Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Computer-Man's Best Friend
For where’s the state beneath the firmament
That doth excel the bees for government.
— Guillaume de Salluste, Divine Weeks and Works [1578]
It’s a comfort to the older generation, that neither twitters nor texts and computes only with difficulty, to be reminded that the federal government has no greater success with the technology than they. We were reminded of it again when the Washington Post reported that Arlington National Cemetery was having trouble keeping track of who was buried where or whether folks were buried at all and, thanks to the poor record keeping, at least four funeral urns had been dug up and thrown away. Although there were many reasons for the problems at the cemetery, part of the blame lay with inadequate computer technology on which cemetery officials had spent more than $5 million for computer upgrades that did not upgrade the cemetery’s record keeping ability. That brought to mind other computer misadventures in the federal government which offer comfort to those who, like the government, find themselves bested by the computer at every turn.
Back in 1997 we learned that the IRS had spent more than $4 billion on what was described as a modern computer system. Arthur Goss, then an assistant Commissioner of Internal Revenue was disappointed in the results and said the system did not work in what he called “the real world.” (As I observed when writing about that some years ago, the notion that there is something called the “real world” and some place else where the IRS lives found ready acceptance among readers.) Mr. Goss went on to say that even though the system would have to be scrapped, the IRS was nonetheless “wholly dependent on them” to collect the $1.4 trillion the government needed to function. In 2000 Charles Rossotti issued what was called “Progress Report IRS Business Systems Modernization Program, the front page of which was a picture of 36 people laughing and smiling. (The people on the front cover were , presumably IRS employees enthused at how the new system would enhance tax collection since it is unlikely that a randomly selected group of taxpayers would have seemed so happy at the prospect of improved tax collection. In his introduction to the report, Charles Rossotti, the Commissioner of the IRS said that in the following year the project would deliver “real business results” and the program would “continue to mature as we gain experience.” It was to be a slow maturation. In January 2010 the Government Accountability Office said a part of the program that had by then cost $400 million and was supposed to be completed by 2012 would not be fully completed until somewhere between 2018 and 2028. The IRS is not alone in its problems. The FBI, too, has computer problems.
In 2004 it was disclosed since 9/11 the FBI had spent $170 million to improve its system to enable agents to obtain “instant access to FBI databases allowing speedier investigations and better integration of information. . . . “ The system did not live up to expectations and the FBI spent another $2 million to hire an expert to see whether the system could be salvaged. In 2006 the FBI awarded Lockheed Martin the Sentinel information technology contract. According to recent reports, the system has improved the FBI’s e-mail and data base searching but is not running as hoped in other areas. Cost overruns of almost $30 million have been incurred and the project that was to be completed in September of this year is now destined to be completed in 2011. The Secret Service has problems as well.
According to an ABC News report earlier this year, a classified review of that agency’s computers disclosed that the agency’s computers were “fully operational” only 60 percent of the time. Its databases are outdated. According to Joseph Liebermann, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, 60 percent operational capability is worse than “industry and government standards that are around 98 percent generally.” Senator Liebermann said the computer mainframe dates back to the 1980s, a period that probably precedes the time even the most unsophisticated of my readers purchased their most recent computers. It will reportedly cost $187 million to fully update the system. To date the Department of Homeland Security has allocated $33 million and requested an additional $69 million in the most recent budget request. At that rate within a year or two the agency will have a completely up to date system at its disposal. In the meantime it probably spends a lot of time hoping that nothing bad happens.
As I said at the outset, we can all take comfort in the fact that it seems to be as hard for the federal government to keep current in the world of technology as it does the rest of us. It is, however, more of a surprise than a reassurance.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Republicans and Political Madness
Under every stone lurks a politician.
— Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae
Sarah Palin, who symbolizes the folly of the 2010 political scene, is not without competition from other inhabitants of the loony bin. (Her latest contribution is to etymology. Commenting on the Muslim mosque the construction of which near the World Trade Center site has created controversy, she said New Yorkers should “refudiate it.” When criticized for her English usage she said on twitter: “English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too.”
The American Constitution Party, which has a special place in the loony bin, has come into the news because of a quixotic series of events that took place in the Colorado Republican primary contest among aspirants to the office of governor of the state of Colorado. The two Republican candidates come with self-constructed infirmities. One, Scott McInnis, is a self-acknowledged plagiarist, who was paid $300,000 for his stolen work. His competitor is Dan Maes who sees in the bicycle-sharing program in Denver a “strategy to rein in American cities under a United Nations treaty.” The program, said Mr. Maes, “is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms.”
Former Republican, Tom Tancredo, decided to rescue the state from these two men and entered the gubernatorial race under the banner of the American Constitution Party, bringing prominence to a party whose platform includes abolishing the Food and Drug Administration, the Internal Revenue Service , the Departments of Education and Energy and the Federal Election Commission. Notwithstanding its palpable wackiness, the Constitution Party doesn’t hold a candle to the Republican Party of Iowa.
Iowa is the state that has the distinction, every four years, of selecting the next person to be the president of the United States. Mindful of its importance, the Republican Party of that state takes great pains to carefully articulate its beliefs so as to be worthy of the place in the electoral process it enjoys. In its most recent state convention it adopted a platform that consisted of 387 planks and principles.
The second statement of principles that begins the document sets the tone by solemnly declaring that “America is Good.” Some things in America, however, are not good. Paragraph 2.09 says that “we are opposed to protecting mountain lions, cougars, wolves, elk, moose, and black bear or similar dangerous animals.” Paragraph 2.08 deals with semantics in a way that is probably mysterious to a non-Iowan. It says that “We support the definition of manure as a natural fertilizer.” It is not clear who is attacking the definition.
The most important section of the platform is 7.19 . That section calls for the “reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th Amendment in today’s Constitution.” There is considerable difference in the two versions and an excellent article by Jerry Adler in Newsweek contains a comprehensive description of the earlier version. The 13th Amendment now in the Constitution abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude (except as criminal punishment) and gives Congress the power to enact appropriate legislation. The drafters of Iowa’s Republican party favor what they believe to be an earlier version that has nothing to do with slavery. It was introduced in 1810 by Sen. Philip Reed of Maryland and provided: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” (This is not the same as stripping citizenship from children of illegal immigrants by getting rid of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution a possibility such luminaries as Senators McCain, Graham and others suggest should be considered by Congress.)
Iowans believe that this Amendment was adopted and should be in the Constitution in place of the one that is now there. Slavery being gone, there is no real reason to have an amendment abolishing it nor would its abolition reverse emancipation. According to Mr. Adler, he asked the state Republican Communications Director, Danielle Plogman, whether Iowans wanted to reverse emancipation and she assured him that was not the purpose. It’s a safe bet none of those voting for the restoration of the old 13th (that Mr. Adler’s column suggests was never the real 13th Amendment) realized that they would be abolishing the abolition of slavery amendment in favor of protecting the country from citizens receiving honors from “any emperor, king, prince or foreign power.”
The loonies are on a rampage. Only time will tell whether the voters have the strength to withstand their onslaught.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tales of Tommy
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!
— Rudyard Kipling, Tommy
Tom Tancredo is back in the news. Tom is a man whose ego is so much larger than his intellect, that if he were a touch brighter he would be embarrassed to put either on public display.
Tom is in the news in Colorado because he demanded that both of the Republican candidates competing in the upcoming primary to be the Republican candidate for governor in Colorado withdraw from the race by high noon on July 26. Tom’s demand was triggered by revelations that one candidate, Scott McGinnis had been paid $300,000 by a foundation for articles he had written that were largely plagiarized and the other, Dan Maes, using campaign funds reimbursed himself $44,837 for mileage for one year suggesting that, at federal mileage reimbursement rates, he’d travelled 90,000 miles around the state campaigning. (Relevant authorities did not believe him and he was fined $17,500 for that and other campaign violations.) Dan and Scott failed to withdraw and Tom is running under the banner of the Constitution Party that has, as one of the planks in its platform, the retaking of the Panama Canal. Now that he is a candidate it pays to remember the Tom Tancredo of yore.
When Tom ran for Congress in 1998 he said no elected official should hold office for more than three terms since we want to introduce “people into the system who think of government service as a temporary endeavor, not as a career.” He won. In an interview with the Rocky Mountain News in May, 2001, he commented on his pledge to serve no more than 3 terms saying: “I have no plans to break the pledge. It’s my intent to serve out my three terms if I’m reelected, and that’s it. . . . . When conquering heroes were brought back to Rome after a successful campaign, there was always a large crowd yelling his [sic] name or throwing rose petals. But by Roman law, a slave had to stand behind him in the chariot while holding the laurel wreath over his head, and had to keep saying to the general: ‘All fame is fleeting.’ Term limits are like that guy standing behind you.” Less than 17 months later Mr. Tancredo said to the guy standing behind him: “Get thee behind me, Satan.” The guy complied. The Lord stepped in in his place.
On September 26, 2002, Mr. Tancredo said the Lord had absolved him of his pledge and he might serve for more than three terms. He said his career was now in “God’s hands.” Talking to the same newspaper that had printed his pledge only 16 months earlier, he said: “You can characterize it as breaking a pledge.” Explaining the Lord’s involvement in his political career he said: “I believe I’m doing the honorable thing [breaking his pledge] by telling [supporters] exactly how I feel and what has happened to me over time. I do put it in God’s hands and I say, ‘Lord, I hope I’m doing what you want.’” In mid-April he announced he was running for a fourth term.
Mr. Tancredo does not place full responsibility for breaking his promise on the Lord. The voters, he thinks, approved it. Before the 2002 election, he sent a letter to supporters telling them he was abandoning his pledge to serve no more than three terms saying he thought ” term limits were a bad idea. There are certain issues you cannot do effectively [if you observe term limits.” He said he’d stay in office as long as he felt useful. Since he was reelected in 2002 he believed his broken pledge was of no matter to voters. He equated reelection with forgiveness.
In endorsing him in 1998, the Rocky Mountain News observed that Mr. Tancredo had been a leader of the term limit movement. It said: “We don’t expect him to start backpedaling like Rep. Scott McInnis” [a Congressman from Colorado who had reneged on his promise to serve no more than three terms and is now running for governor.] Mr. Tancredo didn’t backpedal. He got off the bike and pushed it over the cliff.
If Tom ends up running against Scott McInnis, the Republican candidate with the apparent lead for the Republican Party’s nomination, he and Scott may not agree on all the issues but they will agree on at least one thing. If prior pledges impinge on future action, ignore the prior pledges. Both Tom and Scott promised to honor 3-year term limits for members of Congress. Both men ignored their pledges when they figured out that if they honored their pledges they would be forced to leave Congress. Scott served six terms and Tom served five terms. What an honor it would be for Colorado to have one of those promise-breakers serve as governor. Who knows what other promises he would find to break?