GovernmentExecutive.com

Why did we allow these amatures who want to play army into Iraq in the first place. As soon as a deficiency in the military was discovered, it should have been corrected the Army way. Not by applying a bandaid, called Blackwater and then forgeting about it. We as soldiers have done our country a dis-service by not complaining loud and clear to everyone who will listen about these amatures/mercenary wannabees.

smarter_veteran  | Monday, March 03, 2008 |  11:43 PM

---

Don't be fooled by the pundits that claim the government can't do it's own security. That's just a load of crap. The contracting security companies will not be able to pay the high fees it pays now if the federal government is not allowed to use their services and pay them these rediculously high fees for security work. There will be a ton of ex-contractor security types on the market very soon after that as the security companies will fire their personnel really quick to satisfy their shareholders.
So come back to reality, what once was, can be again, after sanity is restored next year.

smarter_veteran  | Monday, March 03, 2008 |  11:35 PM

---

We are paying contractors to guard contractors! They certainly aren't guarding the troops, and in many cases the troops are guarding them. Talk about levels of bureaucracy.

ritgar  | Monday, March 03, 2008 |  02:48 PM

---

Good luck Hillary in trying to find and recruit qualified federal security staffs to replace contractors. Unless you are willing to pay feds a whole lot more money or "fire up" selective service, you will not be able to replace 500,000 contractors over the next 10 years--that is if you win the general election.

Veteran  | Monday, March 03, 2008 |  12:34 PM

---

After the Blackwater mess (which was actually UNDER-exposed considering the implications for America), this proposal has wings. So, cut the overpaid underperforming contractors...and raise the pay for underpaid, over-performing uniformed services personnel!

Make sense?

Don  | Monday, March 03, 2008 |  12:21 PM

---

wonder when she found the time? Congress should also pass a law that says if your running for another office that you stop being paid for the 1 you hold. Only Bob Dole did the honorable thing and resigned when he ran for Pres.

dan ketter  | Monday, March 03, 2008 |  11:10 AM

---

As an independent international consultant and business owner, this proposal is interesting. One of the reasons that the mission has been failing in Iraq is that far from opening the market to conpetition and attracting top talent (as the US investment banks are so good at doing), this proposal will add another level of bureaucracy which will close the market to competition and increase the price of those relatively few US personnel (only) who qualify. It would be yet another own goal, and would have 'unanticipated consequences'.

I cannot help but question such effectively 'protectionist' measures coming from the government of the free market champions of the western world. It would be another own goal in a programme littered with poor policy decisions in both London and Washington.

Andrew Alderson  | Monday, March 03, 2008 |  11:01 AM

---

In his article, Robert Brodsky talked about the millions it would take to train DSS people to replace the contractors, but he did not mention the millions it costs to hire contractors. Each contractor costs two to three times the salary of a government employee. I have not seen evidence that in long term operations contractors save the government any money.
If the contractors cannot be replaced at once, they can be phased out by a combination of DSS and Marine Corps personnel. Even personnel from other agencies could be assigned temporarily to fill the gap.

Ted Bean  | Monday, March 03, 2008 |  10:52 AM

---

This is the same Hillary Clinton whose husband formalized the process to get rid of federal employees when he was President?

Marc  | Monday, March 03, 2008 |  08:52 AM

---

In the long run contracted personnel are less expensive. Their pay may seem high, but then the government does not bankroll their benefits and retirement either. Also, when the work is done, the contractors are released. If you make all these positions federal employees, they are not released so quickly.

MA  | Monday, March 03, 2008 |  08:16 AM

---

Sane people don't do what these guys do. Even if you have feds doing the job, they are going to be ex-military. Where do you thing these people get their training from? It certainly not out of a federal employees handbook on physical security.

DB  | Sunday, March 02, 2008 |  11:21 AM

---

We need to get our head straight and tell the American public what is the Federal Gov't job and what are the responsibilities of the state and locals and the private sector. We can start this by cutting out all private contractors who work in the military, security, intelligence, law enforcement etc. for the fed. gov't. These are jobs that the public expects OUR gov't to do. These are not jobs that private companies have any business doing. We have seen too many abuses, too much money wates and how it has not saved us money. I look at my paystub as a GS-13-5 with LEO pay and see that the cost of pay and benifits for me is less than 120,000. Yet they are paying contractors close to 200,000. And that is without factoring the cost the company takes off the top. How does that save us money.

Tired of Contractors  | Friday, February 29, 2008 |  09:47 PM

---

After next week, maybe Hillary will be looking to fill one of these new positions if the initiative passes.........

ORF  | Friday, February 29, 2008 |  05:01 PM

---

We should be ashamed to need to send hired guns to protect our people. They are a throwback to the Coal and Iron Police in 1870 Pennsylvania.

Wise Old Owl  | Friday, February 29, 2008 |  03:21 PM

---