*How can a program merely meant to provide funding and daily operations support for military bases be not-performing?*
This is easy... Is the program providing unlimited financial support? Also, lets face it, the fact that our military has performed numerous shady deals during this administration is not surprising. What is surprising is that they have been caught repeatedly. I suspect that during former wars we DID have incidents that were poorly handled, breaking rules of war, etc. Its just that the people running wars during previous admins were more skilled and careful to avoid public exposure! The current folks are totally careless, right down to shooting a huntin partner in the face....COMPLETELY CARELESS! PERFORMANCE in the executive branch means you are 100% behind the president and cower to his every need. Lets just face it. Anything to do with environment is "BUSHMEAT!" On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Lyndell Bade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm more than puzzled. I'm dumbfounded. If you merely browse through the > not-performing federal programs, the list is staggering. The programs > listed can not possibly be not-performing. > > *Even the most straightforward forestry, conservation, education, social > services, housing, agricultural, and military programs are not-performing.* > I'm sure this administration would love to argue that conservation and > social service programs are not-performing. But even if you ignore their > analysis of environment, biology, and conservation programs, there is still > something seriously wrong with their "results". > > There has to be a problem with the statistical reporting, analysis, and > evaluation. When base operations and support for the Marines and Air > Force are listed as not-performing programs, there is something severely > wrong with their evaluation. *How can a program merely meant to provide > funding and daily operations support for military bases be not-performing?* > It > makes no sense. It's ridiculous. > > I'm not arguing about the role of the modern military or the > administration's foreign policy decisions. I'm merely pointing out that the > logic and programmatic analysis is terribly flawed when support and > logistics programs are reported as not-performing. I'm sure the money was > used for support and logistics...and so then it couldn't have failed. > > I'm still floored by the absurdity! > > Lyndell > > > On 6/23/08, Kraemer, George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> A I browsed the NASA site (thanks to Jim Hansen), I ran across a puzzling >> link at the bottom of the page: ExpectMORE.gov ( >> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/index.html). >> >> My curiosity piqued, I looked further and was informed that the FWS >> Endangered Species Program and the Migratory Bird Management and >> Conservation Program, and the ACoE Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program are >> "not performing" since "results (are) not demonstrated." >> >> Do the experts really feel this way? >> George P. Kraemer >> Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology >> Chair, Environmental Studies Program Purchase College (SUNY) >> >> >
