← Back to context

Comment by cyberax

13 hours ago

And BTW, I agree that Social Security overhead is unacceptable. It should be privatized and increased to at least $500 billion to be comparable with health insurance companies.

It's not acceptable at all to make private companies look bad.

If it was a company it'd have failed already.

> The program, called the Disability Case Processing System, or DCPS, was designed to improve case processing and enhance customer service. But six years and $288 million later the program has “delivered limited functionality and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns

https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-soci...

And that's just one instance.

Can you imagine raising $288 million from VCs for a software application while delivering so little?

But taxpayer money? Free and easy money to keep wasting coz no one cares. Tragedy of the commons.

For the main system they're also using COBOL, which has no Date data type, causing issues even in 2025.

  • >Can you imagine raising $288 million from VCs for a software application while delivering so little?

    Yes, absolutely. I think you might be overestimating VC’s a little bit.

    • It can happen yes, but VCs have very strong incentives to not waste their own money, if they feel like putting the effort into it. If they fail they may learn the lesson not to waste money, or even end up not having money to waste. In the government all the incentives are the opposite, to keep spending money or the budget would get reduced next year. If anyone tries to save costs, they make a lot of enemies both within and outside. They get nothing if they succeed, so the incentives are bad.

      1 reply →

  • Startup companies blow through hundreds of millions of VC dollars with little to show for it all the time. Theranos raised $700 million for a technology that never worked. Plenty of others wasted hundreds of millions building half-baked products that nobody wanted or that made no business sense. Remember Quibi?

    • The difference is that those companies eventually fail. The govt has essentially limitless taxpayer money behind it(till a currency crisis like Argentina, Greece etc. happens taking down the entire economy) because paying it is enforced by threat of violence and it can borrow and print money as much as it wants with deficit spending.

      Also Theranos was aiming for something very innovative that still does not exist, whereas the govt IT systems are essentially glorified CRUD apps(no doubt complicated and with tricky integrations and need for reliability and security). It's an example where VCs could've exerted more scrutiny but chose not to and wasted their own money, hopefully a lesson learnt. As taxpayers, we have far fewer options, we cannot just pass on paying out hard earned money if we don't want to "invest".

      Another example, the Queensland payroll system cost $1.2 billion over 8 years to develop, repair and maintain, to pay just 87K people. The initial estimated budget? $6.9 million.

      1 reply →

  • > Can you imagine raising $288 million from VCs for a software application while delivering so little?

    What? You're imagining VCs caring about pizza money? Should I mention, perhaps, the AOL-TimeWarner merger? Or maybe AT&T buying DirecTV for $50B and essentially giving it away for $8B?

    Heck, I was a part of an utterly failed project with a $150m budget (in 2005), in a large European company.

    > For the main system they're also using COBOL, which has no Date data type, causing issues even in 2025.

    And? They haven't missed a single payment day in all their existence, moving data between multiple types of media. While working with staff levels that won't even qualify as "skeleton" in plenty of companies.

    • > Heck, I was a part of an utterly failed project with a $150m budget (in 2005), in a large European company

      Was it a just a somewhat complex CRUD app like the SSA example or most govt IT projects? Or were you guys trying for something more complicated and innovative and failed?

      1 reply →