FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


House passes pork and earmark Military bill





handfleisch
Okay, here's a chance for all the people supposedly concerned about the fiscal responsibility of the healthcare bil, the ones who went ape-face over the pork in the budget, to show a little consistency:

Quote:
House Seems To Be Set on Pork-Padded Defense Bill

The Democratic-controlled House is poised to give the Pentagon dozens of new ships, planes, helicopters and armored vehicles that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says the military does not need to fund next year, acting in many cases in response to defense industry pressures and campaign contributions under an approach he has decried as "business as usual" and vowed to help end.

The unwanted equipment in a military spending bill expected to come to a vote on the House floor Thursday or Friday has a price tag of at least $6.9 billion.

The White House has said that some but not all of the extra expenditures could draw a presidential veto of the Defense Department's entire $636 billion budget for 2010, and it sent a message to House lawmakers Tuesday urging them to cut expenditures for items that "duplicate existing programs, or that have outlived their usefulness."

While the administration won a big victory when the Senate voted July 21 to end the F-22 fighter-jet program, the House's imminent action demonstrates its continued rebellion on many other Obama administration military spending priorities. ...
House appropriators want to buy, for example, extra C-17 transport planes and F-18 jets, as well as four extra military jets used by lawmakers and Pentagon VIPs. And they want to keep alive a troubled missile-defense interceptor program and continue the troubled VH-71 presidential helicopter program.
...
Roughly $2.75 billion of the extra funds -- all of which were unanimously approved in an 18-minute markup Monday by the House Appropriations Committee -- would finance "earmarks," or projects demanded by individual lawmakers that the Pentagon did not request. About half of that amount reflects spending requested by private firms, including 95 companies or related political action committees that donated a total of $789,190 in the past 2 1/2 years to members of the appropriations subcommittee on defense, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit watchdog group.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902676.html
deanhills
I don't believe the article. I can't believe that someone as savvy as Gates would put together an important bill such as this that can be shot down as easily, as obviously your article is doing just that.
Moonspider
deanhills wrote:
I don't believe the article. I can't believe that someone as savvy as Gates would put together an important bill such as this that can be shot down as easily, as obviously your article is doing just that.


No. The article is true. The bill passed includes three more C-17s, which Secretary Gates stated the Air Force had plenty of. It also includes funding for spare C-17 and F-22 engines (congressman Murtha's consolation prize from the F-22 being chopped against his wishes). The bill includes the purchase of nine F-18s, which the Pentagon did not request. The VH-71 is way over budget and the Pentagon wanted to kill the program and start over. The missile system mentioned is the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, another program that is significantly over budget (and yet to be tested).

I am pleased that military personnel will be getting a 3.4% pay increase rather than the 2.9% pay increase recommended by President Obama. It also includes an increase in funding for medical care, including mental health programs. (The problem is often getting members to take advantage of the latter.)

Respetfully,
M
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't believe the article. I can't believe that someone as savvy as Gates would put together an important bill such as this that can be shot down as easily, as obviously your article is doing just that.


No. The article is true. The bill passed includes three more C-17s, which Secretary Gates stated the Air Force had plenty of. It also includes funding for spare C-17 and F-22 engines (congressman Murtha's consolation prize from the F-22 being chopped against his wishes). The bill includes the purchase of nine F-18s, which the Pentagon did not request. The VH-71 is way over budget and the Pentagon wanted to kill the program and start over. The missile system mentioned is the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, another program that is significantly over budget (and yet to be tested).

I am pleased that military personnel will be getting a 3.4% pay increase rather than the 2.9% pay increase recommended by President Obama. It also includes an increase in funding for medical care, including mental health programs. (The problem is often getting members to take advantage of the latter.)

Respetfully,
M

Perhaps I don't understand how it works then. It would appear that the Bill has been put together by people other than Gates, and that they had added items that Gates had not recommended. Sort of boggles the mind! Has to be a rare event? Usually they can't fit in all the recommendations and have to cut some of them, yet this time round 6.9 billion US have been allocated for equipment that was not asked for? Still does not make sense. Did they decide what was needed before or after the bill was drafted? And why the much publicized change?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't believe the article. I can't believe that someone as savvy as Gates would put together an important bill such as this that can be shot down as easily, as obviously your article is doing just that.


No. The article is true. The bill passed includes three more C-17s, which Secretary Gates stated the Air Force had plenty of. It also includes funding for spare C-17 and F-22 engines (congressman Murtha's consolation prize from the F-22 being chopped against his wishes). The bill includes the purchase of nine F-18s, which the Pentagon did not request. The VH-71 is way over budget and the Pentagon wanted to kill the program and start over. The missile system mentioned is the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, another program that is significantly over budget (and yet to be tested).

I am pleased that military personnel will be getting a 3.4% pay increase rather than the 2.9% pay increase recommended by President Obama. It also includes an increase in funding for medical care, including mental health programs. (The problem is often getting members to take advantage of the latter.)

Respetfully,
M

Perhaps I don't understand how it works then. It would appear that the Bill has been put together by people other than Gates, and that they had added items that Gates had not recommended. Sort of boggles the mind! Has to be a rare event? Usually they can't fit in all the recommendations and have to cut some of them, yet this time round 6.9 billion US have been allocated for equipment that was not asked for? Still does not make sense. Did they decide what was needed before or after the bill was drafted? And why the much publicized change?

Well, you see congress is in charge of the military budget, and they use it to micromanage the military.
They don't have the military's interests in mind though. They want to 'create jobs' in their home states. They do this by forcing the military to buy things built in their home states, no matter if the military wants them or not.
In order to do so, they pretend to know more about what the military needs than the leaders of the military do.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't believe the article. I can't believe that someone as savvy as Gates would put together an important bill such as this that can be shot down as easily, as obviously your article is doing just that.


No. The article is true. The bill passed includes three more C-17s, which Secretary Gates stated the Air Force had plenty of. It also includes funding for spare C-17 and F-22 engines (congressman Murtha's consolation prize from the F-22 being chopped against his wishes). The bill includes the purchase of nine F-18s, which the Pentagon did not request. The VH-71 is way over budget and the Pentagon wanted to kill the program and start over. The missile system mentioned is the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, another program that is significantly over budget (and yet to be tested).

I am pleased that military personnel will be getting a 3.4% pay increase rather than the 2.9% pay increase recommended by President Obama. It also includes an increase in funding for medical care, including mental health programs. (The problem is often getting members to take advantage of the latter.)

Respetfully,
M

Perhaps I don't understand how it works then. It would appear that the Bill has been put together by people other than Gates, and that they had added items that Gates had not recommended. Sort of boggles the mind! Has to be a rare event? Usually they can't fit in all the recommendations and have to cut some of them, yet this time round 6.9 billion US have been allocated for equipment that was not asked for? Still does not make sense. Did they decide what was needed before or after the bill was drafted? And why the much publicized change?

Well, you see congress is in charge of the military budget, and they use it to micromanage the military.
They don't have the military's interests in mind though. They want to 'create jobs' in their home states. They do this by forcing the military to buy things built in their home states, no matter if the military wants them or not.
In order to do so, they pretend to know more about what the military needs than the leaders of the military do.
I was wondering last night how much manouvrings must have happened in the background between the military and congress before the partial "facts" had been released to the media. Possibly this could have been an exchange for more troops, or funds in the next budget?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Possibly this could have been an exchange for more troops, or funds in the next budget?

They want more troops or funds now, instead of fancy weapons systems.

In the wars we're fighting now, one good foot soldier on the ground is worth 10 F-22's in the air... and to have a translator...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Possibly this could have been an exchange for more troops, or funds in the next budget?

They want more troops or funds now, instead of fancy weapons systems.

In the wars we're fighting now, one good foot soldier on the ground is worth 10 F-22's in the air... and to have a translator...
Maybe that was the deal that was made behind the scenes. Do you think that the increase in numbers of foot soldiers was enough though?
Related topics
Democrat's dream of a new bill of rights
Federal 'Hate Crimes' Bill Threatens Religious Freedoms
the 9/11 truth
Bush: My way or the highway with Detainees bill.
wager of sin
How one state's bill is trying to trash the US constitution
Defund the corrupt military? the Alan Grayson phenomenon
Obama's Unemployment Numbers Keep Going Up
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Follow the money.
Health Care Summit vids: Obama's struggle for bipartisanship
US National Debt!
Obama’s Indefinite Detention of US Citizens
Absolutely ridiculous
House Passes CISPA
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.