Who needs bullets during a war
An article at the Washington Times reports that Congress stripped out $2.6 billion from the Defense budget to fund 778 pet projects (read that: earmarks). Money that should have gone to buying ammunition, fuel and training instead found it’s way into more critical areas;
$25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, “in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats.
So while the Obama Administration diddles on whether to supply our toops engaged with an enemy in a far away land, the Congress is busy wrestling their money away from them to buy patronage here at home for their political aspirations next year.
The Kennedy museum thingie – that was from John “who wants to be the last to die for a lie” Kerry.
“Sen. Kennedy served on the Armed Services Committee for 27 years, where he fought to deliver top-of-the-line body armor and armored Humvees to protect our troops and save lives. Educating Americans about these battles is a core mission for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, which showcases one senator’s ability to make a difference,” Mr. Smith wrote in an e-mail. “This funding will help the Edward M. Kennedy Institute become one the nation’s pre-eminent civic educational institutions, and Sen. Kerry is proud to have worked with Chairman Inouye to make it possible.”
Oh, and let’s make the military buy stuff thay don’t need;
In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks, the bill includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer not requested in the Pentagon’s budget proposal.
What’s it costing the military to pay for politicians’ patronage?
“Air Force and Navy combat pilots training to deploy are getting about half of the flying hours they got at the end of the Vietnam War,” he wrote in his analysis. “Army tank crews get less in tank training today than they did during the low-readiness Clinton years.”
Yeah, Republicans did the same thing while they ran Congress – and they lost public and political support because of it. I haven’t given a penny to Republicans since 2004. Will Democrats do the same to their politicians? Fat chance.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Congress sucks, Military issues
Well, I, for one, welcome the addition of the DDG-51 to the list of ships to build. Now, if we can de-fund the “Little Crappy Ship” and build MORE of the 51’s, and use the LCS money to upgrade more Aegis to flight-II BMD systems, then that
would be an excellent start on a REAL frikkin’ Navy.
Oh, and license-build a bunch of European FFG’s to expand the fleet and provide for convoy escort for our logistics train during the next war.
The God’s honest truth is that, if the balloon goes up overseas, primarily in Asia, we are gonna be hard-pressed to keep up extended Naval ops past the first 30 days. It really is that bad.
Thanks, John Frikkin’ Kerry.
And, I hear that tank crews, Army and Marine, spend most of their time in simulators. Video games on steroids.
I wonder if the Edward M. Kennedy Institute will have an explanation for going to the Russians to derail President Reagan’s plans for dealing with the Russians. Oh, and AW1 Tim, that’s John he served in VietNam Frikkin Kerry. And the Swift Boat vets were right, “Unfit for Command”.
Edward M. Kennedy was a druken POS and not one dime should be taken from our fighting men and women to honor him or his “legacy” in anyway. He did not serve any committee, each committee which had the unfortunate honor of having him be apart of hits august body only served his over-inflated ego. This makes me sick.
Hey there, Y’all. Let up. After all, what good is power it you can’t abuse it? Would you have expected any better from our US House of Reprehensives? Or the Senate? When we buy our weaponry using a low bit mentality, yet the bureaucrats fly in the best the USAF has to offer what else would one expect? We give the grunts an M-16, that on a good day, gets crapped up just while walking patrol, and jams while firing off the first magazine of ammo.
These guys need to hit the pork barrel so that they don’t get run out of their home towns. Jackass Murtha comes to mind.
“Learned all I need to know about Islam on 9/11!”
I disagree about the C-17s. We need to keep the pipeline running for a while longer. The C-17s already in service are wearing out at a much faster rate than predicted and will need to be replaced sooner than planned for. The service they are getting in Theater is EXTREMELY tough on airframes and there is no replacement airframe on the drawing boards. Also agree to a bit about the DG51. They canceled the follow-on design and intend to continue DG51s for a while. Note that the Spruances and Kidds are retired and were to be replaced with the DG51 and replacement. Also the added ABM capabilities will be useful.
the advantage to the Aegis ABM system, is that we can still provide a missile shield for high-value areas (think Europe, the Phillipines, Guam), while still not actually deploying an ABM system in Europe proper… heh. The drawback is that we simply don’t have enough hulls in the water, nor on the building ways. And I also agree about the C-17’s. the point is not that the AF didn’t WANT them, it’s that the AF didn’t want them because it wants the funds for other things. Those OTHER programs may or may not bear fruit, but the AF, as Barry says above, is wearing out the current fleet at a faster rate than predicted, and refuses to come to grips with that fact. Eventually, they will start losing C-17 airframes to fatigue and over-use and then the REAL tap=dancing will start. Similar thing happened (and IS STILL happening) on my community, the P=3 Orions. The P-3 Mafia decided that they would take and expand upon any opportunity to use their resources. As a result, you have P-3’s flying convoy escort in country, and doing a number of things that, although it does and does well, was never meant to do at the rate it is doing. If that makes sense. Because of this over-use, the Navy is rapidly losing it’s remaining long-range maritime patrol fleet, along with the ASW assets it brings, at a time of diminishing ASW escort resources for battle fleet ops and logistics support. To compound this problem, the Navy’s replacement platform for the P-3, the P-8, is way behind schedule, and funds from it’s development and production budget have been stripped to pay for more LCS and DDX development costs, ships that, at the moment the Navy doesn’t need. For example: the DD-1000 series of “Destroyers” has yet to be built, but are looking around for a reason, a mission, if you will. their biggest problem is their size: the DD-1000 will be as big as the frikkin’ Graf Spee, a German Battleship from WWII. No frikkin’ kidding. It will also have a single 57mm gun… Read more »
“In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks, the bill includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer not requested in the Pentagon’s budget proposal.”
First up, no matter if Gates wants to admit it or not, we need more cargo planes. We always do. And I’m shocked – SHOCKED – that the USAF does not want more of something that isn’t a fighter and doesn’t blow things up. Look at the amount of cargo to A-stan that’s moved by contractors. Sometimes you have to drag the USAF kicking and screaming into doing what they need to.
On the extra destroyer, that was happening anyway. Note this: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/04/navy_ddg_deal_041309w/
“In fiscal 2011, the Navy plans to order another ship for Northrop, DDG 114, and a ship for Bath, DDG 115. The three Burkes will be delivered with an advanced new upgrade of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system”
Only the DDG 113 request was this year originally. Congress stuck in the money for 114 as well. Dunno why, but it’s not like it was a destroyer the Navy doesn’t want. They were just going to ask for the money next year, not this year.
why dont they just give our military feminine napkins to protect themselves and training bras…….the pussification of America begins when you elect a dumbass democrat who has zero military experience, yet seems to think he has all the answers.
Wonder as I listen to my daughter (Navy AO3), who is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan next May, why she whas been told she will have to personally purchase her own desert camos, suede boots etc etc etc.
Support ther troops my ass!
Billy Bob
Spade, so there will only be 3 of the DDG 100 series destroyers for the forseeable future? Strange, one of the regular posters here, who’s totally down with the decision to abandon Poland and the Czech Republic over the ABM shield, assured one and all that this was part of the base of the “new” ABM shield for Europe. Aside from wondering which river they’d be parked in, I was curious as to which platform, exactly, would be used. Thanks for the clarification.
UpNorth,
The current plan is for three new 51 class destroyers, and probably 3 1000 class destroyers. That 3 is dependent on DDG 1000’s construction and all that being good to go and other factors. After that three, who knows, maybe more.
BUT, UpNorth, a number of DDG 51s and CG47s are being ugraded to have BMD capability.