A news article released on October 9th, 2010 was recently posted on the Internet with the headline “Federal Contracts Awarded by Federal Agencies in Ohio”. In the report are listed various dollar amounts awarded to contractors who have submitted bids to federal agencies for various services, products or a combination of both. One that clearly sticks out is the contract awarded to Shield Technologies, based out of Minneapolis, MN. Awarded by the Defense Logistics Agency’s Defense Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio, is $120,000 for the procurement of boat covers.
Photo by RDECOM
Apparently our government has no problem with continually awarding large sums of money to defense contract companies for items that could be purchased for far less money. It is a well-known fact that our country is and has been in debt since the birth of the United States of America, in 1776. Back then, the debt ran at approximately $75 million, which included everything spent on the revolutionary war. Now our national debt is well over $13 trillion. Considering that we have never fully recovered from debt since day one, how can it be deemed “okay” to proceed with excessive government spending, especially on items that can be easily purchased for less money than is awarded?
[amazon bestseller=”Boat Covers”]
Our government can tell us, till it is blue in the face, that every penny spent on federal contracts has been approved and voted for by the American people. Yet continually, local poles show that at least 94% of all contracts awarded for government spending are rarely made public. In fact, when government spending is made public, it is mentioned as if it is merely “business as usual“ and not significant. While there are still people starving in our country, some who are out of jobs and many who are living on the street, there is simply no justification for over inflated spending, period. Indeed, most government contractors who have been awarded government spending contracts have literally been granted hundreds of awards and have made millions of dollars from like contracts. What harm would it do if we, the people, were to say “No!” to excessive government spending?
Since awarding government contracts seems to indicate there are needs for boating supplies, one of the first things to consider is what could be spent on boat covers, if needed. The average boat cover costs about $50 when bought in bulk, and dividing that number into $120,000 gives us a result of 2,400. If this “average” dollar amount is considered, the result indicates that there are potentially two-thousand, four-hundred boat covers needed for boats used by the Defense Logistics Agency. This amount seems completely over-blown, so there is one of two issues going on, if that is the case: 1. The dollar amount, per boat cover quantity actually purchased, is far more than the suggested $50, or 2. The amount of boat covers purchased are not necessarily needed; in fact a large, projected need for them could be inside the bid for consideration. No matter how you look at it, this is an extraordinarily large amount of money that was recently awarded to a defense materials agency for something that could normally be purchased at a reasonable fee. If the amount of boat covers were well into the 200 quantity, the total amount needed would only have been $10k, certainly not the over inflated amount of $120k. How could over 2,000 be needed?
Considering also the current state of our economy, people who are without work or homeless as well as numerous other citizens who genuinely could benefit from government spending, we need to think about what we, as American people, can do about over excessive government contract spending. If our government is truly for the people, by the people, something must be done since we cannot convert boat covers into homes, food or necessities.