you're so full of pork military spending that rancid pork like this doesnt raise any red flags.
No, I am simply know how to support a working military facility, and the rules/nature of acquisitions. You have the facitily management skills of a Command and Conquer player.
But note your reaction to the simple comment:
"Incidentally I just shelled out 38K of your tax dollars to resurface a gym floor while troops are dieing in Iraq and instead of buying needed nuclear reactor parts, and there is a perfectly good reason for that."
Notice, again, that you just focused on the bright lights and sparkles. Concerning the OP that just makes you a normal lazy media skimmer, but since I included a qualifier and you still cry foul without taking it into consideration (or inquiring as to what it is) that puts you square into knee jerk reactionary ripe for shock journalist manipulation territory.
This is easy. Let’s try "I also bought ball point pens, replacement office furniture, a Xerox copier contract and toilet paper instead of buying needed nuclear reactor parts!" I even left out the qualifier so that you can get you head spinning that much easier.
Note: We resurfaced the floor because it was coming apart in places and a student broke an ankle. Ohhh the pork, the outrage!
also any comparison to the military needs of the united states to the police force training needs of iraqis is bunk pure and simple. what is good for the united states isnt the same as iraq based on the maturity of our armed forces infrastructure.
The physical fitness needs of an armed force is not going to change. While you have a point as far as operating equipment, a barracks complex is a barracks complex. And your assuming the Iraqis themselves didn't vet the project (among a thousand things you’re assuming). Not that a swimming pool is a particularly capital expenditure anyway. Jesus, I hope they didn't buy anything but plywood boards for them to sleep on, or give them a gym with anything other than jump ropes or they might incur your wrath.
But again, in your haste to jump on the bandwagon you missed the actual point of the article, which might not have been the case if they author had spent a second of his time providing adequate examples. Since the compound is not operational (assuming it was supposed to be by this time, note the author didn't bother qualifying that statment either) eveything on it is a waste of money. Barracks. Water pipes. Security barriers. Toilets. Parking lots. Mess Halls. Everything, including pools. I and other posters correctly identified the larger legitimate outrage glaring at you from the article while you stubbornly refuse to admit a pool of that nature is a perfectly normal part of a training barracks complex.
I thought that any unalocated money the armed forces have that are not used are simply refunded to the taxpayers and since there is no incentive to "save" or "spend wisely" the funds the forces simply spend the full allotement?
Not quite. There is incentive to save, you are just saving for your command instead of big Navy. I submit a budget, broken down by quarter and month and I have to spend that money roughly to that schedule. This keeps commands from skimping all year and ending up with a lot of money at the end of the year, which they don't want you to do because you submitted a budget with requirements so they expect you to meet those requirements.
However, if I manage to save money by say getting a cheaper contract for a service or finding a way to reduce requirements, I am more than welcome to spend that money on something else not originally budgeted for but still a legitimate requirement, like resurfacing a gym floor.
However, if I save for big Navy, at the end of the fiscal year all left over funds will be taken back. On top of that, since obviously I couldn't find anything worthwhile to spend that money on in support of the command, the next year's budget will most likely be reduced (which COs don't like). I ended up with $1.98 left over this past September 30th.
Additionally, if you do find yourself with a emergent requirement not budgeted for but legitimate, you can ask big Navy for more money. This happens a lot when large support commands like SPAWAR make sweeping Navy wide requirements, like upgrade to Word 2007 for example. That would cost me upwards of 100K for procurement alone and probably another 50K every three years after that for licensing. That’s a problem because I budget out for 8 years, so that changes a lot.
In any case I am not big Navy's budget manager, I am my commands budget manager. It is my job to provide as much support possible to my command, big Navy has a thousand accountants/Supply Officers working on their interests. Not to mention I only get the resources I can convince them I require, it they think I need less that was their chance to do so. Though on occasion they will simply take money back. For instance right now, thanks to our wonderful democratic congressmen not doing their job, I and most shore commands are operating at 20% budget.
It is also worth noting that the money I get is not mine to spend entirely as I will, and the same would be the case with Dynocorp. For instance 20K of my budget has to be spent on urinalysis supplies and training, if I can't spend it all on that they take it back (I gave back 8K last year). There are lots of things that work that way, OPTAR (parts) and consumables (everything else) being the most common, but the one most relevant to the OP is habitability money. That would be money specifically designated to improve the living conditions of members, and if you don't spend it all on that they take it back. That never happens, because what CO is going to say he didn’t do all he could to improve the lives of his sailors? Apply to the OP, though again the article is light on details in this regard as well.
I bet if the entire force subsisted off of nutragrain bars they could stop wasting money on things like meat. 
)
