Tags
As frustrated as anti-war activists in Missouri have been with McCaskill for her unwillingness to defund the war, and as angry as progressives have been about her FISA vote, some on the left are tempted to proclaim that we might as well have Jim Talent still in office.
That’s not so. She’ll vote with the Democrats on SCHIP and many another issue. And she’s taking the lead in screaming and hollering about contracting abuses in Iraq.
Given the fact the United States has more taxpayer-backed private contractors in Iraq than combat troops, given the fact that cost-plus arrangements allow contractors to gain a greater return the more tax dollars they spend on a project, given the fact that billions of U.S. dollars and thousands of U.S. weapons remain unaccounted for in the war zone, folks might consider this as low-lying fruit.
But someone needs to pick it. Sen. McCaskill, with a prosecutor’s zeal and an auditor’s precision, seems the right person at the right time.
In April, three months after taking the oath of office, the Missouri Democrat flayed military officials for awarding $200 million in performance bonuses to KBR, Inc., even though the company had consistently overcharged the government in carrying out its $20 billion contract.
“As an auditor, I’m stunned; as a senator, I’m sick to my stomach; and as an American, I’m angry,” she said at a Senate committee hearing.
Last week, she sheperded three amendments into the funding bill for Iraq that would require more oversight in the spending there. Yes, that’s the funding bill that so many progressives want to see shredded. She’s not doing what we want about a war that is bankrupting our treasury and exacerbating world tensions.
Exerting some control over the madness that is Iraq spending is insufficient. Then again, it isn’t nothing.
In business, banking and the rest of the world of private commerce, these provisions would be called common sense. In auditing, they might seem standard procedure.
In the world of military contracting, they appear as foreign as Mars dust.
………….On the campaign trail, she promised to scream and holler about the abuses. The senator went to Washington as advertised.
Yes she did run on oversight of government contracts. Of course the article is wrong – she didn’t run, and we didn’t elect her, to scream and yell – she ran, and we elected her, to provide oversight and to pass legislation related to fraud and abuse. Screaming and yelling is just a show, legislation is real.
So the fact that she reduces her work to actual legislation is good. I’ve been pleased with her on that front. And you know what? There’s going to be a funding bill, we all know it. Despite the fact that she lumps us all into some kind of whacko category that wants funding to stop tomorrow – we all know it can’t and has to be stopped on a planned basis. So I have no problem attaching it to a funding bill.
The question is what type of funding bill? Does it set dates certain and have teeth? Then she’s done a good job. Is it a blank check funding? Then she’s nothing more than a rubber stamp.
Life isn’t black and white and we have to look at the whole picture. But her campaign promises were to set up oversight on fraud and abuse AND to not be a rubber stamp. It’s unfortunate for her that these two goals are so intertwined that success on one can be negated by defeat on the other.
I spoke to one of the Senators staff members in person after the FISA vote. I was cordial, polite and straight forward. I praised her work on oversight and encouraged her to spearhead a new “Truman Commission.” I told her that I felt that FISA was a horrible vote and asked the staffer if she could explain the reasoning behind it. The answer was bumbling at best and I had to remind her of several of the names of key players involved. I felt like she was relaying REPUBLICAN talking points. I was underwhelmed.
After the Feingold Amendment vote (nay?) and the subsequent, ridiculous MoveOn vote (yay?!) I called her DC office and talked with another staffer who seemed equally clueless. I was much more irritated at this point, but again, was polite yet forceful. I just get the feeling she and her staff are not ready to play in the majors.
As I expressed to both staffers, the other side is going to call you weak on defense and unpatriotic no matter how you vote. That is how they play the game. So how about we try voting on principle and with courage rather than trying to appeal to some future voter that will be swayed by the rhetoric of the Right. How about not succumbing to the idea that the electorate is stupid and won’t understand your votes. 60-70% want us out of Iraq yesterday. They want action today, not empty promises for tomorrow. If they want that, they’ll vote Republican any way.
Mccaskill just voted against the horrific Leiberman-Kyl Iran amendment (which passed 76-22). See dailykos posting here
The idea that Claire is making contractors accountable for their role in the enormous disaster she will vote to perpetuate in Iraq is of no consolation to me. She is the one who needs to be held to account. If we accept this secondary crap as if we were being represented it is ourselves we have to blame.