Skip to main content

Hurry Up and Spend!

Interesting communication from the Markell administration, requesting a team of 6 lawyers, at a (likely) cost of $60,000 for one week of work, to figure out how to grab as much stimulus money as possible and to 'write the book' on how to do it....by the end of next week, mind you.

Why? Because it's there.

I am reminded of the reality about government waste inherent when a pile of public cash is dumped on an agency or a jurisdiction with the proviso : "if you don't spend it all, you won't get as much next time." So money gets burned however possible, whether the spending is needed or not.

It's a recipe for massive waste, fraud, and abuse considering the scale of the spending involved.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE COUNSEL TO THE STATE OF DELAWARE

The State of Delaware seeks to engage, on an expedited basis, a law firm to act as counsel in connection with the state’s application for and use of funds from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The estimated scope of work will be 240 hours to be performed by six attorneys over a one week period of time beginning at 9:00 a.m. on March 13, 2009. The final work product requested is a written handbook detailing for the State of Delaware the steps needed to ensure that the state obtains the maximum possible amount of federal funding under the ARRA, and that said funds are used in a legally proper manner.


Law firms seeking this engagement must have been business for at least five years, and must agree to maintain in full force and effect during the term of the contract professional liability insurance in an aggregate amount of at least $2 million.


Law firms seeking this engagement must demonstrate the capacity to perform the scope of services needed by the state within the indicated time frame. Law firms seeking this engagement should also specify any expertise in the area of interpretation of or compliance with federal funding statutes and regulations, and shall specify the names and bar admission years of the attorneys who will be working on this engagement if awarded.


Each law firm seeking this engagement shall identify any potential conflicts of interest that may arise if the firm is retained for the indicated purpose.


Each law firm seeking this engagement shall submit a flat-fee offer with respect to the work indicated. Said flat fee shall not exceed $60,000, excluding out-of-pocket costs.


Law firm selection will be made based upon the following criteria:

  1. Firm’s ability to comply with minimum requirements outlined above.
  2. Experience of attorneys who will be performing requested work.
  3. Absence of conflicts or satisfactory resolution of any existing conflicts.

Submissions should be made by e-mail no later than noon, March 12, 2009 to:
Robert L. Scoglietti
Director of Policy and External Affairs
Delaware Office of Management and Budget

Comments

Interesting you should post this now. I work for an agency that is expecting to receive approx $5 million from ARRA. During a conference call yesterday, the words from the State, which were repeated quite a few times were:

"Spend, spend, spend".

There is a limited amount of time to spend the money, and not all federal guidance on certain questions have been made clear. Although not physically in hand yet, the monies will need to be spent quickly.

If I heard "Spend, spend, spend" one more time I think I was going to puke. Thank goodness it was a conference call and the phone was on mute so I can make the appropriate facial expressions and snide remarks.

I'm not saying the money will not be spent well or efficiently (although not 100% of it will, I guarantee), but the "spend spend spend" mantra was just a little much.
Tyler Nixon said…
The problem is the silent parenthetical after it : (OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY).
Anonymous said…
Shirley, not knowing what agency you work for makes it impossible to judge the potential quality of the spending. You did say that the money would be well spent, which is good to hear. I would hope it will also create more jobs.

To the $60K investment for $5M expenditure, that's a little over 1% to assure that the spending is very well directed. I support that!

Perry Hood
Sorry to say, this money will not create any jobs.

It will be spent according to the parameters of the regulations, but that doesn't mean it is doing anything for the economy. It will, however, stimulate quite a bit of administrative challenges within the organization.

Without going into too much detail, people would have different opinions on whether or not this money is well spent or not. It is a supplement to an existing fund, and I don't really see the actual need demonstrated that more funds were needed...in fact, we will have to differentiate between existing and stimulus funds, which tells me that the existing funding level was quite enough.

I think that most of the jobs that will be "created" through ARRA will be government jobs (which tend to last forever, unlike construction jobs), and, as Tyler points out, lots and lots and lots of lawyers.
Gee, Perry, given that the State already employs dozens of attorneys, and given that most of our liberal friends here oppose the very idea of privatization, why would you support the outsourcing of any facet of the management of government funds intended to stimulate the economy to pad the billing of for-profit attorneys.

Shouldn't somebody in the AG's office, or the Auditor's office be able to do this and save the state a few tens of thousands of dollars?

And what, pray tell, is the percentage of loss to administrative costs do you find acceptable in public funds?
Tyler Nixon said…
The sad underlying point is that we are not hiring professionals to scrutinize the state's needs and obtain federal money to meet them.

We are hiring them to make sure we grab as much as possible, for which we can qualify, no matter the actual public good involved.

This is what comes when we are led by people (not Markell) of the twisted mind than ANY government spending is good, and much much much much more is all the better.

Who cares if it goes down the rat hole, just get / grab all you can as fast as you can.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...