Feds: Blackwater Saves Taxpayers Money

[sabra]

Source: ABC News

Think Private Security Contractors in Iraq Are a Boondoggle? New Government Report Says They Save You Nearly $1 Billion A Year

The government's use of private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan has been blasted as costly to the image of the U.S., and to the country's bottom line, because a company like Blackwater can charge as much as $1222 a day for a hired gun.

But a new government report says they may actually have saved U.S. taxpayers money. The State Department saves roughly $900 million a year using private firms to protect American diplomats in Iraq rather than relying on U.S. government employees, according to a recently published review by the non partisan Government Accounting Office.

The review found a number of reasons for the difference in price.

The state department did not have to pay overtime or provide benefits or vacation time to the contractors. They were not saddled with extensive travel and housing costs. And they did not have to outfit them with weapons and gear.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/blackwater-saves-taxpayers-money/story?id=10076105

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. LOL! Gee, thanks ABC!!!

I guess ABC forgot to mention that if we were not fighting these ridiculous wars, the price would drop even more!

[Demeter]

42. Wait Until the Lawsuits Show Up--Penny Wise, Millions Foolish

[Donnachaidh]

2. I don't believe it

More than likely someone cooked this up because the State Department WANTS to continue the private contracting.

[Renew Deal]

13. Think about what it would cost to find, train, and use 190,000 soldiers

I hate Blackwater and everything it stands for. They are mercanaries. That said, there were around 190,000 contracters in Iraq at one point. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2008/0818/p02s01-usmi.html

Think about what it would cost to replace them with soldiers. We would have needed a draft. Then consider the training, support, and benefits they would have required. I bet hiring a bunch of ex-military contracters that mostly don't rely on "the system" (VA, GI Bills, etc.,) is cheaper than drafting thousands of people.

[cognoscere]

19. How many in the U.S. military are making $460,000 a year?

Oh yeah, none. IIRC that's even more than the head of the military, which would be a Mr. Obama, makes. It's a fundamental rule of life that whenever anyone can make a profit from some activity, it will cost more than the same activity being done by a nonprofit organization.

[Donnachaidh]

20. however -- Blackwater bills for MORE than what the normal pay is for soldiers.

I know a guy who worked for Blackwater for security and this guy was billing $130 a DAY. That doesn't include whatever the company itself tacks on for administrative stuff.

I don't buy it. Sorry. I've read far too many articles in the past that had interviewed soldier who found themselves training CONTRACTORS who were hired on to take over the jobs of soldiers ALREADY trained and in place.

This stinks to high heaven. It reeks of cronyism.

[bergie321]

33. We already trained them

We trained the vast majority of those 190,000 contractors.

[NobleCynic]

36. Bingo n/t

[ManiacJoe]

44. Don't confuse "contractors" with "security contractors".

The vast majority of the contractors are/were with construction and logistics. Security contractors make up a small fraction of the contractors.

[Hannah Bell]

47. If we send people into battle, i *want* them to be well trained, well supported, have health care &

opportunities when they come home -- & owe their allegiance to the us government, *not* to whoever pays them best.

i don't *want* to pay for a mercenary army.

[hack89]

30. When you enlist a soldier

the government is potentially on the hook for 80 years of benefits. Pensions and medical benefits for retire military personnel are a huge (and growing) piece of the military budget.

[Uncle Joe]

41. The average American only lives in to their 70s and I would be willing wager veterans' lifespans

on average are even shorter due to war and the PTSD, a sizable percentage of the homeless are veterans.

So if a person enlists in their late teens or early twenties, they would need to reach their 90s or 100+ to reach 80 years of benefits.

I would also be willing to wager a majority of veterans don't remain in the service for 20+ years

[Hannah Bell]

46. i don't either.

•Number of security companies now operating in Iraq: 170

•Value of Blackwater's federal contracts in 2001: $736,906

•Value in 2002: $3.4 million

•Value in 2003: $25 million

•Value in 2004: $48 million

•Value in 2005: $352 million

•Value in 2006: $593 million

•Total value of all Blackwater contracts at the end of 2006: $1 billion

•Percentage growth since 2001: 80,453

•Current number of Blackwater's federal contracts, according to Erik Prince: "More than 50."

•Percentage of Blackwater holding company Prince Group's revenue derived from federal contracts: 90

•Number of Blackwater helicopters downed in Iraq in 2006: 3

•Average daily pay for a Blackwater operator, according to Erik Prince: $500

•Daily pay, according to government invoices: $1,221.62

•Blackwater's profit margin: 10.5 percent



and sorry, if we have military, i *want* them to have decent healthcare & pensions. that's not "savings" to me, it's criminal.

[seabeckind]

3. Calling bullsh!t on this one... n/t

[Earth_First]

4. Phew! That one billion we save annually keeps us in Iraq/Afghanistan for nearly 3 days!

Thanks Blackwater!

[KansDem]

5. Well, sure it does...if the US taxpayers' needed their own version of "Murder, Inc."

Blackwater faces war crimes inquiry after killings in Iraq
(and this is only one incident)

But, since when did we want our own "death squads?"

[Blue Owl]

6. Piss on my leg and tell me it's raining

Fuck you ABC -- Blackwater is a lawless, corrupt, profit-driven gang of cronies led by a man who wants to exterminate Muslims.

[mbperrin]

21. Uh-oh, that means it's not raining on my leg, right?

DAMMIT!

[mod mom]

7. "A new government report says they may" Where is it ABC? let's have a link.

[pattmarty]

9. There "source" is probably Eric Prince.

[arcane1]

34. Emphasis on "may" n/t

[pattmarty]

8. +1 bullshit.

[valerief]

10. And they don't have to pay for legal fees when employees shoot anyone they damn well please.

Did John Stossel write this?

[Renew Deal]

11. I believe it.

It's a lot cheaper than a draft.

[verges]

27. How? I don't see it. nt

[Mr. Sparkle]

12. "89 percent are foreign nationals", Theres your saving.

The government is now out sourcing American jobs, no wonder the jobless rate is so high.

[mod mom]

23. and yet "Blackwater can charge as much as $1222 a day for a hired gun."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/blackwater-saves-taxpayers-money/story?id=10076105

[Roland99]

29. $152/hr for an 8hr day. $101.83/hr for a 12hr day.

Umm...*THAT'S* a bargain?

That could pay for 3-4 regular military!

[rfranklin]

24. Which means they are probably not paying income taxes...

there's the loss of taxes that they probably did not count.

[tomm2thumbs]

14. by all means then... replace the entire US Military with them then

afterall, the GOP is entirely about the deficit and spending.... so, start at the Pentagon - replace the rest of them with the cheaper and more efficient blackwater folks - I'm sure the Pentagon is already saturated with blackwater

[Uncle Joe]

25. That will be the long term upshot, the nation's military can only become weaker as mercenaries

grow stronger leaching away financial and human resources from the nation's defense.

The only allegiance from these mercenaries; the vast majority of which are foreign nationals, will be to the almighty dollar.

The entire concept is ludicrous and a one way trip to national ruin, I believe the primary reason some politicians support the idea is out of political cowardice, less or no accountability and no hard choices; ie draft, need to be made in order to support the lust for war and empire.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. I can believe this.

The government generally involves ALOT of red tape and there is a large supply chain dedicated to the boots on the ground over there.
Setting up, approving, and mobilizing takes a heckuva lot more manpower than just the guys you are sending over there.
Military overhead and administration is bulky, expensive, and slow.

For diplomatic security, contractors are much easier and much more flexible to employ.
I wouldn;t be surprised of contractors are cheaper (overall) as well.

[brewens]

16. Yeah right! like I just fell off a turnip truck!

I'd like to know if they are counting the cost of troops we must have lost to Blackwater. Aren't a lot of their guys ex-military? If that's what they do for a living, would they not still be in our military if outfits like Blackwater weren't getting contracts?

"The state department did not have to pay overtime or provide benefits or vacation time to the contractors. They were not saddled with extensive travel and housing costs. And they did not have to outfit them with weapons and gear."

But aren't all those costs built into their contracts plus a real nice profit margin? And since when do we pay troops on guard or convoy duty overtime? They are making a whole lot of assumptions to get this to come out the way they want it.

[Hugin]

17. " The state department did not have to pay overtime or provide benefits... blah... blah..."

Same old privatization song.

What is not mentioned is the cost to our image overseas by letting these thugs run amok at a guaranteed 25%+ profit.

These stories are all part of a massive Republican offensive being waged against "Big Gubbermint" currently. Looks like the Groverists have found their voice...

[Vidar]

18. Bullshit!

[fascisthunter]

22. Bullshit They DO!!!! Private services are always much more costly

never have I read about privatization leading to lower costs! NEVER!

Fuck the corporate media

[hack89]

31. When you don't have to pay for 80 years of benefits per person

yes they do. Pensions and retiree medical benefits are a huge part of the military budget. The US military doesn't hire and fire like WalMart - when they enlist someone, they are potentially committing to a lifetime of pay and benefits.

What's cheaper - paying a contractor for 5 years or a government employee for 80?

[Hannah Bell]

48. i seriously doubt one gets a military pension for short-term service. if someone

serves long-term, they *should* get a pension & health care. & even short-termers should get health care for service-related conditions.

yeah, we can save a *lot* of money if we use people like dogs, ain't it great.

[kenfrequed]

26. I though John Stossel left ABC for FOX?

Seriously this is an overwhelmingly flawed bit of reporting. Here is a basic list off the top of my head of costs that are externalized to the government:

Transportation and establishment of base and operational centers that were required for deployment of mercenaries.

Training for the mercenaries, which were by an large, originally trained by the U.S. Military before they chased the dollar signs to the private sector.

Set up communication networks and military infrastructure that they frequently make use of.

Protection, escalation, and bail out of said mercenaries when they get their asses too deep into trouble or the cost in military resources to deal with unfriendly forces created by their presence and excessively stupid violence and completely unstrategic engagement.

(and this last one is a biggie as they could be responsible for alienating populations and protracting the total time of the war).



Now even without these nebulous and difficult to discern but rather costly factors I do not believe ABC's reporting on this. Their numbers were almost certainly selective and probably did not include all government contracting with them in the regions of conflict. Instead they probably only used numbers reflecting use of mercenaries to suppliment direct military missions which would have got them off the hook for all of the security details for both incoming envoys from the US and protection of specific persons within the country for diplomatic reasons.

This story stinks.

[xocet]

28. Yeah, ABC....

It is good to see that ABC is being a good corporate brother to Blackwater (Xe).

Why do any serious analysis of what it means that the USA is hiring mercenaries and, generally, of why hiring mercenaries is a bad policy?

Maybe we could outsource the military entirely? I'll bet that off-shoring the military would save the taxpayers money. In fact, let's get Wal-mart to do the hiring. Surely, Wal-mart could get some good deals for the US taxpayer.






:sarcasm:

[Crowman1979]

32. This is why I stopped relying on TV as a news source.

[arcane1]

35. I liked this part:

"There were limitations to the study, the report acknowledges. Costs for awarding security contracts and oversight of contractors could not be determined by the State Department, for example."

So, um... they cannot determine costs for awarding security contracts, but they assure us they are saving us money?

[Robb]

38. Because not all contractors are security.

Often a misunderstood part of the discussion at DU.

[Echo In Light]

37. = Damage control

[BreweryYardRat]

39. Misleading use of statistics, anyone?

The government might save $900 million on the budget items listed there, but I suspect it winds up spending all that and more from other costs (plenty of which have been mentioned in some posts on this topic) associated with using mercenaries.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. "There are lies, Damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

[LiberalFighter]

43. For every dollar that a mercenary receives an equal amount should be

deducted from any military benefit.

[AllentownJake]

45. Your empire is trouble when you have to hire thugs. nt.