Via IEC Journal comes word of this Government Accountability Office report written up in this Government Executive article by Elizabeth Newell on the post-employment trends of 400 top former Defense Department officials -- all of whom were subject to a one-year ban on lobbying their old colleagues. Newell offers this staggering finding:

Approximately 65 percent of those former officials were employed by one of seven contractors: Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC); Northrop Grumman Corp.; Lockheed Martin Corp.; Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.; L3 Communications Holding Inc.; General Dynamics and Raytheon Co. All but one of those companies, Booz Allen Hamilton, ranked in the top 10 of Government Executive's Top 200 Contractors list in 2007. Booz Allen Hamilton was 24th on that list.

USASpending.gov, maintained by Office of Management and Budget, ranks all of those seven contractors in their top 20 for 2007. Newell quotes Cristina Chaplain, the report's author, as saying, "Our results indicate that defense contractors may employ a substantial number of former DOD officials on assignments related to their former DOD agencies or their direct responsibilities."

Some $9 billion managed by the Coalition Provisional Authority and intended for the rebuilding of Iraq has gone missing, journalists Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele report in Vanity Fair, and the U.S. government doesn't seem particularly interested in finding out where it went. Barlett and Steele describe the Wild Wild Middle East atmosphere, in which two guys with no experience can get millions from the C.P.A. to protect civilian flights in and out of Iraq, and Bahamanian P.O. Boxes are the business addresses of choice for those supposedly keeping the books. Perhaps the most disturbing bit among many was just how out of touch Congress was on the doings in Baghdad during the C.P.A.'s tenure starting in 2003:

Over the next year, a compliant Congress gave $1.6 billion to Bremer to administer the C.P.A. This was over and above the $12 billion in cash that the C.P.A. had been given to disburse from Iraqi oil revenues and unfrozen Iraqi funds. Few in Congress actually had any idea about the true nature of the C.P.A. as an institution. Lawmakers had never discussed the establishment of the C.P.A., much less authorized it—odd, given that the agency would be receiving taxpayer dollars. Confused members of Congress believed that the C.P.A. was a U.S. government agency, which it was not, or that at the very least it had been authorized by the United Nations, which it had not. One congressional funding measure makes reference to the C.P.A. as "an entity of the United States Government"—highly inaccurate. The same congressional measure states that the C.P.A. was "established pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions"—just as inaccurate. The bizarre truth, as a U.S. District Court judge would point out in an opinion, is that "no formal document … plainly establishes the C.P.A. or provides for its formation."

The New York Times today broke a story that I first learned about nearly two years ago – that the federal government’s annual accounting of federal contracts going to “small businesses” is routinely overstated, with much of that money actually going to large corporations.

I stumbled onto the story while analyzing six years of Pentagon contracts for the Center for Public Integrity. I’d been tipped off to the practice by a Defense Department analyst who’d been working with the contract data for years. He told me – and I subsequently documented it in the records – that under the contracting rules, if a small business is bought by a larger one, the contract is still counted as going to small business.

We do not know whether Congress will pass an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws; we do not know whether such a bill would follow the House's preference for border enforcement or the Senate's preference for amnesty for those already here plus increased ceilings on the number of legal immigrants for those aspiring to come. We do not know how the debate over this contentious and emotional issue will be resolved--to date the conventional wisdom has proven to be a bit off target, to say the least.

One thing that apparently has been resolved, however, is that whatever results from the immigration debate, the solution will be implemented by a private company:

Muckraked! (second item) notes a Government Executive report that tells us that auditors are going to look into the FAA's outsourcing of operations at 58 FAA flight centers around the country to Lockheed Martin. Already, the Transportation Department has realized that $500 million of the supposed $2.2 billion in savings will, well, not be realized.

Among other issues, the IG office plans to look into changes in projections for how much the agency expects to save. When the contract was awarded, FAA announced that private sector performance would save the government $2.2 billion over the life of the contract, based on a 10-year estimate for the 5-year base period with up to five extension years. In its announcement of the audit this week, the inspector general's office quoted an anticipated savings of $1.7 billion.

Yesterday news broke that President Bush's Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson became a lightening rod after it was reported that in a speech he stated that he believes that he should only give contracts to supporters of President Bush. Jackson made his point by telling an anecdotal story about a contractor trying to obtain a contract from HUD. The contractor, for some inexplicable reason, told Jackson that he did not like President Bush, at which point Jackson decided that he wouldn't give this man the contract because, as Jackson himself says, "Why should I reward someone who doesn’t like the president?"

Now, Jackson is retracting his statement by saying that he made up the story. The HUD spokeswoman stated, "The secretary's story was anecdotal. He is not part of the contracting process. He was trying to explain to this group how politics works in D.C." Josh Marshall says, "This doesn't sound like a particularly exculpatory explanation. That story was made up. Jackson was just how explaining how he does business?"

Think Progress offers two points about why this explanation is a bit unbelievable:

1) That excuse isn’t just difficult to swallow — it also contradicts the spokesperson’s first response in which she indicated Jackson was referring to a real contract: “On May 3, Tucker told the Business Journal that the contract Jackson was referring to in Dallas was ‘an advertising contract with a minority publication,’ though she could not provide the contract’s value.” It looks like Jackson is changing his story as criticism builds. 2) Bidding for a government contract isn’t ‘asking for money.’ It’s not Alphonso Jackson’s money to give away to his buddies. It is the taxpayers’ money. It should go to whoever can do the best job, regardless of their political views.

So, either Jackson lied by making up his "anecdotal story" or he is lying to cover up the story. Either way the real issue is not with the factual accuracy of Jackson's story but whether he was factually representing his own belief when he stated: "Why should I reward someone who doesn’t like the president?" It seems that Jackson wanted to make this very point and then crafted a story to fit his predetermined belief/actions. Jackson needs to come clean on whether he is breaking the law by only distributing contracts to supporters of President Bush. Doesn't he know that lies make baby Jesus cry? (georgia10 at Daily Kos has more dirt on Jackson)