Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Federal CIO Kundra Takes Leave of Absence After Woes

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the this-can-only-end-well dept.

Government 193

CWmike writes "The fallout from Thursday's arrests of a District of Columbia IT security official and contractor quickly raised questions about the fate of Vivek Kundra, the new federal CIO who until recently ran the office now mired in bribery allegations. Appointed by President Barack Obama as CIO less than two weeks ago, Kundra was CTO for the District of Columbia. But yesterday, Kundra's former office in a downtown government building was a crime scene. A White House official, speaking on background, confirmed today that Kundra took a leave of absence from his new CIO job shortly after federal investigators arrested two men in the DC government office on bribery charges. The official would not elaborate on the reasons for the leave; there were no indications yesterday that Kundra was involved in any wrongdoing. Kundra's decision could slow his plan to create a 'revolution' in the federal government's use of technology."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh well (1)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188489)

I submitted a story on this earlier....may the force be with you VK!

Re:Oh well (5, Funny)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188843)

Deadly thing a bribe is, and burned will you be by it. Your cabinet position you will lose and charged for corruption you shall be. Your ally is the force, but abusing it will make the dark side grow stronger. Consume you, it will.

Re:Oh well (4, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189097)

I don't know whether you're overly fond of imperative constructs, you've been parsing the "will's" and "shalt's" of too many RFCs lately, reading Scripture has taken its toll, or you're just a Star Wars fan, but whatever the reason, hopefully, stop it you will.

Re:Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189139)

whether, don't know, fond overly imperative constructs, you are.

Re:Oh well (2, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189809)

Au contraire, my friend. I think we should add a Yoda day. Like the "talk like a pirate day". But better. :D

And let it be this day, where the idea was born, and where from now on, we shall talk like Yoda.

Re:Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189913)

"I submitted a story on this earlier"

most news orgs decided to run this late friday.

irony. he was giving a speach on planned enhancements to federal aquisition process as his old office was being raided.

Change you can believe in (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188539)

Is this Change or Hope ?

Re:Change you can believe in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188627)

Clearly, it's change, not hope.

Re:Change you can believe in (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188897)

Yes, its change. No tax issues here.

Re:Change you can believe in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189081)

I believe in lulz.

And lulz is what I've been given.
Lord bless our leader Barak Hussein Osama.

Re:Change you can believe in (0, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189143)

I think you mean "Allah bless our dear leader Barak Hussein Obama, peace be upon him."

Re:Change you can believe in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189843)

Don't insult muslims. Even they don't deserve this.

Hmm... who deserves it then?

Well... I guess the ones who allow this joke called "democracy" to still exist.

I say overthrow the government, and put metagovernment.org in place. Can't be much worse. And if yes, we can still return to "democracy", despite it being proven as horribly flawed by definition.

Re:Change you can believe in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189437)

I don't think that remark was meant to be funny. This is yet another Obama appointee who doesn't measure up. Not a good trend. I don't trust Obama as far as I can spit and sure as hell didn't vote for him. McCain was no prize either, but I sure want the people who did vote for to remember who are responsible for putting him in power. Things are going to get worse.

Re:Change you can believe in (2, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189509)

...remember who are responsible for putting him in power.

Sarah Palin?

Re:Change you can believe in (0, Redundant)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189743)

See, Cap'n? Too fuckin' easy. Forget tryin' to be Shakespeare. Just go for the gold. Watch this, I'll say it again, and it will get downmodded...Sarah__Palin

Re:Change you can believe in (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189529)

Wow... the bushiites are still in control of the judicial power.

Thats what i can muster so far.

Re:Change you can believe in (2, Insightful)

_ivy_ivy_ (1081273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189741)

Nice theory, but the executive branch enforces the law, not the judicial branch.

Re:Change you can believe in (0, Troll)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 5 years ago | (#27190035)

Wow... the bushiites are still in control of the judicial power.

This same level of stunning ignorance about the actual structure of the government and its various agencies - the sort of fantastic miscomprehensions held by most Obama supporters - is why he got elected. And when all of the things he and his chosen administration are already doing wrong compound to make several more spectacular messes, the very same voters who don't even know who the FBI are and what they do will find a way to make sure they don't blame Obama for his own actions. Because that would make them uncomfortable about having so idiotically voted him in in the first place. After a few years, though, the buyer's remorse will really kick in - even among those who don't actually understand how the government works.

Re:Change you can believe in (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27190075)

Not that you're going to make overblown predictions or anything. Remember how incorrect all the liberals' predictions that Bush would be a stunning and painful failure were? Oh, wait...

Re:Change you can believe in (3, Insightful)

MinistryOfTruthiness (1396923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189449)

I think it's change, cuz this level of corruption in such a young administration is unprecedented.

Believe it!

Re:Change you can believe in (2, Informative)

DarkTempes (822722) | more than 5 years ago | (#27190285)

This isn't corruption in Obama's administration (yet). It is corruption (an employee scam) in the D.C. government administration that was there before Obama came into office and which Obama's man was CTO of before becoming CIO.

The President's administration != local D.C. government.

Re:Change you can believe in (1)

MinistryOfTruthiness (1396923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27190419)

Sure - maybe not technically in his administration, but not for his lack of trying. And they would have made it too, if not for those meddling kids! (Care for a Scooby snack?) This is happening too often to be a mistake.

It's only a matter of time before something comes out about The Man Himself.

Slashdot trolls you can believe in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189795)

there were no indications yesterday that Kundra was involved in any wrongdoing

But that won't stop angry slashdotters from trying to nail him to a cross.

Re:Change you can believe in (1)

darkshadow (102598) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189925)

Is this Change or Hope ?

Can it be both?

Hopey Change

Re:Change you can believe in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27190069)

What the self-rightous supporters of the Republican agenda (Rush Limbaugh apologists, I'm lookin' at you) and the pompous supporters of "My way or the flyway" Pelosi need to realize is that the government is horrifically polluted by these types of people, at all levels and all branches and both parties.

If you think this country's problems are caused by the "Democrats" or the "Republicans" you are seriously deluded; just the way that slime wants you.

The problem is so serious that I have put aside my desire to see the Nuremberg Tribunal re-convened for the Administration just vacated.

Kundra is currently in negotiations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188561)

...to bring his infotech expertise to a new project in the federal prison system.

The first rollout will involve electronic standards for documentation of the prison sculling teams.

Re:Kundra is currently in negotiations... (1)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188711)

I expect a presentation "On the Optimal Distribution of Assets in a PMITA Facility"

Re:Kundra is currently in negotiations... (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189167)

I expect a presentation "On the Optimal Distribution of Assets in a PMITA Facility"

More like Optimal Distribution of Ass to all the bull queers in a...

Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188587)

They should have gone with someone with a cooler name. Like Padmasree Warrior [businessweek.com] her name kick's Wolf Blitzer's name any day of the week and she's better looking too.

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (3, Interesting)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188687)

They should have gone with someone with a cooler name. Like Padmasree Warrior [businessweek.com] her name kick's Wolf Blitzer's name any day of the week and she's better looking too.

In Sanskrit-derived hindi, Vivek means "wisdom". Obviously you're proposing we discard brains for brawn.

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188813)

They should have gone with someone with a cooler name. Like Padmasree Warrior [businessweek.com] her name kick's Wolf Blitzer's name any day of the week and she's better looking too.

In Sanskrit-derived hindi, Vivek means "wisdom". Obviously you're proposing we discard brains for brawn.

You're assuming the Obama administration has brains to discard.

At best, your assumption lacks supporting evidence.

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (1)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188853)

They should have gone with someone with a cooler name. Like Padmasree Warrior [businessweek.com] her name kick's Wolf Blitzer's name any day of the week and she's better looking too.

In Sanskrit-derived hindi, Vivek means "wisdom". Obviously you're proposing we discard brains for brawn.

You're assuming the Obama administration has brains to discard.

At best, your assumption lacks supporting evidence.

You are assuming that my assumption lacks evidence. Let me be clear here: in Soviet Russia, evidence lacks assumption.

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189053)

They should have gone with someone with a cooler name. Like Padmasree Warrior [businessweek.com] her name kick's Wolf Blitzer's name any day of the week and she's better looking too.

In Sanskrit-derived hindi, Vivek means "wisdom". Obviously you're proposing we discard brains for brawn.

You're assuming the Obama administration has brains to discard.

At best, your assumption lacks supporting evidence.

You are assuming that my assumption lacks evidence. Let me be clear here: in Soviet Russia, evidence lacks assumption.

Yeah, it's the excess brains of the Obama administration that has caused them to:

1. Pick a Commerce secretary that had to quit.
2. Pick another Commerce secretary that had to quit.
3. Pick as CTO a person who had a direct report running a massive contracting scam for five years.
4. Pick as a senior intel officer someone who has been on Chinese and Saudi payrolls, who has gone on the record whitewashing the Tianneman Square massacre, and when held accountable ranted, "It's the JOOOS!!!!"

Yeah, it's their excess brains that are causing them to recycle Dimwit Carter's tax-and-spend economic orgy FAILURE of the 1970s at the rate of something like a billion dollars a minute - literally.

The only reason Obama is in office now is because the media overlooked all this obvious-in-hindsight crap because of the tingle he sent of their collective leg.

Don't think this is obvious?

Ever seen those videos of Obama off-teleprompter? You know, akin to the ones the media would repeat ad nauseum if Bush would slip up?

No, the media buried videos of Obama being a mouth-breathing babbler when he's off his teleprompter.

So, I say again: there's no evidence whatsoever that the Obama administration is gifted with brains at all, much less enough excess to be able to discard any.

All you Obama enablers will now reap the results of the rancid political climate you've sowed for 8 years.

And don't you just love how the media has pretty much stopped giving Obama a pass for his corrupt connections?

Guess what?

That's not going to stop.

With the Democrats in power across the board, the need for the media to fill up empty pages and empty air time with relevant news/crap means the only viable targets are Democrats. So the standard pass Democrats get is over.

Although Dems still aren't held to the same standard as Republicans are. Don't think so? Grow a pair and research how Nancy Pelosi uses Air Force jets as her private taxi service and ask yourself why that's not all over the news.

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189409)

Nancy has to fly on military jets. One of Hussein Obama's appointees stole her broom.

This administration has gone beyond corruption and incompetence to pure evil with nothing to restrain it.

God help us.

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189511)

Nancy has to fly on military jets. One of Hussein Obama's appointees stole her broom.

This administration has gone beyond corruption and incompetence to pure evil with nothing to restrain it.

God help us.

Deliberately-overlooked-by-the-media fact:

It was Hillary Clinton whose helicopter was given the unofficial callsign of "Broomstick One" when she made a trip to Iraq.

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189573)

Feel better now, Ms. Palin?

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189831)

Although Dems still aren't held to the same standard as Republicans are. Don't think so? Grow a pair and research how Nancy Pelosi uses Air Force jets as her private taxi service and ask yourself why that's not all over the news.

The following should not be interpreted as a defense of Pelosi. It's just a fact:

Pelosi travels on an Air Force jet for security reasons: she is second in the line of succession for the Presidency.

The choice of plane (a 757) seems excessive, but it's reportedly the only one readily available that can fly non-stop from DC to her home in California.

I think that Pelosi should acknowledge the political implications and cut back on the number of trips that she makes. Maybe she had done so.

But, I believe the parent poster is correct in one aspect: if Pelosi was a Republican, the mainstream media would be all over this, with repeated editorials masquerading as news reports.

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (1, Troll)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189917)

Don't forget:

5) Waste the Secretary of State job as a consolation prize to mollify some lying, race-baiting, sniveling loser's fan clup instead of appointing a career diplomat who can actually gain the respect of foreign leaders.

I will give credit where credit is due, though. At least Obama postponed a Hillary Clinton administration for a minimum of four years, and he may have prevented it altogether.

-jcr

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189933)

Nancy Pelosi uses Air Force jets as her private taxi service and ask yourself why that's not all over the news.

Isn't it? I know I've heard quite a bit about it.

-jcr

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (1)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189709)

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, meme eludes YOU!

. . . evidence lacks YOU!

Amateurs!

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188835)

Or brains for boobs.

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27190291)

In Sanskrit-derived hindi, Vivek means "wisdom". Obviously you're proposing we discard brains for brawn.

Seems his name was given in jest given his current predicament, eh?
The meaning of her name in hindi, on other hand, is at least plausible.

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188725)

I don't know Kundra sounds like it could be an open source project

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (3, Funny)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188859)

A KDE app?

Re:Picked the Wrong Name for the Job (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189865)

Bah. You Americans and your weak names. We Germans got "Oberst Sturmhart Eisenkeil" (Colonel Stormhard Ironwedge). Now THAT is a name!

I lost the source, but here is the quote I saved:

During my service in the German army I came across an Oberst Sturmhard Eisenkeil - which literally means as much as "Colonel Stormhard Ironwedge". What's so special about him is his first name... it's not just your average "Max", but it's as if his parents were trying to make up a name that sounds as militaristic as possible. I know that if should I ever write a WWII story the main protagonists will be called Oberst Sturmhard Eisenkeil and Staff Sergeant Max Fightmaster... I also know an Oberfeldwebel Killermannn in person, who would make a good henchman for the evil Oberst.

Google tie-in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188653)

I wonder if it has anything to do with Kundra's big push to turn over everything to Google.

Re:Google tie-in? (1)

Slumdog (1460213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188889)

I wonder if it has anything to do with Kundra's big push to turn over everything to Google.

Yes his office asked and received money for loads of Microsoft products that were never purchased. That is part of the problem.

Catching all the crooks (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188661)

Looks like Obama's plan for catching all the crooks is by appointing them to political office and let the approval process catch them.

Re:Catching all the crooks (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27190437)

Obama: I have this great idea. I'm going to have a Cabinet that's free and clear of corruption!

Aide: Ummm... Mr. President? About that. We might have a problem coming up with a list of Candidates...

Confused (5, Funny)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188685)

I'm confused. I thought the government under Obama was going to be made of rainbows and kittens glued together with hope. Are you telling me Obama's administration is as corrupt as any other but also has a one-party supermajority Congress and a cheerleading media backing it? Sweet...what a change!

Re:Confused (4, Funny)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188763)

Are you telling me Obama's administration is as corrupt as any other...

Not quite?

If it were, we wouldn't be finding out about this corruption until two years into their term, just like any other democrat. (Republicans don't get exposed until after they leave office, or piss off too many constituents.)

So yes, this IS a very big change from the way things used to be.

Re:Confused (5, Insightful)

caladine (1290184) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188971)

Are you telling me Obama's administration is as corrupt as any other...

Not quite?

If it were, we wouldn't be finding out about this corruption until two years into their term, just like any other democrat. (Republicans don't get exposed until after they leave office, or piss off too many constituents.)

So yes, this IS a very big change from the way things used to be.

The only completely inexplicable "change" here is that people don't really seem to care about the obvious amount of corruption and just plain incompetence going around. How many of his cabinet picks inexplicably can't fill out their taxes properly? I don't know about you, but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right. This is the guy we're trusting to fix the banking mess?

While it's nice to see this stuff doesn't come out years after it happens (Oh wait, most of the tax problems were years old, and only corrected a short time before confirmations. Hell, Daschle knew about his tax problems early last year but didn't come clean until he was tapped for the cabinet.), but that doesn't give them the pass on screwing up that they're getting.

No matter the race, creed, or political party, they're dirty. The only change we're getting is how this crap is presented.

Re:Confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189637)

According to hearsay from some Americans, filing your taxes requires a team of expert accountants who specialize in tax filing.

Re:Confused (4, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189765)

I don't know about you, but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right.

I hate to sound like a shill for Obama, but the focus of this whole ordeal did bother me somewhat for the simple reason that it actually did sound somewhat plausible that he was confused by the tax code.

Have you ever tried to do your own taxes....unassisted? The American tax code is an absolute nightmare at the present.

I'm not sure that a flat tax or the FairTax proposal are good options. However, this is a debate we need to be having at the forefront. Our financial system is being dramatically reshaped, and it's about time that we addressed our massively bloated tax code. Make it simple, and it'll be far easier to audit and enforce.

Re:Confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27190409)

He was told by his employer (the IMF), repeatedly, that he needed to file these taxes himself. If he didn't understand how to do it, why didn't he hire someone to file it for him?

On the other hand, I agree that the tax code should be simplified. Democrat politicians are never going to do that. There is an outside chance, if the stars align just right, that Republicans might (I need more than one hand to count the Republican politicians who support simplifying the tax code--just barely).

Re:Confused (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27190323)

but it doesn't give me any confidence when the treasury secretary can't even do his taxes right. This is the guy we're trusting to fix the banking mess?

Uh, you missed the boat on that one. The reason you should have no confidence is that he heads the IRS, because the IRS is an agency within the Treasury.

Re:Confused (4, Interesting)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188999)

If it were, we wouldn't be finding out about this corruption until two years into their term, just like any other democrat.

Actually, I think you're wrong. He's appointing people *SO* corrupt they can't even hide it until two years into their term. And that's with a majority in congress and a "cheerleading media". I cringe to think of what's actually getting through while everyone focus on these blatant cases.

Re:Confused (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 5 years ago | (#27190335)

You are probably right in this case, because I don't think he has made any real changes with regard to transparency in this particular process. But I guess one thing to keep in mind going forward is that if you shine a light on the floor, you're going to see some roaches. But that doesn't mean the roaches weren't always there.

Re:Confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189015)

> (Republicans don't get exposed until after they leave office, or piss off too many constituents.)

Bush came in and told everyone there should be no scandal, OR Else. There were a actually relatively few among his staff. Even he refused to pardon Scooter. (Abuse of power during war not withstanding).

Obama promised change. I guess he meant it.

Obama hasn't hit 100 days yet and already 6 or 7 tax evasion issues among his appointees have surfaced.

Basically its all calculated to set expectations. As soon as those are established off the REAL corruption can begin. This is a return to the Clinton era, where lying was an accepted form of government and the press gave him a free pass when everybody in the country knew he was lying.

Re:Confused (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189319)

Of course, it depends on who is doing the ratting.

If the party in power was doing investigations to rat-out corruption, it's called being vigilant and good. If the minority power was conducting investigations, it's called a witch hunt.

-

Context sure makes it funny.

Re:Confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188783)

Remind me to thank U.S. taxpayers for this wonderful sitcom.
It's funny at least 30 minutes every day.

Re:Confused (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188929)

The chief difference here appears to be that this President isn't handwaving away all concerns and going, despite all the evidence to the contrary, "No you can't go. You're my right hand."

Re:Confused (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188953)

This President is too busy being "overwhelmed," according to his people.

He's a politician from Chicago. (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188963)

I thought the government under Obama was going to be made of rainbows and kittens glued together with hope. Are you telling me Obama's administration is as corrupt as any other but also has a one-party supermajority Congress and a cheerleading media backing it?

He's a successful politician from the Chicago machine, which makes Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall look like minor pranks on a boy scout campout. What did you expect?

*I* expect ongoing machine corruption scaled up to the national level, culminating in something to dwarf the Teapot Dome scandal and any corruption in any other administration since than (including the Clinton and both Bush administrations).

But then I've dealt with Chicago politics a little bit... (Thank Murphy I've never had to live there.)

Re:He's a politician from Chicago. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189077)

... culminating in something to dwarf the Teapot Dome scandal ...

(And yes I do know that Harding was a Republican and Teapot Dome was related to cronyism with, and bribery from, buddies in the oil industry and would thus have been a more resonant example if I were decrying possible corruption in a Bush administration. But I'm more concerned with magnitude than particulars here.)

Re:Confused (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189201)

starting to sound more like Ninjas and Pirates...

I honestly don't see how anyone can take his "change" seriously with so many past Clinton officials on his staff and in key positions. His whole administration has been screaming "beltway" and "politics as usual" way too often. I was willing to give the guy a chance; didn't vote for him or McCain; but damn he just has a stink about him of Washington.

FOIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188737)

FBI-man wants no tech, FBI-man takes down tech-man. FOIA would expose certain unpleasant truths to whiners and malcontents. --Shampoo.

He's not accused of anything (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188807)

Sure, one of his direct reports ran ghost employees and kickback schemes for five years. But there is no evidence Kundra knew about it. Surely nobody expects the a state CIO to get involved in every petty detail.

Re:He's not accused of anything (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27188885)

As a contractor/associate of other contractors in the past with DC govt, I can assure you he is an a-hole, corrupt, and lacks the intelligence and qualifications necessary for the position. In his defense, you can say this about pretty much anyone in DC govt.

I can only hope this helps bring him down. His own employees seem to loathe him. Ultimately, as the CIO he is supposed to take responsibility for his underlings. He may not have been guilty, but he is ultimately responsible for the office and everything that happens, particular at a high level like contracting.

This is true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189965)

The D.C. government always was and always will be a hot-bed of cronyism and corruption.

And clearly, anyone involved in IT in the DC government is probably mostly capable of knowing how to grease palms and take advantage of kickbacks.

There is nothing competent in this government. Remember, this is the government where the employees set up fake companies to take take rebates and stole $40M.

The only reason Kundra got the job in DC is probably because he worked for a contractor that gave kickbacks to somebody high in Fenty's administration. And I'm guessing he got the Obama job because somebody owed him a favor.

And if you doubt what I'm saying, remember Marion Barry? He was re-elected Mayor and is currently on the council. And due to a lifetime of drinking and drug abuse basically used up his kidneys. So he talked his campaign manager into giving her kidney to him.

These are lying, thieving people. When you realize Obama appointed him, you realize Obama is probably corrupt and incompetent.

Re:He's not accused of anything (0, Troll)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189047)

Exactly.

He should not be Swift-Boated for the actions of others.

Follow the money.

Re:He's not accused of anything (5, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189231)

He should not be Swift-Boated for the actions of others.

I have to disagree. If he's such a poor manager that he missed something like his direct report having "ghost employees" and taking kick backs then I don't think he's competent enough to be the federal CIO. Five years is a long time to not notice something was up.

If he's not corrupt then he's incompetent. Either way, he's not qualified.

Re:He's not accused of anything (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189353)

Sorry for forgetting my cynicism tag in my prior post Jlarocco. I'll be more careful next time.

Re:He's not accused of anything (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189701)

I agree. If something like this was happening 5 layers below him I could see some leeway. However, if a DIRECT REPORT is runnign this kind of a scam than he clearly isn't doing his job. An invalid expense report or two per year might certainly be easy to sneak by a boss, but nobody should be able to run a massive scam under their supervisor's nose...

Re:He's not accused of anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189181)

Sure, one of his direct reports ran ghost employees and kickback schemes for five years. But there is no evidence Kundra knew about it. Surely nobody expects the a state CIO to get involved in every petty detail.

"Swift boat" him? Of course not. That would be unfair. Let's just revoke his H1-B visa.

What my directs do (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189237)

isn't exactly a petty detail. Granted I don't hold a lofty title like CIO but I damn well know what all my directs are doing. If I didn't I would not hold down the job I do. I even have to keep tabs on what the other guys outside of my direct control are up to. Plus some of what his directs are accused of isn't exactly something that just goes by without some questions arising somewhere down the line.

You also don't take leaves of absence. Just what in the hell is wrong with Obama's vetting process?

Re:sarcasm (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189639)

Let me try again...

But these offenses were in the distant past! He hadn't worked there for weeks! How does this have anything to do with him?

Re:He's not accused of anything (1)

zaphirplane (1457931) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189851)

how can this be "interesting"
If he is completely blameless and has no accountability, what exactly is his job? look pretty and have the best office.
His job is to run this area, place right employees in the right role, ensure the right decisions are made. you know ... work

The limitations of moderation (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189949)

To moderate this "insightful" would be to agree with the absurd statement that he's not responsible and convey approval of the bald statement. Because it's subtle sarcasm that skewers the point without being sophomoric, because the stakes are so high, and because the trauma is future tense, "funny" and its associated neutral karma isn't warranted. What's left is "interesting". There is no "sad" moderation option.

You're new here. Don't give up. Moderation works.

And if you carefully examine what I said, this post is not off topic.

Richardson (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27188913)

Hmmmm. I voted against the neo-cons because of their total corruption and incompetence, as well as a very visible desire to destroy America. At this time, the dems appear to be heading in the same way with corruption.

Re:Richardson (5, Interesting)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189075)

This may be modded redundant, because it gets said in nearly every political thread at Slashdot... but it is a very important point:

Democrats and Republicans ARE BOTH TERRIBLE.

Not based on ideology, really. You may find more to agree with in one party platform or another. But rest assured, the politician does NOT adhere to the party platform because of any actual conviction. When it is politically more profitable to betray it, they will. I'm 90% conservative, but would prefer an honest Democrat over a corrupt Republican. It's a moot point, though, because they're both rotten to the core.

There may be some exceptions. It would have been interesting to see if Ron Paul would have stuck to his guns. Those exceptions are few and far between, though, and tend to get weeded out long before they run for president.

Re:Richardson (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189203)

Well, I voted for Ron the first time around. In fact, up until 2000, I had not voted dem or pub (save a couple of local pols). BUT, we could not afford to have another W get in. I had some issues with McCain, but somewhat considered him. That was gone once he picked the ultimate neo-con as running mate.

I am STILL hopeful that Obama is an honest pol. BUT as I look at all the ppl that he has put around himself, they appear to be as corrupt as any neo-con. The question is, are they more competent. That remains to be seen.

Re:Richardson (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189975)

Well, I voted for Ron the first time around.

He's a good protest vote. Some of his ideas are, frankly, very poorly informed, but he's at least earnest if not super informed or educated on many subjects.

BUT, we could not afford to have another W get in.

This is why we need electoral reform.

I had some issues with McCain, but somewhat considered him. That was gone once he picked the ultimate neo-con as running mate.

Yeah, that was some really lousy strategy. He had a shot, but he needed to appeal to moderates in the center. It's not like the far right wasn't going to vote for him anyway simply to stop Obama who they perceive as a threat. Palin did exactly the opposite. It did not get him any real new votes and drove away all the moderates.

I am STILL hopeful that Obama is an honest pol.

I have hope to. He honestly seems to be trying. He's come through fairly well for things in his power as executive and he's fighting hard for healthcare and tax reforms we really, really need and he promised to try to deliver.

BUT as I look at all the ppl that he has put around himself, they appear to be as corrupt as any neo-con.

Hs appointments to date have been a mixed bag. Some I strongly disapprove of, but some I strongly approve of. If you look at his cabinet there are a few that really stand out like: Kathleen Sebelius, Steven Chu, Eric Shinseki, Lisa Jackson, and Peter Orszag. They all seem leaps and bounds more competent and significantly less corrupt than many of their predecessors. Appointments like Chu are what keep my hope alive. Even Kundra seems to be at least more competent. We'll have to see how this potential corruption turns out.

Re:Richardson (0, Offtopic)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189275)

"Democrats and Republicans ARE BOTH TERRIBLE."

Please add the media and the corporations.

.

The blogosphere is eating up "the salesman" (buy buy buy: Cramer) vs. "the senior citizen" (Steward: over analyze and whine, and get off my lawn!) mess with the apology Cramer gave yesterday, which in some sense didn't make sense (I doubt we'll see Steward on MadMoney).

.

Times have become just plain stupid.

This always makes me laugh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189615)

Whenever "their" team wins an election, we will suddenly begin claiming that all politicians suck. Yet if "our" team wins, suddenly it's always only "their" politicians who suck, and ours are magically now unsucky.

I'd bet cold hard cash that if your Republican team had beaten their Democrat team, you'd not be claiming that all politicians are "terrible"...only their Democrat politicians.

Re:This always makes me laugh. (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27190347)

Ah, so 'your' team must be the Democrats.

I would take you up on that bet, and win; because you're guessing at my beliefs, and I'm (obviously) not. I've been saying the Republicans suck for a long time, even though I agree with their stated but rarely adhered to platform much more closely than the Democrats.

Re:Richardson - This is Also an Important Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27190361)

Democrats are BETTER than the Republicans.

The past 30 years have proved it. Yes, they both suck, but the Republicans suck more.

So the trick really is, how do we move from the Democrats to something better, avoiding a retreat backwards into Republicanism?

Re:Richardson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189085)

No, you've just found yourself voting for neo-liberals instead. What they didn't tell you on your ballot was that neo-liberal and neo-conservative mean the exact same thing.

Re:Richardson (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189891)

As far as I can tell, there's only one real Republican (Ron Paul) and one real Democrat (Dennis Kucinich) left in the congress, and they both get ostracized by their parties.

-jcr

Re:Richardson (2, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189109)

Why do you think the "neo-cons" were trying to "destroy America"?

If anything it would seem the problem was that they were so gung-ho about protecting America that they just started making shit up.

Re:Richardson (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189131)

This is a pretty good point. Neo-cons are out to keep America on top economically and militarily at whatever the cost. There's nothing that keeps other countries in check like a nuclear weapon owning country who will attack other countries for no valid reason. Iraq was a big "Don't mess with us cuz we crrrazy!" message.

Of course, it didn't work. But the intentions were noble. :-)

Re:Richardson (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189239)

LOL. That was as good when a hard core republican that I know who LOVED AND LIVED reagan claimed one month ago that reagan and W were "fucking pussy liberals". He acknowleges now, that both were bad for America. But he still thinks that Romney and Palin would be perfect (even though Palin is the total clone of reagan and W). I will be curious to hear what he says IFF Obama and his dems turn this economy in the first year.

Re:Richardson (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189559)

The problem with Reagan and Bush is that they didn't really practice what they preached. There are two sides to "Lower taxes and smaller government" and they only did one of them.

Second, fixing the economy isn't really the government's job. They just shouldn't be screwing with it. In fact, it's probably only as bad as it is because the government was interfering with it so much in the first place.

The truth is that the economy will go back up despite the damage Bush and Obama have done with their stupid bail outs. Going up and down is just part of what economies do.

It's really a bit disappointing that Obama is going to take all the credit when things start going back up because the coincidence is going to reinforce his plans for even bigger, more intrusive government.

Re:Richardson (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189775)

The problem with Reagan and Bush is that they didn't really practice what they preached. There are two sides to "Lower taxes and smaller government" and they only did one of them.
Actually, both of them never kept a single promise. BOTH grew gov like there was no tomorrow. And as to lower taxes combined with no deficit, well, that is well known. Taxes actually ended up higher in total under reagan, just shifted off his buddies. Though W did lower taxes a bit ( more on his buddies), but made reagan's #1 deficit look amateurish.

Second, fixing the economy isn't really the government's job. They just shouldn't be screwing with it. In fact, it's probably only as bad as it is because the government was interfering with it so much in the first place.
As a Libertarian, I agree with you. But the neo-cons pushed deregulations ONLY when it helped their friends. They left a great deal in place that was damaging, and worse backed their friends, rather than worry about the nation. In fact, the ONLY time that these neo-cons really stuck to doing the right thing with this gov/economy was only once they had totally F'ed things up and they saw the writing on the wall WRT voters.

The truth is that the economy will go back up despite the damage Bush and Obama have done with their stupid bail outs. Going up and down is just part of what economies do.
Yeah. It worked great for us from 1929-1933, and for the Japanese all through the 90's till current. What I find interesting is that most of the top economists say that we are not spending enough on stimulus, but they believe that this is step in right direction. Otherwise, we will end up like the other 2 time periods.

It's really a bit disappointing that Obama is going to take all the credit when things start going back up because the coincidence is going to reinforce his plans for even bigger, more intrusive government.
And this is where we differ. IFF Obama focus on getting the economy GOING, and once going focuses on balancing the budget with a balanced budget amendment ( the anti-neo-con or anti-republican amendment), he will be one of my hero's. As it is, I noticed that the first spending bill was LOADED with pork (20B), and the new one that just passed is "LOADED" with 8Billion of "pork" of an ~.5 Trill bill. Of course, that compares to the neo-cons spending 25-30B/year on a 300B spending bill, but now calling this major pork. I really do not care as long as the budget gets balanced and we get back to paying off reagan's and W's insane debts.

Re:Richardson (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189881)

IFF Obama focus on getting the economy GOING, and once going focuses on balancing the budget with a balanced budget amendment ( the anti-neo-con or anti-republican amendment), he will be one of my hero's.

And if he flapped his arms and flew to the moon, I'd be similarly surprised.

Obama is bought and paid for. It's why he voted for the Bush/Paulson bailout, it's why he appointed a bankster from the New York Federal Reserve Bank to run the Treasury department, and it's why he pushed so hard for the porkulus bill.

But he sure does a great Deepak Chopra routine as long as the teleprompter is working. It just feels so good to listen to him blather.

-jcr

Re:Richardson (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189849)

The problem with Reagan and Bush is that they didn't really practice what they preached.

Speaking of practicing what they preach, remember when the Democrats wanted to take all our money and give it to poor people?

Looting the workers to give the money to banksters is supposed to be anathema to the lefties.

-jcr

you're a bit behind on that (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27189983)

That was the Democrats circa LBJ's "Great Society" in the 60s. By the 1990s, the pro-business faction was solidly in charge, culminating in 1992 when the head of the Democratic Leadership Council (the pro-business / anti-lefty caucus) won the Democratic nomination. Sort of analogous to New Labour displacing Old Labour in the UK.

let me spell it out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189877)

Assasination is no longer tenable. The only reason we deabte who killed JFK is lack of footage.

But everyone, EVERYONE has dirt. And those with money will expose it, if given a reason.

Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27189939)

Why is it that as soon as he appoints someone, scandals come to light? Think about that. Everyone in these kinds of positions is involved in scandals. Why is it that they are being exposed now?

Tin Foil Hattery (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27190063)

Here's a fact: ALL politicians are corrupt.

Now, here's a theory of mine: Some are more corrupt that others, and there's never been an effective way to weed them out. Everyone was corrupt, that much was understood, but how badly was never clear. And it was too dangerous to try and figure it out. Just ask Paul Wellstone. [wikipedia.org] about how much luck he had with that.

Even worse, some of those more-corrupt bastards are in your OWN party. Nominating them to any position puts you in jeopardy, and once again, your plane could end up suddenly taking a nosedive during a "routine" landing.

How to eliminate them without slitting your own throat?

Theory: establish a culture of rigorous honesty and total accountability. Make it clear that anyone selected is going to be examined with a fine-toothed comb. Show the people exactly how you're doing it, and more importantly, demand the same from the average citizens your campaign and administration is using for volunteers.

Now start nominating people you want to eliminate.

You know they're all corrupt? Now you can find out just how bad without slitting your own throat.

Theory: your not-so-bad enemies and just plain neutral associates see the writing on the wall and become very loyal to your policies, lest they "get nominated" and destroyed. /Tin Foil Hat

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?