copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2022-01-28): This list was created from data covering contract transactions executed in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, where the reported place of performance was Iraq or Afghanistan. The data — available from the General Service [...] When the Center for Public Integrity published its first "Windfalls of War" investigation, in October 2003, up-to-date data on federal contracting activity was not available. As a result, Center staff gathered contract amounts from documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Since then, however, most such contracts for the post-war efforts list Iraq or Afghanistan as their "place of performance," making the contracting process more transparent and the search for data—available from the General Service Administration’s Federal Procurement Data [...] The updated data does not include all Iraq reconstruction contracts. For example, contract transactions handled by the Army Joint Contracting Command Iraq/Afghanistan is maintained in a separate system. Though summary information about those contracts is available from various sources, including the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction quarterly reports to Congress, detailed transaction information is not generally available to the public.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2023-09-07): This year, the Defense Department asked Congress to approve a staggering $842 billion — nearly half of the federal government’s discretionary spending — to keep America safe in what the Pentagon says is an ever more perilous world. As House and Senate leaders negotiate the final number, it is unlikely they will spend much time discussing ways to prevent future debacles like the LCS. Such a conversation would cover hundreds of billions of misspent taxpayer money on projects from nearly every branch of the military: The F-35 fighter jet, deployed by the Navy, Marines and Air Force, is more than a decade late and $183 billion over budget. The Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, cost $13 billion and has yet to prove it can reliably launch planes. And the Army’s Future Combat System was largely abandoned in 2009 after the military had dedicated more than $200 billion on a battlefield intelligence network meant to link troops, tanks and robots.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2011-06-25): The amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20.2 billion, according to a former Pentagon official. [...] "And anyway, it's not the war that's broken Washington's piggy bank," he adds, noting that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security account for far more spending than the $107 billion the Pentagon says it will spend in Afghanistan next year. [...] CLARIFICATION: The Pentagon disputes the calculation made by Anderson about air conditioning costs. Defense Department spokesman Dave Lapan says that in fiscal year 2010, the Pentagon spent approximately $15 billion on energy for all military operations around the world. The Pentagon says when it comes to Afghanistan, it spent $1.5 billion from October 2010 to May 2011 on fuel. That fuel was used for heating and air conditioning systems, but also for aircraft, unmanned aerial systems, combat vehicles, computers and electricity inside military structures.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2011-05-01): Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington, DC, April 1, 2011, p. 4, http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/docs/hearing2011-04- 01_testimony-Shah.pdf. [...] Afghanistan Reconstruction, ``DOD, State, and USAID Obligated Over $17.7 Billion to About 7,000 Contractors and Other Entities for [...] Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington, DC, April 2, 2011, http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/docs/hearing2011-04- 01_testimony-Shah.pdf.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2022-02-23): - For political reasons, much of the economic data on Afghanistan did not include narcotics exports. However, UNDOC estimates that, "the gross output of the Afghan opiate economy was between $1.8 and $2.7 billion in 2021, comprising the equivalent of 9–14% of Afghanistan’s GDP and exceeding the value of all of Afghanistan’s officially recorded licit exports for 2020 (estimated at 9% of GDP).6 - While military air and spending went to the now defeated and disbanded Afghan National Army and the Afghan Security Forces Fund, this spending still accounted for a large portion of the total money available for salaries, and many civil activities like construction. None of the current estimates of aid requirements seem to take the need to replace a large portion of this spending into account. [...] At the same time, the U.S. and other donors spent far more on Afghan military forces than on even nominal efforts to create a stable Afghanistan and a working economy. SIGAR reporting makes it brutally clear that the U.S. government and other donors totally failed to hold the previous Afghan government accountable for its corruption, theft, and waste. [...] Figure One shows how little money the U.S. spent on national civil reconstruction efforts after FY2013, and SIGAR reports that DOD’s latest Cost of War Report, dated June 30, 2021, said the cumulative obligations for Afghanistan, including U.S. warfighting and reconstruction, had then reached $839.8 billion. The cumulative civil reconstruction and related obligation spending reported by State, USAID, and other civilian agencies only reached $49.7 billion, or 5.9% of this total.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2022-02-03): Opposing Build Back Better while throwing so much more money at the Pentagon marks the ultimate in budgetary and national-security hypocrisy. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that, if current trends continue, the Pentagon could receive a monumental $7.3 trillion-plus over the next decade, more than was spent during the peak decade of the Afghan and Iraq wars, when there were up to 190,000 American troops in those two countries alone. Sadly, but all too predictably, President Biden’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops and contractors from Afghanistan hasn’t generated even the slightest peace dividend. Instead, any savings from that war are already being plowed into programs to counter China, official Washington’s budget-justifying threat of choice (even if outshone for the moment by the possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine). And all of this despite the fact that the United States already spends three times as much as China on its military. [...] Despite the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, for which the Biden administration deserves considerable credit, spending on global counterterror operations remains at high levels, thanks to ongoing missions by Special Operations forces, repeated air strikes, ongoing military aid and training, and other kinds of involvement short of full-scale war. Given the opportunity to rethink strategy as part of a "global force posture" review released late last year, the Biden administration opted for a remarkably status quo approach, insisting on maintaining substantial bases in the Middle East, while modestly boosting the U.S. troop presence in East Asia.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2021-09-03): According to the US Department of Defense, the total military expenditure in Afghanistan (from October 2001 until December 2020) was $825bn, with about another $130bn spent on reconstruction projects. [...] The UK and Germany - who had the largest numbers of troops in Afghanistan after the US - spent an estimated $30bn and $19bn respectively over the course of the war. [...] The bulk of the money spent in Afghanistan has been on counter-insurgency operations, and on the needs of troops such as food, clothing, medical care, special pay and benefits.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2020-03-20): - Health package of around Af 10.9 billion, of which Af 2.6 billion on building hospitals and provincial clinics; [...] - Social package of Af 8.9 billion; [...] The second package, "Bayanihan II" Act, which was signed into law in September, provided additional support (about 1.5 percent of 2020 GDP), with a focus on vulnerable households and hard-hit sectors, such as agriculture, transportation, and tourism, and also included capital injections into state-owned banks. In addition, under Bayanihan II capital injection of PHP 5 billion was given to PhilGuarantee which could support loan guarantee of PHP 100 billion (about 0.6 percent of 2020 GDP). The use of the unspent Bayanihan II funds has been extended to June 30, 2021.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2023-07-11): Most of it was military spending. Between 2001 and 2022, the U.S. spent $8 trillion on war. While the U.S. comprises just over 4% of the world’s population, it is now responsible for 40% of global military spending, more than the next ten top-spending countries combined. But where does the spending go? Since 9/11, the military-industrial complex (MIC,) the most powerful lobby in Washington comprised of weapons industries, has lobbied the U.S. into wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and now Ukraine. These conflicts have racked up trillions of dollars in debt and made defense contractors extremely wealthy. [...] Iraq, America’s centerpiece in its War on Terror, is now "a laboratory in which militant groups such as Islamic State have been able to hone their techniques of recruitment and violence." In Afghanistan, the Taliban are back in power after a 20-year U.S. occupation that cost $2.3 trillion and 243,000 lives.
Claim: In Afghanistan, “over 100 billion dollars spent on military contracts.” (Mandela Barnes, 2021-08-16)
Evidence (2023-07-27): Another way that taxpayers get gouged is through its contractor workforce. Our nation’s defense is often supported through contractors who feed our troops, house out military families, transport needed equipment, and perform a wide range of tasks that, in past years, were either done by active duty military or civilian employees. Over the past quarter-century, DoD spending on service contracts has more than doubled, reaching over $205 billion in fiscal year 2022. [...] Over the past two decades, the Department of Defense has gone from spending about $100 billion a year on service contractors to $205 billion in 2022. And this is the point. It is not quite half of the entire budget that we are spending, but it’s sure starting to crowd in on it. [...] Senator Warren: So here we are spending more than $200 billion on service contractors. We don’t really know how many people we’re hiring or what we’re paying these people. And we accepted the GAO estimate of $200B. I just want to point out, CBO has said it may be closer to $300B. The inability of government accountants even to estimate how much we’re spending is a sign that the Pentagon contracting is badly broken.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2021-05-24): In 2017, New Haven, Conn., had to pay $8.4 million to settle a police misconduct lawsuit. It drew the funds from other city programs, and restored them the next year using proceeds from bond sales. Few municipalities track the total cost of these lawsuits, which total millions nationally each year.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2021-05-24): Typically, taxpayers pay for police misconduct judgments and settlements in one of three ways. If their municipality uses liability insurance (typical of smaller municipalities), they pay for them indirectly in the form of premiums. If their municipality uses money from a general or dedicated fund (typical of larger municipalities), then they pay for them directly. The same goes if their municipality issues a bond. Bonds are particularly common for large judgments or settlements that exceed insurer liabilities or the capacity of general or dedicated funds and often result in taxpayers paying nearly double because the city or county must pay fees to financial institutions and interest to investors. One recent study found that from 2008-2017, taxpayers in Chicago, IL (limited to 2010-2017); Cleveland, OH; Lake County, IN; Los Angeles, CA; and Milwaukee, WI, paid an estimated combined total of $1.73 billion in bonds and interest payments for police misconduct. The money taxpayers spend on police misconduct has the potential to defund other municipal services, including those proven to prevent crime. In 1983, South Tucson, AZ, went bankrupt after a police misconduct settlement.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2024-09-16): New Haven is a city in New Haven County, Connecticut, United States. It is located on New Haven Harbor on the northern shore of Long Island Sound and is part of the New York City metropolitan area. With a population of 135,081 as determined by the 2020 U.S. census,[2] New Haven is the third largest city in Connecticut after Bridgeport and Stamford, the largest city in the South Central Connecticut Planning Region, and the principal municipality of Greater New Haven, which had a total population of 864,835 in 2020. Prior to 1960, it was the county seat of New Haven County until the county governments were abolished that year.[3] [...] New Haven lies within Connecticut's 3rd congressional district and has been represented by Rosa DeLauro since 1991. Martin Looney and Gary Holder-Winfield represent New Haven in the Connecticut State Senate, and the city lies within six districts (numbers 92 through 97) of the Connecticut House of Representatives.[89][90] [...] See also [edit]- National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut - New Haven Fire Department - New Haven Police Department - Coast Guard Station New Haven - New Haven Coronavirus - USS New Haven, 4 ships - Education in Connecticut - History of Connecticut
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2008-10-01): State and local governments issue bonds to pay for large, expensive, and long-lived capital projects, such as roads, bridges, airports, schools, hospitals, water treatment facilities, power plants, courthouses, and other public buildings. Although states and localities can and sometimes do pay for capital investments with current revenues, borrowing allows them to spread the costs across multiple generations. Future project users bear some of the cost through higher taxes or tolls, fares, and other charges that help service the debts.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2022-07-04): In recent years and during times of strong market conditions, it has been relatively straightforward for borrowers to then finalize the permanent financing transaction either before drawing the bridge or immediately after and quickly refinance bridge loans. However, recent changes and ongoing volatility in credit markets have delayed the permanent financing and put a damper on the ability to refinance the bridge facilities during the initial one year term. In such market conditions, banks need to consider whether to wait and stay in the bridge loan, or potentially price the high yield bond above the Cap (discussed below) and/or price with significant original issue discount, which would mean the banks might ultimately lose expected fees or more from the transaction. [...] The securities demand provisions in the bridge fee letter give the banks the right to demand that the borrower issue a high yield bond to refinance the unpaid bridge loan. Once the borrower and the banks satisfy the conditions of such demand, the banks in theory gain full control of the timing and structure of the long-term financing.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2013-11-22): NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- The bridge that connects West Haven and New Haven at Kimberly Avenue will be known as Officer Robert Vincent Fumiatti Memorial Bridge in honor of the New Haven cop who died in 2007 from complications after being shot in 2002. Police union official Jeffrey Matchett said it's hard to think of a more fitting tribute to Fumiatti since the bridge links his hometown of West Haven with New Haven, which is where he worked. [...] The bridge dedication was in part work of members of the New Haven and West Haven delegations at the state legislature, said state Rep. Stephen Dargan, D-West Haven. Council 15 had approached him and others with the idea.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2021-08-28): Officials: Chapel Street Bridge in New Haven closed due to malfunction [...] NEW HAVEN, Conn. (WTNH)– The Chapel Street Bridge between East Street and James Street is closed until further notice after being stuck in the open position, according to city officials. [...] Police at Bella Vista apartments in New Haven after … 1 day ago
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2022-04-13): Late 1970s Revival - Shoreham to New Haven, CT - Moving the bridge proposal 12 miles east of Port Jefferson to Shoreham a new bridge crossing was proposed - Newsday ran articles in 1978 assessing the proposal including a seaport in the Shoreham-Wading River area and an airport for international freight at Calverton - The span would be a four-lane roadway of 19.3 miles - The cost in 1971 was estimated to be $565 million - By 1979, that cost skyrocketed to an estimated $1.4 billion due to inflation - A 1979 Long Island Sound Bridge Study conducted by the NYSDOT estimated that the Shoreham-New Haven Bridge would carry an average of 15,500 vehicles per day with a $6 toll each way - In Suffolk County, the bridge would connect directly with William Floyd Parkway - designed to carry 57,000 vehicles per day - At the time it carried about 25,000 vehicles per day - New York State would take over William Floyd Parkway and create a 4-lane expressway between NY 25A and the Long Island Expressway (I-495) - possibly to Sunrise Highway in Shirley - Contentious hearings were held with opinions split on the proposed bridge
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2024-09-19): More construction delays [edit]Construction on the bridge itself was originally set to begin in 2005 and be completed in 2012. However, two historically significant structures—the former Yale Boathouse and the Fitch Foundry—sat directly in the path of the new bridge. The City of New Haven demanded that these two structures be preserved.[7] Mayor DeStefano further argued that CONNDOT should include the expansion of I-95 through Long Wharf and West Haven into the overall plan instead of pursuing these projects separately. Given the impasse between CONNDOT and the City of New Haven over these two issues, the FHWA threatened to pull funding for the project unless the city and state could come to a consensus on how to proceed while keeping the project's costs under control.[8][9] Realizing that such a move would effectively void the already-approved EIS and require a new one to be developed, CONNDOT and the city of New Haven made a compromise in late 2005 that called for CONNDOT to provide $30 million in funding for a new Yale Boathouse on Long Wharf that would incorporate a chunk of the old boathouse's façade. In exchange, the City of New Haven agreed to allow CONNDOT to continue the environmental and design studies on the Long Wharf and West Haven sections apart from the I-91/Route 34 to Branford segment of I-95 that includes the Q-Bridge.[10] [...] - ^ "New Haven trying to get agreement on Q-Bridge project, WTNH TV Channel 8, November 9, 2005". Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved June 29, 2007.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2023-12-23): NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — Connecticut transportation officials say a new bridge on Interstate 95 between New Haven and West Haven is set to fully open to traffic after a $141 million replacement project.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2022-11-16): The bridge includes an investment of $500 million from Amtrak, the Connecticut Dept. of Transportation (ConnDOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration, according to Amtrak. Amtrak and ConnDOT will provide 38% in matching funds, bringing the total to more than $100 million toward the project, which has received two grants of $65.2 million each, the first in 2020 and another in August from the Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Program.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2012-06-05): The PHMB (locally known as the Q Bridge) is the centerpiece of the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s (CTDOT) larger I-95 New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Improvement Program. The new PHMB carries I-95 over New Haven Harbor at the confluence of the Quinnipiac and Mill Rivers. The project was initiated because of the need for operational and safety upgrades to the I-95 corridor through this area due to the volume of traffic and the structural deficiencies of the previous bridge. The project included replacing the entire mile long bridge viaduct structure, increasing the current six-lane configuration to (10) ten lanes and providing full shoulder widths. The new bridge provides operational and safety improvements designed to reduce traffic congestion and to minimize delays on I-95 through the New Haven area. The new bridge replaces the previous 1958 structure that was designed for 40,000 vehicles per day; adding critical capacity to accommodate the more than 140,000 vehicles per day now traversing the adjacent I-95/I-91/Route 34 Interchange, one of the busiest in the nation.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2023-06-02): New Haven is located in central Connecticut.
Claim: “New Haven, Conn., had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement." (Tim Kaine, 2021-05-24)
Evidence (2021-05-24): In 2017, New Haven, Conn., had to pay $8.4 million to settle a police misconduct lawsuit. [...] We wondered about the New Haven example. Was money for a bridge diverted to settle a lawsuit against the police? [...] Kaine said police settlements can defund city services, as when "New Haven, Conn, had to issue bonds for a bridge after using funds for that bridge to pay for a police misconduct settlement."