Newly declassified document from Inspector General: U.S. climate change spending abroad is a mess

Seal of the United States Department of State.

Seal of the United States Department of State. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

… more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.”

From Fox News, which has the exclusive story:

Inadequate oversight, lax bookkeeping, sloppy paperwork, haphazard performance agreements and missing financial documentation have plagued U.S. State Department spending of tens of millions of dollars to combat climate change, according to a report by State’s internal financial watchdog — and the problem could be much, much bigger than that.

The audit report, issued last month by the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), casts an unflattering spotlight on a relatively obscure branch of the State Department that supervises climate change spending, and depicts it as over-extended in its responsibilities, unstaffed in critical monitoring posts, and more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.

According  to a State Department website, the U.S. has contributed some $5.1 billion in climate change funding to developing countries in 2010 and 2011 alone, with additional money still pouring forth in 2012.

  • OIG looked at  seven of 19 program grants totaling $34 million, and discovered they contained no specific plans for monitoring the results. As the report demurely noted, “Without comprehensive monitoring of grants, the department may not always have reasonable assurance that federal funds were spent in accordance with the grant award; that the grant recipient performed program activities as dictated in the grant award; and that the program’s indicators, goals and objectives were achieved.”
  • So-called grant oversight officers whose responsibilities included developing the monitoring plans, also failed to provide written reviews of compliance with State Department reporting standards, along with a variety of other financial procedures. In some cases, there apparently weren’t enough oversight officers to go around; when three left their jobs, OIG found evidence that only one was replaced.
  • Oversight officers apparently didn’t do a lot of overseeing. The OIG discovered that actual visits to climate change sites were rare, and when they occurred, not much effort went into examining the actual paperwork involved. In one series of Indian cases examined by OIG, the officers’ reports “typically summarized meetings held with grantee officials where only the statuses of the programs were discussed.”
  • Requirements that grant recipients submit quarterly financial statements were apparently ignored, even though procedures called for cutoffs if the statements were not provided. The report cites an unnamed recipient in Hyderabad, India, who got two separate grants totaling $1.1 million: funding continued to be doled out throughout the project, even though the reporting requirements were completely ignored. And in other cases, even when quarterly reports were received, they were often flawed.
  • The same cavalier attitude toward reporting apparently applied even when projects ended. As the report discreetly puts it, overseers “did not always obtain the final reports needed to ensure that final deliverables were achieved, funds were reconciled, and proper closeout of the project was completed.”
  • One reason for this, apparently, is that reporting requirements for detailed results toward specific indicators — along with general goals and objectives — were not included in any of the seven grants examined by OIG. One of the missing indicators in a number of cases was the actual amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by the project.

Here’s the complete de-classified report

http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/195671.pdf

It’s all about the money. These fools aren’t solving anything related to climate with this spending.

h/t to WUWT reader Robbin Harrell

About these ads
This entry was posted in Government idiocy and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Newly declassified document from Inspector General: U.S. climate change spending abroad is a mess

  1. GlynnMhor says:

    “… more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.”

    Well, given that the spending of the money will have no detectable effect on the climate, it would appear that the whole purpose of the department is just to spend money.

  2. Bob Tisdale says:

    Picky, picky, picky.

  3. According to a State Department website, the U.S. has contributed some $5.1 billion in climate change funding to developing countries in 2010 and 2011 alone
    It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.

  4. You’ve got to be kidding me, right? That’s the narrative now from CC skeptics? That spending is a mess? Come on now…

  5. Ahh I retract my previous comment as I failed to properly read this (failed to read this). So my understanding is the state department might not even be USING the funds in the way they are even intended? Sigh…It seems the state department is best qualified for that kind of behavior.

  6. Theo Goodwin says:

    “So-called grant oversight officers whose responsibilities included developing the monitoring plans, also failed to provide…”

    Apparently, the IG does not have a lot of confidence in these oversight officers.

  7. Andy Adkins says:

    More than likely that State Department arbiters are fully aware of the nonsense of AGW climate change and are using dedicated funds for excesses and kickbacks (lots of big travel parties). If greenhouse gas levels were given serious concern by any lever of government, then all global waterways would be undergoing cleanups to improve their Sink Capacity for commerce (accumulating heavy debris for 500 years; no clean up)….State Department would never expose Carbon Trading hypocrisies…kinship investments…… twitter/chaerophon

  8. Jay says:

    We are broke. Is borrowing money worth it for these programs?
    I think NOT.
    Cut all this spending, we cannot afford it.
    Five billion in 2 years? Wow!
    I am writing my representatives. Delete these budget items.

  9. Neil Jones says:

    A nice little bit of wealth redistribution, that’s all…really!

  10. Geoff Alder says:

    I consider the whole money-throwing culture of that part of the Green coterie ensconced in public office deplorable. The more governments succeed in trashing life in general, the more of this we can expect to see.

  11. Paul Jackson says:

    This is an old story, the version I remember involved a little boy, money for music lessons and a candy store.

  12. Jared says:

    And one politcal side will see this as a shortage of funding. If they just give them more money then they can staff people to correct these mistakes.

  13. “It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.” – Leif Svalgaard

    Such levels of waste are not only credible in the US government, they are expected. It’s kind of the whole point of the whole thing.

  14. William McClenney says:

    Theater of the Absurd

  15. Jim says:

    Follow the money, Anthony. We’re giving away money on this climate hoax, while Russia is licking its chops. Even if we climate change were real, we wouldn’t be able to stop it. Russia is up in the Arctic increasing its military presence in the Arctic and making preparations to drill for gas, oil and mineral resources. Russia perceives (correctly) that global warming would be a good thing. Russia wants global warming.

  16. Drave Robber says:

    Oversight officers apparently didn’t do a lot of overseeing.

    They should be called ‘overlook officers’ then. :)

  17. Taphonomic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    “It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.”

    While it appears incredible, that is what the State Department web site claims:

    “Since Copenhagen, the United States has substantially increased its investments in international climate finance. U.S. fast start financing in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 totaled $3.1 billion, consisting of $1.8 billion of Congressionally appropriated assistance and $1.3 billion from development finance and export credit agencies. To date, the U.S. contribution to fast start financing from these sources totals $5.1 billion, including a contribution of $2.0 billion from FY 2010. Ultimately, the total U.S. contribution to fast start financing will also include funding from FY 2012.”

    http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/faststart/c48618.htm

  18. harrywr2 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 8:22 am

    It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.

    Look for yourself….US State Department Website on Climate Change –
    http://www.foreignassistance.gov/Initiative_GCC_2012.aspx?FY=2012

  19. bdaabat says:

    @ Leif: Here’s the link to the Dept of State website which discusses the funding for meeting the Fast Start commitment:
    http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/faststart/index.htm

    Bruce

  20. steveta_uk says:

    There’s been loads of climate change near my house recently, and I’m overseas. Where do I apply for one of these grants?

  21. Doug Huffman says:

    http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/faststart/index.htm

    “Since Copenhagen, the United States has substantially increased its investments in international climate finance. U.S. fast start financing in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 totaled $3.1 billion, consisting of $1.8 billion of Congressionally appropriated assistance and $1.3 billion from development finance and export credit agencies. To date, the U.S. contribution to fast start financing from these sources totals $5.1 billion, including a contribution of $2.0 billion from FY 2010. Ultimately, the total U.S. contribution to fast start financing will also include funding from FY 2012. “

  22. David Larsen says:

    Remember who heads the Department of State. She is from Illinois (a bunch of con artists), she has a law degree and practiced in only one case, let’s other women do her job for former White House residents ;), and has a caboose the size Manitoba. OIG should go after her for not providing accountability as leader of that department. She has wasted billions of US tax dollars on an Al Gore fraud that has no foundation in science or reality. Something needs to be done, NOW!

  23. Curiousgeorge says:

    “, and more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.”

    That’s what taxnspend lib/progressives do. Can’t wait for Nov to get rid of the pos stinking up the oval office and all his lackies.

  24. pat says:

    One dime spent on this nonsense is too much.

  25. Latimer Alder says:

    It’s OK . Climate change believers are universally so high-minded and so devoted to saving Mother Gaia for the benefit of all Humanity that grubby considerations of finance and audit and effectiveness are beneath their notice. Their moral purity means that there is no need for external monitoring or control.

    It is only those Nasty Evil Deniers who indulge in fraud or misappropriation or theft.

    /sarc

  26. James Sexton says:

    Nice, more party favors for the world while the U.S. economy stays in a state of stalled. So, in the midst of our worst recession in 80 years, we increase spending on some imaginary boogyman.

  27. John West says:

    These fools aren’t solving anything related to climate with this spending.”

    Hmmmm…..

    These fools [charlatans] aren’t solving anything related to climate with this [irresponsible] spending [of other peoples' money].

    There. That’s better.

  28. gregole says:

    It’s the American way! /sarc

  29. Bill Parsons says:

    RE: “U.S. climate change spending abroad is a mess”

    “…abroad” ?!?

  30. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 8:22 am

    According to a State Department website, the U.S. has contributed some $5.1 billion in climate change funding to developing countries in 2010 and 2011 alone
    It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.

    Perhaps. What is perfectly credible however is money really spent on other things would be labeled as “combating climate change” because that was politically popular and would win easy approval.

    While it’s tempting to say we could simply wipe out $5.1 billion in unnecessary US federal expenditures, I have a strong suspicion that a lot of that spending would still take place but be called something else.

    Certainly even if it were all legitimate, $5.1 billion buys you essentially zero CO2 reduction so we could still cut it out and the climate wouldn’t notice the difference.

  31. Matt says:

    RE: “U.S. climate change spending abroad is a mess”
    Not only “…abroad”???, but “climate change…”???
    Name one US federal agency who’s spending isn’t a mess.

  32. Bloke down the pub says:

    Being a cynical old sod, I wonder how much of this funding will end up being spent on ‘projects’ in Syria?

  33. kramer says:

    … more concerned with spending money than in monitoring its effectiveness.”

    Of course Democrats are more concerned with redistributing our money to the rest of the world. They want to redistribute our wealth to the rest of the world in part because they are beholden to foreign interests and in part because they feel like this generally conservative, Christian, and capitalistic nation robbed the third world of it’s riches via colonialism.

    They shoveled out our top secret nuclear weapons secrets to the world in the 90’s under Clinton. They have been working since the 70’s at shoveling out our manufacturing base to the world. Add in the shoveling out our wealth to the world and you have an economic disemboweling of America in progress.

    The only way they get away with this disemboweling is because the vast majority of the MSM protects them and markets their leftist ideals.

  34. Ian W says:

    This spending abroad is the same as ‘climate’ funding domestically – it is a money laundering scheme for passing taxpayers’ money to friends of politicians.

  35. David says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    August 15, 2012 at 8:22 am

    According to a State Department website, the U.S. has contributed some $5.1 billion in climate change funding to developing countries in 2010 and 2011 alone
    It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.
    ——————————————–
    True, as the climate can change with or without funding!.. However it is credible that the money was spent on something.

  36. Alec Rawls says:

    “It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.”

    Leif grasps the sheer size of a billion dollars, but maybe he is taking “spent” too literally. To better capture the reality think, “gave it away,” “threw it away,” or maybe “left it lying in a pile in central Bombay.”

    The rate at which money that can scattered on the wind (or doled out to politically connected parties) is pretty much unlimited. Something to do with that “no oversight” part.

  37. tadchem says:

    “Transparency” and “accountability” are NEVER required of the party in power. Those are strictly tools for intimidating minority political groups.

  38. paddylol says:

    What is troubling about this type of expenditure is that there is no budget item to authorize it nor an appropriation law to allow payment. Obama’s refusal to provide a specific budget coupled with the Senate blocking all matters of this kind will continue unabated, Republicans have collaborated by agreeing to continuing resolutions that give Obama a free hand. The Democrat controlled Senate and Obama continue to flagrantly violate the laws designed to keep government honest.

    Four more years of Obama and the ruination of the democratic republic of the USA will be completed.

  39. more soylent green! says:

    @Leif: Are you familiar with the US government?

    First, $5 billion is chump change. Sure, a billion here, a billion there and soon we’re talking real money, but $5 billion to save the world is a small price, isn’t it?

    Second, the way the government accounts for money, they might have lumped together new buildings, furniture, conferenes and parties in order to boost the total and make it appear like they are doing more.

  40. David Larsen says:

    Remember who were both in the White House under slick Willie. Al Gore was there as VP and Hillary was the first lady. And the scam continues.

  41. Jim G says:

    So, what makes anyone think the US government would spend money any more effectively or efficiently abroad than we do at home?

  42. Berényi Péter says:

    Is there a standard (and safe) procedure in place for these government employees to divert a fraction of that money to their personal bank accounts? If so, the whole mess starts to make sense.

  43. temp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 8:22 am

    “It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.”

    No doubt that Leif buys into the well debunked propaganda that believers are poorly funded and nothing is being spent by government supporting global warming/eugenics/whatever they are calling it now.

    I’m surprised only by the fact its so small. The EU was spending that probably back in the early part of 2000.

  44. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 15, 2012 at 8:22 am
    According to a State Department website, the U.S. has contributed some $5.1 billion in climate change funding to developing countries in 2010 and 2011 alone
    “It is not credible that billions were spent on climate change funding in developing countries.”

    Here we agree. The money was more likely stolen, given to political cronies, or relatives of same either here or abroad. The only climate that will be impacted is the financial climate of the beneficiaries.

  45. graphicconception says:

    I’ve got an idea for the climate modellers who say that it must be CO2 because we can’t think of anything else.

    Money “spent” on environmental problems should be a model parameter.

    Also, I suspect positive feedback, the more money that is available the more “problems” there will be!

  46. Rob Crawford says:

    C’mon, we all know what happens. State Department drones pump the money into projects run by the brothers-in-law of the local powers-that-be, a hefty chunk of the money ends up in the pockets of the local powers-that-be, and then after the State Department drone retires he’s hired to make speeches to groups funded by the local powers-that-be.

    Everybody wins but the taxpayers and the people who have to live under the local powers-that-be.

  47. TonyG says:

    Seems to be a few different interpretations of Leif’s comment…

    My take – the claim that $5B was spent by the government on anything is certainly credible. The claim that the money actually went to the purposes it was claimed to go for is less so. The claim that the money was put to such use in the end is absolutely NOT credible.

  48. Bill Parsons says:

    From Wiki

    The 2010 United States federal budget proposed to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of US $15 billion per year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits.

    At that rate, U.S. taxpayers have “invested” about 45 B so far. The 3 B for developing countries doesn’t seem so bad then. Does it? Everybody here knows the waste, I assume. But if you’re curious, Google “Colorado” along with “solar”, and any pejorative adjective you wish: “crash”, “bankruptcy”, “collapse”… and you will get an eyefull. Do the same with “wind energy”. Be sure you read about “Primestar”, “Abound” and “GE”. “Vesta” for breaking wind news… er…

  49. martinbrumby says:

    “Since Copenhagen, the United States has substantially increased its investments in international climate finance. U.S. fast start financing in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 totaled $3.1 billion, consisting of $1.8 billion of Congressionally appropriated assistance and $1.3 billion from development finance and export credit agencies. To date, the U.S. contribution to fast start financing from these sources totals $5.1 billion, including a contribution of $2.0 billion from FY 2010. Ultimately, the total U.S. contribution to fast start financing will also include funding from FY 2012.”

    And how much did Heartland receive when Joe Romm was hyperventilating about it?

    Of course, the US will get absolutely zero credit or thanks for this money, even from the Kleptocrats who have stolen it.

    But a little problem.

    When the wheels eventually come off this juggernaut, how do you think these poor countries will react when the tap is turned off? The West’s “Climate Debt” unpaid?

  50. SnickFromArabia says:

    Real journalism from the most popular news network? And tube dresses! Wherever you have a Net connection, even: http://ihelps.net/foxnewslinks.htm

  51. Jimmy Haigh says:

    More of your hard earned tax dollars being pissed against a wall. (As we say in Scotland.)

  52. Rob Potter says:

    Having spent nearly four years managing a large grant from USG, I am really quite appalled at this. We had very strict accounting and reporting requirements which we had to impose on sub-contractors as well, such that I spent more time on these activities than on the scientific work I was supposed to be supervising. I fully accepted this as the price of working with government money and so did all of our sub-contractors.

    I still shudder at the outcome and impact reporting (two very different things according the State Department) where we had to not only detail what was done (including the gender of the people supported/trained), but also progress towards the ultimate project goals. That the climate change projects have no such oversight is a scandal, regardless of your opinion on the importance of this issue. Why is this left to Fox to report? It should be on every network.

  53. Bill Parsons says:

    RE: “any pejorative adjective you wish: ‘crash’, ‘bankruptcy’, ‘collapse’…”

    Make that: “any pejorative noun you wish: ‘crash’, ‘bankruptcy’, ‘collapse’…”

  54. Andy W says:

    ” One of the missing indicators in a number of cases was the actual amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere by the project.”

    That’s the money quote.
    Don’t know how much ‘carbon’ you’ve removed ? Then you don’t know how much you’ve lowered the temperature by (although, whatever the true amount is, skeptics will be more than happy to explain to you why the temp reduction will be vanishingly small)

  55. Taphonomic says:
    August 15, 2012 at 9:04 am
    “Since Copenhagen, the United States has substantially increased its investments in international climate finance.
    That is not funding for [the study of] climate change, but perhaps it was presumptuous to believe that that was what was meant.

  56. tz says:

    Speaking of the government and carbon dioxide emissions (often within hot air):

    What is the carbon footprint of the military, and if sequestration goes in, will it cause a great drop in the output from all those carriers, supersonic war planes, and vehicles measured in gallons per mile without catalytic converters that move and have to be moved over a ten-thousand mile area?

    If they were serious about reducing greenhouse gases, we would cease being the policeman of the world.

    Also on the “feed the poor”, how is requiring that a large portion of this year’s already very reduced corn crop will go into our gas tanks compatible with anything charitable? Especially since it does NOT oxygenate fuel, at least according to physical and chemical laws, even if Congress says otherwise?

  57. Tom in Florida says:

    When I graduated from high school my father spent a lot of money to send me abroad. She wasn’t my type so I sent her back. (well, somebody had to say it)

  58. highflight56433 says:

    “Russia wants global warming.”

    But I do believe they are actually planning on a colder climate. Investing in new ice breakers for an ice-free arctic? Don’t think so:
    http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/26/61067849.html
    Hence the get to the oil so it can be sold to their freezing comrades and others standing in the “soup line.”
    http://vmdaily.ru/news/novii-lednikovii-period-ne-za-gorami1329540932.html

  59. Justthinkin says:

    Rob asks “Why is this left to Fox to report? It should be on every network.” Because Fox is the only network not in the DemoncRats pockets.
    5.1 Billion? Isn’t that a lot less then what has been spent just in the CONUS??? But not to worry.The eco-cultists here in Canuckistan are trying hard to catch up.After all,why should just the USofA fall,when they can bring down all of NA?

  60. Louis says:

    I’d like to know what measurable good all this spending on climate change has accomplished. It seems that the real reason for it is to redistribute money from the middle class of one country to the wealthy class of other countries. It certainly isn’t ending up in the hands of the poor and disadvantaged.

    Wouldn’t it be better to save the money and use it later to help people adapt to climate change when (and if) it ever becomes necessary? Adapting to it will be far, far cheaper than trying to prevent it.

  61. Claude Harvey says:

    I wonder how much of that “easy money” went to IPCC’s Chairperson Rajendra Pachauri’s personal “think tank” in New Deli? “The Energy and Resources Institute” (TERI) is reputedly one lavish facility complete with golf facilities, artificial waterfalls, etc. Lots of relatives and pals in THAT payroll. Ordinary Indians can only press their noses to the fence and drool.

  62. Ray Hudson says:

    Fact: The US GOV is the largest launderer of money on the planet. Climate change is merely how this administration covers the things they want to spend $ on, but which the general public would never accept.

  63. Tom in Texas says:

    We’re borrowing money from China to give it to India? WTF?

  64. Pamela Gray says:

    Malicious benevolent spending (skullduggery made to look good) certainly makes the world go hrrruuumphph and cheer when the culprits are put to irons. What is far worse is when the givers, spenders, and takers of our money believe that what they are doing is the right thing, and manage to convince a whole’lotta other people that what they are doing is the right thing. And that is what I think we are up against. The world isn’t cheering that we are putting the culprits to iron, the world is cheering FOR the culprits.

  65. OssQss says:

    Just another thing that makes you go,,,,,Hummm?

  66. Gunga Din says:

    No surprise. “Going Green” means our “Green is Going”.

  67. Dave Dodd says:

    Well, now we know why DHS purchased 450 million rounds of .40 S&W ammo! They’re probably expecting the good citizens to be armed with pitchforks, etc. My fellow “clinging” Texans and I may not be so gullible!

  68. James Bull says:

    If you want to know about government spending you want to listen to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Igpk2ePGhnU particularly at 2min 50sec and at 3min 20 sec it sums up how bureaucrats think and how throwing money at any problem/non problem will solve it.
    James Bull

  69. Pamela Gray says:

    The comment above re: money laundering. Is that what the liberal dominant Senate and the liberal dominant Executive Branch, and the liberal dominant Judicial Branch have been doing? Laundering our money under the feel-good title of Green Jobs, and then funnelling cash to best friends around the world? I’ll say it again, we’ve all been snookered by governmental benevolence.

    No wonder it takes a grandmother’s persistent steel arm and lye soap to scrub this stuff off. I think it is time to bring back that image of the women who went to work in the factories while the men were at war. We need to role up our sleeves, get our hair out of our face, raise a strong-armed fist, and scrub these liberals out of office.

  70. Gail Combs says:

    Berényi Péter says:
    August 15, 2012 at 11:41 am

    Is there a standard (and safe) procedure in place for these government employees to divert a fraction of that money to their personal bank accounts? If so, the whole mess starts to make sense.
    ___________________________________
    Of course. All you have to do is make sure your wife’s cousin gets a nice big “Grant” to study wether Unicorn belches effect the environment and then not audit. Just split the take. It happens all the time.

    Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law is given $737m of taxpayers’ money to build giant solar power plant in middle of the desert

    * Obama administration approved $1bn in green energy loans days after failed Solyndra project due to be completed

    * $737m handed to Crescent Dunes project in Tonopah, Nevada, for 110-megawatt desert solar power plant

    * Investors include firm Minority leader’s brother-in-law and major Solyndra stakeholder

  71. Chris R. says:

    To Leif Svalgaard,

    Leif, please remember that the funding the U.S. government is pushing out for “climate change” is not exclusively for research into causes. For example, the previous Presidential administration, in 2004, earmarked over $5 billion for climate change. Of that, $1.9 billion was for research. $3.1 billion was for “mitigation”. Money for mitigation projects long ago surpassed money for basic research.

    The above numbers were from a White House budget document, I do not at the moment have the link. I am quite certain that if the current U.S. Senate had bothered to pass a budget, the numbers in that budget would be substantially larger.

  72. “Follow the Money” is sound advice, but it is difficult to follow the money into a black hole.

    I hesitate to classify all monies flowing into black holes as “fraudulent”. Highly suspect, yes! But let’s be scientifically objective. We should only label “fraud” where there is at least a preponderance of the evidence. In the vast majority of these cases, there IS NO evidence though there should be.

    So there should be three categories of audit of funding: valid (forms in place), fraudulent (evidence of malfeasance) and Missing In Action. Statistics on “Missing in Action” ought to raise appropriate political heat.

  73. Keith Sketchley says:

    Typical.

    An auditor for the British Columbia government just ripped the BC Legislature for not keeping track of its own finances (admistration and perhaps MLA expenses, not government operations).

    No indication of mis-use of funds, at least so far.

    A somewhat humourous note mong the botches was records showing their bank account was badly overdrawn, proper accounting showed what it actually was – approximately even.

    Of course legislators aren’t chosen for their ability and competence anymore, but as so many are lawyers you’d think they’d pay more attention. (I know, but I’m not going to waste ink on lawyer jokes today. ;-)

  74. Claude Harvey says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 16, 2012 at 7:40 am

    “We need to role up our sleeves, get our hair out of our face, raise a strong-armed fist, and scrub these liberals out of office.”

    I think I’m in love.

  75. Steve Thatcher says:

    Tom in Texas says:
    August 15, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    We’re borrowing money from China to give it to India? WTF?
    *****************************************************************************

    Is borrowing money,when you are already in debt and having nothing to show for it SUSTAINABLE.

    I thought the current green/liberal/labour/democrat/socialist/progressive theme was sustainability??

    Sorry about the labour spelling but I’m just a Brit in France.

    Steve T.

  76. anengineer says:

    Typical.

    In government programs it is more important to be seen spending the money than getting results. The rules by which these people, who are members of the SEIU, can be punished are so arcane, and the union’s political influence is so pervasive, that no one will be willing to even try.

    So why should they care?

Comments are closed.