The Contract

Contracts Examples & Explanations
$43.95
I've used other E&Es with good results; this one just doesn't compare. It's stuffy and unclear and a waste of money. About half of my class bought this book and not one person found it helpful. Try the Sum&Substance CDs or ask your prof for a different study aid recommendation.

One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy
$26.00
The intent of this book is to highlight the implications of privatizing government policy, that present practice is scandalous, and that undoing government privatization is not the answer. Unfortunately, Stanger's overly academic treatise fails in all three missions, though her anecdotes and documentation of some of the numbers involved make the book worthy of a quick skim.

The Dept. of Defense is a good place to start. Stanger points out that the Pentagon's acquisition workforce shrank 25% between 1990-2000, while the volume of contracting increased 7X, and that between 2002-2005, the number of its contract employees rose from 3.4 million to 5.2 million. A key point here is that the simplest way to handled increased contracting with reduced staff is to issue giant contracts that allow subcontracting as desired - including evaluations. Thus, we end up with contracts that generate sub-contracts that generate sub-contracts, etc., for as many as five layers - adding costs at every layer. Then there's the missing billions in Iraq. Another typical problem is that various reports on procurement estimate that at least half of these contracts take place without full and open competition. Thus, there is no need for surprise when Stanger points out that a school costing ASAID $25,000 to build in Afghanistan could have instead be built for $50,000 by local Afghans (and probably generated good feelings for the U.S. at the same time). As for quality - shoddy electrical work by KBR is blamed for the deaths of at least 18 soldiers in Iraq, and Blackwater Security severely damaged U.S. credibility when it killed 17 civilians in Baghdad.

Sranger is correct that private contracting weakens control over government policy, but she does not account for some of the major mechanisms by which this occurs. A major source of the problem is that creative people can always find their way around a government contract; this problem is sometimes further acerbated intentionally by government managers, and the fact that government contract positions are not attractive to anyone with high skills and initiative. Then there's the 'revolving door problem. A USAToday article (11/16/09) pointed out that 158 retired general officers now consult for the Pentagon, and most also work for private industry - all at salaries far exceeding their former military pay. Clearly, the potential lure of those jobs can skew thinking of today's active-duty leaders. My own experience with contractors and consultants is that they spend about half their time looking for ways to extend and expand their scope of work, are much harder to get rid of than to bring in, and become a crutch for weak managers to lean on and hide behind - as a result, their advice must always be taken with a grain of salt. Another problem is that bringing in contractors usually reduces flexibility (eg. the outsourced warehouseman can no longer be asked to pitch in to help with a delivery crisis) and unforeseen changes in technology and/or task requirements create never-ending 'discussions' over who is responsible. Another problem with privatization is that it creates a powerful never-ending incentive to for private contractors to lobby for more government services etc., and a major new source of campaign donations.

In another section, Stanger points out that U.S. interests in the Mexican embassy were (and probably still are) promoted by representatives from 32 different agencies, that in 2005 the federal government had contractors in every U.N.-recognized country but Bhutan, Nauru, and San Marino, and we have military bases in 130+ countries. This gets to an even bigger problem - the size, reach, and complexity of American government. We end up with spaghetti-like organization and flow charts, never-ending coordination meetings, and obvious silliness such as the Director of Homeland Security giving briefings on the availability of swine flu vaccine. More important, it just doesn't work - both 9/11 and the Ft. Hood shooting took place despite numerous warnings, government's response to Hurricane Katrina was horribly botched, Madoff's Ponzi scheme was missed until he turned himself in, our financial system nearly collapsed last year, and pupil test scores and dropout rates have stagnated for decades,

Bottom Line: I doubt that any 'super-manager' (eg. a composite of Peter Drucker, Andy Grove, Steve Jobs, Jack Welch and anyone else you might want) would even want to try managing the federal government as it now stands. Significantly improving government performance requires that we first stop digging holes - the most obvious example is the link between our overly-biased support for Israel and the ensuing increased motivation for terrorism. A second is staying out of the affairs of other nations - our own 'bought and paid for' democracy is an embarrassment, as well as our financial management, and we need to stop telling others how to run their affairs - especially China and Russia. A third is reducing our dependence on foreign oil and associated interference in Iran, Iraq, and (formerly) Saudi Arabia. Fourth, get out of Afghanistan and Iraq - there is no reason to be there. At that point we need to implement a major government downsizing - eg. at least 50% in the Pentagon (we already spend about as much as the rest of the world combined), 75%+ in Departments of Commerce, Labor, State, and others; this would need to be accompanied by significantly reducing the accompanying rules and regulations. Then, reconsider restructuring. Only then does it make sense to consider Stanger's question of "What should be privatized?" Perhaps nothing.

CrunchTime: Contracts
$29.95
My emanuel came right in time to help me with my Friday class. I really enjoy the explanations and examples given. I would recommend this service to anyone who needs a little help understanding contracts.

The Contract
$29.98
The Contract: 5 out of 10: Let me start by quoting Variety's review which easy sums up my feelings about this film better than I ever could. Scripters Stephen Katz and John Darrouzet don't inspire great expectations with their contrived setup, so it can't be said that what follows -- pretty much your standard-issue, pursuit-through-the-wilderness melodrama -- is, in the strictest sense of the term, disappointing. But it's more than fair to complain about the plodding predictability of a by-the-numbers scenario that, 30 years ago, might have served as the blueprint for a routine TV movie. (Think Darren McGavin in Freeman's role, then sub in Doug McClure for Cusack.)

There it is concisely; a predictable by the numbers thriller that went straight to DVD despite starring Morgan Freeman and John Cusack.

This is a remarkably average film. Morgan Freeman plays an old sardonic assassin. A bad guy with depth, education and possibly (could it be) a heart. In other words the usual Morgan Freeman role. Like Alan Arkin, Freeman has comfortable found a persona that gathers a steady paycheck. To Freemans credit, at least he is fun to watch and has fun with the role.

That certainly cannot be said of John Cusacks overly serious, charisma free turn as the recently widowed, and ex-cop single father. Cusack acts as if he is spending the entire movie working on a particularly troublesome bowl movement. Considering the lightweight proceedings around him, and co-star Freemans paycheck turn; this method acting madness seems out of place.

The plot summarized is Freeman get captured, escapes while in handcuffs, gets recaptured by Cusack on a father son bonding hike, then they all find themselves on the run with Freemans fellow assassins and the FBI in pursuit.

One strange development is the attempt to give widowed Cusack a love interest in the middle of the forest. Cusack and son run into a hot blonde, Calista Flockheart lookalike skinny dipping (attractive Megan Dodds) and her fianc���. Cusack somehow convinces them that he is an okay guy; even though he is in the woods with a gun pointed at a handcuffed, elderly black man.

The fianc��� is a funny character. A San Francisco lawyer, who hate the wilderness, has an effeminate manner and wears (you cannot make this up) an ascot. What? Is the Mystery Machine parked nearby? Needless to say, he gets killed by a sniper to make room for Cusack. His fianc���es reaction to his bloody death? meh.

Which nicely sums up my reaction to this movie.