home

Halliburton Hits It Big (Again)

by TChris

John Nichols points to a simple truth that drives the Bush administration: “When trouble hits, Halliburton hits it big.” Halliburton is assisted (as if it needs help) by Joe Allbaugh, the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who is now a lobbyist and good friend of Michael Brown. Writes Nichols:

Conveniently, Allbaugh showed up in Louisiana on the day before [Vice President] Cheney's visit with the purpose, in the words of a Washington Post report, of "helping his clients get business."

He’s been effective, as this article makes clear:

At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President George W Bush’s former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast.

One is Shaw Group Inc and the other is Halliburton Co subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. Vice president Dick Cheney is a former head of Halliburton.

FEMA hired another business with close ties to the administration, Bechtel Corp, to provide short-term housing for people displaced by the hurricane. Do these companies deserve our trust? Or our money?

Pentagon audits released by Democrats in June showed $1.03 billion in “questioned” costs and $422 million in “unsupported” costs for Halliburton’s work in Iraq.

[T]he web of Bush administration connections is attracting renewed attention from watchdog groups in the post-Katrina reconstruction rush. Congress has already appropriated more than $60 billion in emergency funding as a down payment on recovery efforts projected to cost well over $100 billion.

“The government has got to stop stacking senior positions with people who are repeatedly cashing in on the public trust in order to further private commercial interests,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.

< Soldiers Ignored Those in Superdome to Chase Looters Instead | Fraud and FEMA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    why don't the posters on this site form a construction company to do the type of work done by Halliburton and Bechtel? It would be a useful exercise in the whine/blame game.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    char-you sound about as sincere as the Chimp King himself, with a touch of the snarly veep. Glad to see you are aping those you voted for, but please take it somewhere else, we have had enough of your beloved bu**sh** for now.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    charley - You beat me to it. Look folks, there are a limited number of construction companies with the staff and expertise to take on projects like this. Like it or not, Halliburton and Betchel are two of them. Do you have others? If so, let's have some names, and let me urge you to send them to your Senator and Represdentative.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    I just found that Halliburton has 34 viable competitors through Hoovers, a D&B company online. I'd give you the names but you have to subscribe to Hoovers to get them. You think 35 is gonna make a difference charley & PPJ? You guys are naive. Corruption on a grand scale, anyway you slice it or spin it. Half the current admin. will be on the Halliburton payroll in 2009, mark your calendars. They will expect compensation for delivering all that profit at the expense of the treasury.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    Henry Ford was a nasty and vigorous anti-semite-probably as relevant to the Halliburton analysis and its history. I don't particularly care about Halliburton but would be happy to own the large chunk of stock you refer to. I just can't fault the company for making a buck. how about a bet-the other 34 companies you found make political contributions to, about 50/50 D & R depending on who is in power.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#8)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    Yes... 35 other competitors. Of those 35, how many have a former (on paper anyways) head who is now currently serving as veep? Is this really so hard for some people to understand? It is the way of america-cronyism and corporate welfare make the world go round... Halliburton is simply the corporate clown of choice for BushCo-the only thing I have against them is the whole "no-bid" thing... But that's ok I gues.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#9)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    Jim, you might have a point if Halliburton wasn't the most wasteful, unaccountable clusterf*ck on earth. How many BILLIONS of dollars did they lose in Iraq? 16? That's enough to build 4 aircraft carriers. If an Admiral in the Navy managed to sink 4 aircraft carriers, do you think he'd still be in command? If it was on purpose (as the "missing" 16 billion dollars are, I'm not stupid) wouldn't he be considered a traitor? Well?

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#10)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    Oh, I also forgot the $100 loads of laundry and gallons of gasoline. I guess someone forgot to move the decimal!

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    "Halliburton has 34 viable competitors" Completely factual and yet completely misleading. 33 of the 34 competitors are to Halliburton as 34 Boston-area high school football teams are to the Patriots. The one company that's even close is Bechtel yet has less that 1/2 the number employees of Halliburton...and connected up the wazzoo, as well, to the current, past and, I'm sure, every future, administrations. I'm in no way defending Halliburton nor the process by which it has been chosen, but don't kid yourself that we are awash in options.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#12)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    So, sarcastic... do you think we'd be better off with a modern-day Public Works Administration?

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    Nope.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    "We know that Americans are concerned about the high cost of repairs to the regions Our Fearful Leader destroys. "We know that we have made mistakes getting caught stealing and overbilling, but: "The PEOPLE at Treasury Transfer Services work hard, every day, to find new ways to drain the resources of American watchdogs, so that the public will no longer be bothered by their reports. "Saviour-in-Chief Bush said, "I felt a sense of RELAXATION" after the disaster hit, and you can too. "Join us! Treasury Transfer Services still has billions of dollars to drain, and we are pumping night and day. We need your help. "Donations can be made to the RNC, Pat Robertson's Operation Miracle, or your local Fox station, all of which are front operations for TTS. Thank you."

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    These companies are the biggest prime contractors in the world so they are the ones to deal with when you have a really big job to do. They have the ability to assemble talented people, appropriate to the situation, very quickly. Then they sub-contract the work out to smaller companies who in turn do the same. It is just the way the construction business operates. A bit corrupt? Sure. If you're not in a hurry then you can go the competitive bid route which also has its own cronyism and takes longer than the big guys. Like it or not that is the game. If you are not happy with the way that the contracts are being awarded or the contract terms call your representatives and ask them to change things. If you think because your Rep is a Democrat that you can expect them to be on your side? Think again. The head of the Shaw Group, which is one of the awardees, is headed up by the head Louisiana Democrat money-tree shaker. If you want to talk about corruption then give up the idea that only one party is corrupt because they both are. Any other conclusion is partisan hackery, 1st degree.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#16)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    They have the ability to assemble talented people, appropriate to the situation, very quickly.
    No offense, but have you looked at Iraq lately?

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    I would make a couple of changes to the above quote:
    They have the ability to manipulate talented people (government officials), appropriate to the situation (of amassing huge profits), very quickly.
    Here is a good history of Haliburton and government contracts starting around 1919.
    Meanwhile, in that same crucial year of 1919, the other half of Halliburton was also beginning to take shape as two friends from San Marcos, Texas, Herman Brown and Dan Root, formed a road paving company that would eventually become one of the world's largest construction firms. The Brown & Root Company shared Halliburton's antipathy toward organized labor, but realized early on that there was a fortune to be made through outsourced government work.


    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    Squeak - So what's your point? That people do business with the government and expect to make a profit? Wow! Stop the press! Squeaky has news story of the year!

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    PPJ-the reading may be above your grade level or you just havn't read the link.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#21)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    Squeak - So what's your point? That people do business with the government and expect to make a profit?
    What part of "hundred dollar load of laundry" don't you understand?

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    jimcee: "If you're not in a hurry then you can go the competitive bid route which also has its own cronyism and takes longer than the big guys." How convenient! The fact is that Truman instituted a policy of BLIND BIDDING that was no slower than calling up your business partners and giving them big fat no-bid, guaranteed profit 'contracts' that bloat up with illegal line items, theft, bad services, and poor quality work. That was 50 years ago. He was just as much in a hurry as you'd like, Jim. And he saved lives of soldiers by the thousands. Have you heard about the maggoty meat Halliburton forces on our troops? Your 'both parties do it' bit is MOOT, all the more so because unlike politicians who get campaign contributions, these are business cronies of the VP. It is a CLEAR conflict of interest for this WH to offer no-bid contracts to their contractor business partners. The US gov't can easily subcontract itself and save billions. Those Halliburton blast walls cost $1000 EACH, imported. Iraq has PLENTY of sand, and they know how to make cement. Reducing unemployment in Iraq would help stabilize the country. But NO, it's imperative that H. IMPORT the walls, with the attendent delays, rather than pay the existing Iraqi company. Because Halliburton's runaway profits are more important than sand-ns. Their blast walls cost $250 each. Given the hundreds of blast walls ringing the Green Zone, that's $750 profit on each one, a cool $50 million or so just on that one line item. They did the same thing with PLYWOOD in former-Yugoslavia, a heavily-wooded region with a plywood cost of $5. Their imported sheets cost something like $75. The Coalition Provisional Authority gave $20 MILLION to a couple of Bush-backers with ZERO track record, to guard Bagdad airport. They subcontracted with Kuwaitis, while charging for Americans, and made a mint. Bremer rewarded them by giving them a $25 MILLION contract to move the old Iraqi currency -- these two guys without bonding, without experience, without credit. FANTASTIC. One of Custer Battle's chief officers was arrested in Lebanon trying to take duffel bags FULL of old dinars onto an airliner. And then Brown, who with ZERO qualifications, gets his crony job through Bush. "Brownie you're doing a heck of a job." So's Hallibectblacusterf*kfirstenergy, and they got the open-gusher in our treasury to prove it. It's a golden opportunity to profit off our soldier's blood. That's hard work. Truman would have put Bremer in prison, and fined the pete out of Hallibechtel.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    If you want to talk about corruption then give up the idea that only one party is corrupt because they both are.
    Absolutely right, both are corrupt as the dickens. But no admin. in recent memory is as blatantly corrupt as this one. Unless the electorate puts their foot down, the next admin. will be worse. They have given Halliburton carte blanche to overcharge and rip-off the taxpayer, and not given other companies a fair chance at govt. work. The game's been rigged more than usual, and all free market capitalist Americans should be upset about it. But since it's Bush, they are not. Do the tax cuts act as a type of bribery? An unspoken deal....I'll cut your taxes if you look the other way while I enrich my friends out of the treasury.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    scar - How much would you want to do landry in Iraq?

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    The Iraqis don't know how to wash clothes? Is that it, Jim? The Iraqis were washing woven clothes while YOUR ANCESTORS were still wearing skins.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    Obviously most correspondents to this thread have no construction experience but that doesn't stop them from being experts about it. Sheesh. The Feds have consistently awarded contracts to these enities for generations so this doesn't constitute cronyism towards Bush singularly but to the Federal Gov't in general. The big contractors award contracts to smaller contractors and so down the line. I have worked for a company that did sub-contract electrical work for the biggies. I was one of five employees. So the little guys do get the work (and it paid really well). If you do not like the way the contracts are awarded or the spendthrift contracts they are given then start a movement to clean up this type of thing but to pin it on one administration is just feeble political hackery, 1st degree. If you think your Gov't can do better for less, well, everyone is allowed thier dreams. Without being an apologist for the obvious waste entailed with this type contracting I'll ask one question: If this form of contracting is the status quo and you hate it, what are your suggestions for improving the situation? Without mentioning Bush, impeachment, No WMD, Iraq, the TNG etc? Just a realistic solution, not a screed. And yes I don't like the way Gov't contracts are awarded in general but at the same time the solutions are too far away to help those in immediate need. So let's get some ideas! Just saying.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    "Just saying?" Just LYINGbecause they converted FEMA from an emergency response agency to an INSURANCE FRAUD INDUSTRY which funnels money to Republican backers of Bush. This guy Brown got a series of lawsuits in Florida in 2004 for fraudulent disbursement, just like his series of lawsuits with the pony association. He's a professional corporate THIEF. "My constituents are the haves, and the have-mores." --GW Bush, 2000 They handed out money in duffel bags to Custer Battles, and they formed illegal no-bid, guaranteed profit contracts that wouldn't stand up in any fair court in the free world. And you're here just trying the Gee, Gosh routine. Save it. We've had enough.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    At it again, are you PIL? "My constituents are the haves, and the have-mores." --GW Bush, 2000"....PIL And in the same comment where you accuse jimcee of lying. Kinda sad, really. The quote refers to a scene in [Michael Moore's] film where Mr. Bush is speaking at a dinner and remarks about the "haves and the have-mores" as being his base. People, it was meant to be purposely funny. The speech comes from the Oct. 19, 2000, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The event is an annual dinner that raises money for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Both Bush and Gore were the co-guests of honor at the event, where speakers traditionally make fun of themselves. Michael Moore simply did what he does best. He cut and pasted to give a false impression and misled his audience.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    Even the conservatives are upset, as they should be. From WSJ:
    The Bush administration is importing many of the contracting practices blamed for spending abuses in Iraq . . . The first large-scale contracts related to Hurricane Katrina, as in Iraq, were awarded without competitive bidding, and using so-called cost-plus provisions that guarantee contractors a certain profit regardless of how much they spend.
    via billmon

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Just so we understand, "cost plus" is a pretty common constructon contract, especially for projects that involve a lot of uncertainty as to cost and scope. In other words, if you're a contractor bidding on a new construction of a building, you bid on exactly what the architect and engineer have already exhaustively specified that needs to be done. However, if you're bidding on a remodel of an old or fire/earthquake/flood damaged building, where no one has any idea of the scope of what needs to be done, you'd be smart to do a cost (whatever it turns out to be to get the job done) plus (a certain percentage for your profit.) As the costs of the rebuild are unknown and unknowable, yet should be arguably the same no matter who the contractor is as long as they woudl all be doing the same work, the cost-saving benefits of trying to competitively bid out such a massive project are, theoretically, minimal. It also protects the payor (us, the gvt) in that if you bid out and get a fixed price contract, you run the risk of overpaying (should the work be less extensive than expected) or having continual and extensive stoppages and conflicts with your contractor as each new unexpected "extra" problem/expense is arbitrated before the contractor resumes work. Oh yeah, such "extras" are historically the biggest profit center for contractors of any size. In this case, I imagine there will be plenty of gvt oversight to ensure that none of the contractors illegally inflate their costs or pull other shenanagans, and that there will be plenty of shenanagans pulled, regardless of the prime contractor, that will go un-discovered. There are positives and negatives to all the types of construction contracts, but this seems like one of the most reasonable considering the circumstances.

    Re: Halliburton Hits It Big (Again) (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    Haliburton is in a class by itself with "cost plus" overruns. With normal contractors there is an incentive to keep the extras down and a maximum ceiling for cost overruns but with Haliburton the incentive is the opposite. They have fake companies (subcontractors) in Iraq who overcharge by 500-600% and are guaranteed a percentage, on top of the total cost, by the US gov.
    ....The most peculiar billing found in this limited series of transactions was a $27.5 million charge for shipping cooking gas and heating fuel that the Pentagon auditors valued at $82,000. This single invoice amounted to an overcharge of more than 335 times the value of the liquified natural gas delivered by Halliburton's subcontractors..... In southern Iraq, much of Halliburton's logistics work ended up in the hands of a Kuwaiti firm called La Nouvelle, which handled meals, sanitation facilities and laundry. Before La Nouvelle picked up the subcontract to do the laundry at a US military base near Basra, the monthly cleaning bill had averaged around $62,000. A few months after La Nouvelle took over, the tab soared to $1.2 million a month. La Nouvelle billed $108 for each 15-pound bag of laundry at this base, $80 a bag more than the very same company charged at another base. Pentagon auditors concluded that La Nouvelle was overbilling for its laundry services alone by at least $1 million a month, with Halliburton enjoying its slice of the profits without even having had to break a sweat. They were quite literally laundering money.... The contract was another of the notorious cost-plus deals, where Halliburton simply faxed over receipts to the Pentagon and got fully reimbursed, along with a guaranteed 1 percent profit and performance bonuses that went as high as 8 percent of the total costs. It's the contract that keeps on giving.
    link