions to abandon.. Change direction.. yada




This is why entitlements need to go
By superstition on 12/10/12, Rating: -1
By superstition on 12/10/2012 2:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A U.S. military worth saluting The U.S. military is the most respected institution in American life, according to several polls.

Why do Americans regard the military so highly?

The military is perceived as more effective than other institutions in achieving its goals.

Outward performance matters, but the military has excelled internally as well.

The military is an institution where accountability matters, and this may also account for its popularity.

Big business, big labor and politicians are also seen as self-interested, while the military is not.

The military, like big business, organized labor and Congress, is a large institution, but it is not seen as overly powerful or unaccountable. In an April Gallup poll, only 14% of those surveyed said the military had too much power. Yet 43% felt that labor unions did.

— LA Times 2011

quote:
First, military worship is the central religion of America's political and media culture. The military is by far the most respected and beloved institution among the US population - a dangerous fact in any democracy - and, even assuming they wanted to (which they don't), our brave denizens of establishment journalism are petrified of running afoul of that kind of popular sentiment.

Recall the intense controversy that erupted last Memorial Day when MSNBC's Chris Hayes gently pondered whether all soldiers should be considered "heroes". His own network, NBC, quickly assembled a panel on the Today Show to unanimously denounce him in the harshest and most personal terms ("I hope that he doesn't get more viewers as a result of this...this guy is like a – if you've seen him...he looks like a weenie" - "Could you be more inappropriate on Memorial Day?"), and Hayes then subjected himself to the predictable ritual of public apology (though he notably did not retract the substance of his remarks).

Hayes was forced (either overtly or by the rising pressure) to apologize because his comments were blasphemous: of America's true religion. At virtually every major sporting event, some uber-patriotic display of military might is featured as the crowd chants and swoons. It's perfectly reasonable not to hold members of the military responsible for the acts of aggression ordered by US politicians, but that hardly means that the other extreme - compelled reverence - is justifiable either.

Yet US journalists - whose ostensible role is to be adversarial to powerful and secretive political institutions (which includes, first and foremost, the National Security State) - are the most pious high priests of this national religion.

— Greenwald


RE: This is why entitlements need to go
By amanojaku on 12/10/2012 2:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
So, the USAF wastes money, and you blame entitlements? The article even points out that around $6B was wasted on military projects overall. Analysts pointed out the problem wasn't the budget, but rather leadership. No matter how much money you have, it's all for naught if you don't have a competent management team. There are plenty of corporations that have failed for similar reasons. Read up on Lehman Brothers.


RE: This is why entitlements need to go
By superstition on 12/10/2012 2:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's called satire, dear.


RE: This is why entitlements need to go
By PontiusP on 12/10/2012 6:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
You're making a logical fallacy.

A and B are a waste of money, so since we're wasting money on A, we must keep wasting it on B.

Dead wrong.

Warfare is a tremendous waste indeed, and so is welfare. Which is why they both need to be dramatically downsized, and even completely repealed in some cases. And yes, teachers' unions have historically stood in the way of reform, so they need to go too.

Dear.


By superstition on 12/11/2012 2:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
Please continue to lecture erroneously and humorlessly.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki