From Y2KNewswire for education purpose only!!!

Y2Kpro can you give me an answer or a reason to be optimist on the real STATUS here in North-America?...base on this report!

*********Quote*********

If there's one person in the federal government who doesn't take B.S. for an answer, it's Joel Willemssen, Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, under the United States General Accounting Office (GAO). Willemssen was such a hard-hitting witness during Congressional Y2K testimony in 1998 some didn't want him back. Willemssen's revelations are not only supported by mountains of data, they're based on logic.

Perhaps that's why the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) refused to provide data to the GAO when Willemssen started asking questions. He wanted to know the basics: how much money did you spend, what are you spending it for, and how much more will you need?

THE ANSWERS WERE DISTURBING Willemssen didn't get much cooperation from the OMB, and some agencies flatly refused to provide data or to answer certain questions. But from the data gathered, here's the picture that's emerging:

Y2K renovation costs for federal agencies have risen to $7.5 billion -- more than triple the $2.3 billion originally estimated in February 1997

Remember that the original $2.3 billion estimate was called "crazy" at the time. People said Y2K was a hoax, or they said it would only take a hundred million (or so) to get it solved. Now we're looking at $7.5 billion in these federal agencies alone.

Less than half of that had been spent prior to fiscal year 1999.

This is a major revelation. If agencies had spent less than half of the funds prior to 1999, it stands to reason they were probably less than half-way done. Yet today, the Clinton administration is claming nearly everything is done. That would mean these agencies -- which took two years to complete less than half -- completed the other half in three months, right in time for the March 31, 1999 deadline.

But the numbers don't add up: the agencies haven't yet spent the second half of the money. This means that if the Clinton administration's claims are true, agencies not only completed the second half of the repair process in just three months; they also did it without spending half the money!

Only 7 agencies tracked actual costs of Y2K activities. Five said they tracked some costs and guessed at others.

Where, exactly, is the Y2K money going? Nobody knows. Most agencies didn't track the expenditures. They're just taking emergency Y2K funds and shoveling them down a deep hole while claiming they're already done. Your tax dollars hard at work, apparently...

Eight organizations did not know their Y2K cost obligations. Nine organizations, including five major agencies, refused to provide Y2K cost obligation information.

Here's an inter-governmental stonewalling tactic: if your numbers look bad, simply refuse to provide them. That's exactly what we're seeing here.

The OMB also refused to provide information on federal agencies.

Willemssen says, specifically, "In October 1998, we requested documentation from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on federal agencies required submissions of comprehensive plans and associated funding requirements for achieving Year 2000 computer compliance. We made follow-up contacts in an attempt to obtain this information. OMB has not responded to our request for documentation..."

Why would the OMB refuse to comply with this request if compliance had been achieved? Why would nearly six months go by without an answer? Here's the answer: the OMB is stonewalling, trying to protect federal agencies from public embarassment.

Reported Year 2000 costs continue to rise.

1996: $74 million

1997: $837 million

1998: $2,745 million

... and they're not stopping, either. (See below.)

Some Y2K emergency funds are being spent on other items.

Out of the Treasury's $253 million allocated Y2K funds, $92 million is being spent on non-Y2K technology investments. That's Y2K cash being redirected to something else. It's like loaning your teenager money for college and finding out he used it to buy a new car. But in the government, there is no punishment for doing this.

Agencies are now requesting emergency Y2K funds.

Why would they be requesting emergency funds if they were already finished?

These agencies are quoting three reasons for needing more emergency Y2K funds:

Unforeseen Y2K requirements they forgot to budget for

Unexpected cost increases

Inability to use regular funds for Y2K activities

Is this activity congruent with the public claims that nearly everything is finished? Of course not. Quietly, behind the doors and when begging for more money, agencies paint a gloomy picture. But publicly, when it's time for that interview on CNN, suddenly everything is finished.

Agencies are expecting to spend $1.1 billion fixing the Y2K problem in fiscal year 2000 -- which is partly AFTER 1/1/2000

Twenty-eight federal agencies expect to still be working on Y2K during fiscal year 2000. Clearly, if Y2K were solved in 1999, they wouldn't need $1.1 billion in FY 2000 to continue working on the problem. What will these funds be used for? Remediation, testing, business continuity planning and contingency planning.

Yes, you read that right. Some of that $1.1 billion will be used to fund the creation of contingency plans in FY 2000. You might think this sounds crazy -- that anybody thinking about creating contingency plans in FY 2000 is off their rocker. Shouldn't those plans be done well before the rollover?

BUT THE OMB SAYS EVERYBODY IS KEEPING TRACK Linda Ricci, spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, essentially counters all this. She says Y2K spending is one of the most closely-monitored processes of the federal government. In this story, she says, "we are absolutely confident that agencies are keeping track of their spending and their progress and reporting it appropriately.''

YET ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF THE Y2K DISCONNECT It's a total displacement from reality, of course. As the OMB refuses to provide numbers to the GAO, they claim everything is being closely monitored. By who? By themselves, it turns out.

The compliance claims are self-reported, and just to make sure everybody is telling the truth about how much they spent, the accounting is self-monitored. This creates a self-reinforcing delusion of compliance where there is none.

It's all part of the Y2K DISCONNECT -- the self-reinforced displacement from reality that's leading us right smack into a digital catastrophe. This phenomenon allows people to actually claim everything will be done in 1999 while they beg for emergency Y2K funds for fiscal year 2000. It allows people to say on one hand "everything is under control" while on the other hand request yet more emergency funds due to the fact that "unforeseen new costs" have appeared.

The Y2K DISCONNECT will be explored in greater detail in a future Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM feature article.

READ ALL THE GAO MATERIALS:

The summary.

Willemssen's letter.

Part 1 of the report.

Part 2 of the report.

AP story on the report.

-- Very Concerned (Very Concerned@pwrgrd.com), May 11, 1999

Answers

Sorry I acted simultaneously with the previous post.

-- Very Concerned (Very Concerned@pwrgrd.com), May 11, 1999.

hmmm....no reply yet from the "bump in the road"crowd,they must be trolling somewhere that they won't get cornered....zoob....

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.