[db48x]

> If the funds were being spent correctly then why would they be accounted for falsely?

How should I know? There’s never been any hint that the funds were spent on the wrong items. After all, the military has a rather large budget for spare parts and repair equipment, and Congress doesn’t micromanage how many hammers they are allowed to buy.

Most likely it was just an honest mistake. Someone used form P instead of form Q (or told the contractor to), and accounting didn’t notice. Indeed, if this were evidence of a crime I think the politician in question would have lead with that, rather than pointing it out as an example of government waste (which is bad but not generally criminal).

[lmm]

> There’s never been any hint that the funds were spent on the wrong items.

How would we ever know, if they can be incorrectly accounted for and no-one cares?

> Indeed, if this were evidence of a crime I think the politician in question would have lead with that, rather than pointing it out as an example of government waste (which is bad but not generally criminal).

Proving intent is a lot harder. If the government is overpaying its contractors... there's probably crime going on there too, but it'll be the nudge-wink kind that's very hard to prove. You funnel an overlarge contract to them, then a few years later after you've gone around the revolving door they funnel an overlarge contract to you. That's a crime, but it doesn't leave any evidence except, well, overly large expenditures in the accounts.

[db48x]

> How would we ever know, if they can be incorrectly accounted for and no-one cares?

I am saying that they purchased the correct items. We _can_ know that because there is an itemized list of items that they purchased.

> Proving intent is a lot harder. If the government is overpaying its contractors... there's probably crime going on there too, but it'll be the nudge-wink kind that's very hard to prove.

Don’t misunderstand, I never said that this wasn’t plausible. I just said that there’s no evidence of it. And if there had been evidence, ~30 years ago when this was a current event, the aforementioned politician would have mentioned it. Remember, this guy was looking for soundbites that would make himself look good. Finding government waste made him look good, but finding corruption would have been even better for him.

Worse, even the allegation that this was a wasteful purchase doesn’t really hold up either. A $435 hammer (or a $600) hammer makes for a great soundbite, and plenty of easy outrage from the average voter. But it hinges on nobody looking too closely, because the reality is that they just paid a contractor to purchase COTS parts and assemble them into repair kits. There’s nothing outrageous about that, once you get past the odd bookkeeping.

The most outrageous thing about it is that the politician relied on the “$600 hammer” story for years without much push–back from the media. The media in general should be much more skeptical of things that politicians say. They should check the facts independently, and they should report on the truth or falseness of the statements.

[lmm]

> I am saying that they purchased the correct items. We _can_ know that because there is an itemized list of items that they purchased.

The purchased items were purchased, but apparently a significant chunk of money allocated for purchasing them was instead diverted to this dubious "R&D charge". That's exactly what embezzlement would look like.

> Don’t misunderstand, I never said that this wasn’t plausible. I just said that there’s no evidence of it. And if there had been evidence, ~30 years ago when this was a current event, the aforementioned politician would have mentioned it. Remember, this guy was looking for soundbites that would make himself look good. Finding government waste made him look good, but finding corruption would have been even better for him.

As far as I'm concerned the bad accounting - and the fact that it wasn't corrected for years - is adequate evidence in itself. Yes, it's possible that it was merely monumental incompetence rather than wilfully inflating payments. But the most likely explanation is that it was corruption, of the normalized you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours kind that the participants probably don't even consciously think of as fraud any more.