From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 09:40:34 PDT
You are missing the point of the deal made between AM General and the US
Gov't. It isn't about public safety, but rather a means of protecting
the economic viability of the contractor (AM General) by ensuring that
they retain an untapped civilian market to cater to. Since the military
contracts these guys get aren't what they used to be, no civilian market
likely means going out of business. This is an age old economic problem
for military contractors since long before the days of WWII (Lend Lease
Act for example), but especially in recent years. The problem is very
real in general, although I am sure overstated in some cases.
That being said... I do not agree that ugly, uncomfortable green things
will appeal to the average surburban/urban debt ridden consumer who is in
the market for the sort of overpriced, cushy products sold by AM
General's consumer division. In other words, the release of even tens of
thousands of used military Humvees will not likely rob them of any
significant commerical sales. But corporations are conservative,
paranoid, and not very intelligent in my opinion so this likely scenario
is not likely something they would agree with.
My personal "solution" would be to have the government retain the rights
to resale but would pay the contractor x% of each sale's net proceeds.
This is sorta the system set up for Lend Lease equipment, so its not
like this is a new concept for the Gov't or its contractors.
As an aside... I've dabbled with doing business with the Army and will
likely have a contract with them next year. I can tell you for sure that
our contract will see to it that nothing we give them gets out into the
civilian market. If they should balk (and they won't)... guess how much
our price would jump? Factor of 5 or perhaps 8. So before you complain
too much about how the taxpayers are getting stiffed, consider for a
moment the possibility that the taxpayers are getting something in return
for the assurance of no surplus (i.e. a lower price point for the
contracted vehicles). Might not be the case with Humvees, but could be.
Steve
>(In reply to the info. noted below)
>
>Very interesting info., thanks. It kinda sickens me
>to know this, but I'm still glad you explained it.
>
>So the HMMWVs are being crushed and none are being
>sold to the public. What a "typical" waste of our
>taxpayer dollars. It's an outrage and its being done
>under the radar so very few people will find out.
>Those rotten bastards... excuse me, but thats just how
>I feel about them.
>
>To my knowledge, not one of those 750 HMMWV's sold to
>the public has EVER been a problem to the government
>or anyone else. In fact most have been a positive
>impact on both buyers and sellers. It's been a
>totally positive experience to my knowledge and it
>should have been more than enough of an example to
>encourage the government to change its policy and
>allow more HMMWV's into the public secton to recoup
>some money and reduce their overhead.
>
>This brings up an old issue, the government is
>supposed to work for us. But, does it really?
>
>I know from a recent experience how litte "we the
>people" matter anymore. I was simply trying to show
>the DLA how to save a few million dollars and
>thousands of man-hours by a simple procedural change.
>Even with the support of my Congressman we were given
>the bums rush. We received nothing except
>bureaucratic responses which were non-answers. What
>was the change I suggested? Nothing much, just common
>sense, I suggested the DLA (surplus agency) should not
>use the E.U.C. (background check) on items commonly
>available off-the-shelf. How obvious is that? Duh-uh.
> But, noooo... they argued and held fast and we still
>have buyers of binoculars getting expensive background
>checks, buyers of trucks getting backgrounded, buyers
>of telephones.... and so it goes.
>
>Its amazing we are the great country we are today, but
>think what we could be if we could somehow get rid of
>those civil servant bureaucrats protecting their
>little fiefdoms!
>
>
>- - - wrote:
>> United Defense is the maker of the M109 Paladin Self
>> propelled gun, and they bid on the Humvees to
>rebuild them, but decided to sell them instead, and
>> there was nothing to prevent it. I am the guy that
>> picked out which Humvees United Defense would take.
>United Defense hired a private auction house to
>dispose of the Humvees, so there has still never been
>a
>> Government auction or release of Humvees. This is a
>small point, but it is important in that it limits the
>
>> likelihood of future batches of Humvees seeing the
>> light of day, and the Army is crushing Humvees
>everyday.
>
>
>
>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
>To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:37 PDT