What does it mean when the government is issuing a study of a study of studies?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Washington hard at work.
ABC News reports our government is just out with a study of a study of studies.
Try to stay with us here.
Back in 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that his department was "awash in taskings for reports and studies." He wanted to know how much they cost.
So the Pentagon commissioned a study to find out how much it really costs to produce all those studies.
Fast forward two years: The Pentagon review was still going on - so Congress asked the government accountability office to check in on them.
Now the GAO is out with its report - and the results aren't too promising.
They found only nine studies that had been reviewed by the Pentagon review - in two years - and the military was unable to "readily retrieve documentation" for six of those nine reports.
As for how much all this costs - don't ask. The GAO says the Pentagon's approach "is not fully consistent with relevant cost estimating best practices and cost accounting standards." Meaning these are our tax dollars they can't keep track of.
Meanwhile, try understanding what these reports even say:
"GAO's cost guide states that cost estimates should include all costs, but allows flexibility for the estimates to exclude costs where information is limited as long as steps are taken to clearly define and document what costs are included or excluded."
Huh?
Perhaps it should come as no surprise. Anytime anything goes wrong, or someone drops the ball in Washington, politicians like to start a study or name a commission to investigate.
The hope is that by the time the results actually come out, we've all forgotten about whatever it was in the first place.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when the government is issuing a study of a study of studies?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
How big is President Obama's Wall Street problem?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
JPMorgan Chase’s $2 billion trading loss highlights what could be a huge Wall Street problem for President Barack Obama as he faces re-election.
Nearly four years after the financial crisis, little appears to have changed on Wall Street.
These guys can still play fast and loose with whatever rules there are and in the process risk huge losses.
JP Morgan's CEO Jamie Dimon was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday doing damage control. There have already been several resignations at the company.
Dimon acknowledges the $2 billion loss was due to a series of massive bets placed through credit default swaps - which is what nearly brought the country to its knees in 2008.
In other words, what happened at JP Morgan, one of the largest banks in the U.S., is exactly the kind of thing the president's financial law was supposed to stop. But it didn't.
Working in Obama's favor - he can paint his opponent, Mitt Romney, as a big business guy who would slash financial regulations.
But voters will hold up the president against his record - and ask how this could happen again. In light of the mess at JP Morgan, it will be nearly impossible for Obama to run as the president who got tough on Wall Street.
Critics of the president say the White House should have pushed for stronger legislation - and that financial reform took a back seat to the health care and stimulus bills.
They say the president had a historic chance to bring real reform to Wall Street since there was such intense public anger toward the banks.
Administration officials argue Obama pushed for the toughest financial reform law that he could get through Congress.
Here’s my question to you: How big is President Obama's Wall Street problem?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments