Newsgroup: it.fan.culo
Titolo: Ogni tanto Krugman si riprende [sui simpatici affari americani in iraq]

Il Simpatico fa notare due cose: 
1) che si lamenta dei favoritismi fatti ad amici e parenti, che tende
ad una scelta "iniqua" del fornitore del bene e/o del servizio, che
viene a costare troppo e/o essere di pessima qualita'. 
2) Come sia praticamente impossibile controllarli.
Mi piace, mi piace! Sta prendendo una bellissima piega.
 
Patriots and Profits
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 16, 2003
 
Columnist Page: Paul Krugman 
E-mail: 
kru...@nytimes.com
Last week there were major news stories about possible profiteering by
Halliburton and other American contractors in Iraq. These stories
have, inevitably and appropriately, been pushed temporarily into the
background by the news of Saddam's capture. But the questions remain.
In fact, the more you look into this issue, the more you worry that we
have entered a new era of excess for the military-industrial complex.
The story about Halliburton's strangely expensive gasoline imports
into Iraq gets curiouser and curiouser. High-priced gasoline was
purchased from a supplier whose name is unfamiliar to industry
experts, but that appears to be run by a prominent Kuwaiti family (no
doubt still grateful for the 1991 liberation). U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers documents seen by The Wall Street Journal refer to
"political pressures" from Kuwait's government and the U.S. embassy in
Kuwait to deal only with that firm. I wonder where that trail leads.
Meanwhile, NBC News has obtained Pentagon inspection reports of
unsanitary conditions at mess halls run by Halliburton in Iraq: "Blood
all over the floors of refrigerators, dirty pans, dirty grills, dirty
salad bars, rotting meat and vegetables." An October report complains
that Halliburton had promised to fix the problem but didn't.
And more detail has been emerging about Bechtel's much-touted school
repairs. Again, a Pentagon report found "horrible" work: dangerous
debris left in playground areas, sloppy paint jobs and broken toilets.
Are these isolated bad examples, or part of a pattern? It's impossible
to be sure without a broad, scrupulously independent investigation.
Yet such an inquiry is hard to imagine in the current political
environment — which is precisely why one can't help suspecting the
worst.
Let's be clear: worries about profiteering aren't a left-right issue.
Conservatives have long warned that regulatory agencies tend to be
"captured" by the industries they regulate; the same must be true of
agencies that hand out contracts. Halliburton, Bechtel and other major
contractors in Iraq have invested heavily in political influence, not
just through campaign contributions, but by enriching people they
believe might be helpful. Dick Cheney is part of a long if not exactly
proud tradition: Brown & Root, which later became the Halliburton
subsidiary doing those dubious deals in Iraq, profited handsomely from
its early support of a young politician named Lyndon Johnson.
So is there any reason to think that things are worse now? Yes.
The biggest curb on profiteering in government contracts is the threat
of exposure: sunshine is the best disinfectant. Yet it's hard to think
of a time when U.S. government dealings have been less subject to
scrutiny.
First of all, we have one-party rule — and it's a highly disciplined,
follow-your-orders party. There are members of Congress eager and
willing to take on the profiteers, but they don't have the power to
issue subpoenas.
And getting information without subpoena power has become much harder
because, as a new report in U.S. News & World Report puts it, the Bush
administration has "dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical
operations of the federal government." Since 9/11, the administration
has invoked national security to justify this secrecy, but it actually
began the day President Bush took office.
To top it all off, after 9/11 the U.S. media — which eagerly played up
the merest hint of scandal during the Clinton years — became highly
protective of the majesty of the office. As the stories I've cited
indicate, they have become more searching lately. But even now,
compare British and U.S. coverage of the Neil Bush saga.
The point is that we've had an environment in which officials inclined
to do favors for their business friends, and contractors inclined to
pad their bills or do shoddy work, didn't have to worry much about
being exposed. Human nature being what it is, then, the odds are that
the troubling stories that have come to light aren't isolated
examples.
Some Americans still seem to feel that even suggesting the possibility
of profiteering is somehow unpatriotic. They should learn the story of
Harry Truman, a congressman who rose to prominence during World War II
by leading a campaign against profiteering. Truman believed,
correctly, that he was serving his country.
On the strength of that record, Franklin Roosevelt chose Truman as his
vice president. George Bush, of course, chose Dick Cheney.  

 Il Simpatico fa notare due cose: 
Ogni martedì e venerdì non mi faccio mai mancare un giro sul sito del new
york times.
BTW c'è un suo bel editoriale pure su The Nation in cui spiega come sia
una puttanata il mito della mobilità reddituale degli USA.
--
El NMF Maximo.
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it