If the Secretary of Defense Speaks in Chicago, Does It Make a Sound in Washington?

[Bonestorm]

This seems pretty important:

At a speech today in Chicago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates lashed out at members of Congress, at the "defense and aerospace industry," and at the "institutional military itself" for trying to keep ultra-expensive, often-useless weapons programs in the Pentagon budget. It's just not right, he said, while the country is fighting two wars in which such gear is clearly not required.

"The grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity... is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk that I will not take and one that I cannot accept," he said.

Gates took particular aim at proponents of the futuristic, $250 million-a-pop F-22 stealth dogfighter. Senior military leaders all say they have plenty of the planes, to ward off any potential foe. Congress keeps trying to force the Pentagon to pay for more -- despite the threat of a Presidential veto of any defense bill which contains more F-22 cash. It's typical, he observed, of a Beltway process that keeps defense programs going forever, regardless of their military value. It's exactly why Gates' largely common sense overhaul of the Pentagon's arsenal is, in its own way, so radical.

"If we can't bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision - reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two different secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, and the current Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff, where do we draw the line? And if not now, when? If we can't get this right -- what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing Defense business as usual. The President has drawn that line. And that red line with regard to a veto is real."

Pretty strong language, but my guess is that Congress (yes, both parties here share the blame) won't give a hoot and will fund these projects because they represent jobs in their districts and campaign contributions from the military-industrial complex, notwithstanding that the Secretary of Defense says we don't need them.

We'll see if Obama holds the line on the veto threat, but I'm not holding my breath.



http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/gates-future-jet-supporters-risking-todays-troops/

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

dungheap is absolutely right....and i do not know if there really is anyway of truly fixing this....earmarks or pork apparently are legal under the constitution, and i am not sure they should be illegal because you open up pandora's box as to what is an earmark and what is not....

this is why i believe in the framers intent that our government is to be a limited government, not the unlimited morass it has become....

 

[Damocles]

This seems pretty important:




Pretty strong language, but my guess is that Congress (yes, both parties here share the blame) won't give a hoot and will fund these projects because they represent jobs in their districts and campaign contributions from the military-industrial complex, notwithstanding that the Secretary of Defense says we don't need them.

We'll see if Obama holds the line on the veto threat, but I'm not holding my breath.



http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/gates-future-jet-supporters-risking-todays-troops/

Yes, but somebody told me that Earmarks like that aren't inherently wrong.

We agree, it's not the right thing to do.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yes, but somebody told me that Earmarks like that aren't inherently wrong.

We agree, it's not the right thing to do.

so what are they supposed to be? if not earmarks, then what? is money never to flow back to the states via the federal government? come on, that is what our government is founded on....the federal government shall give money to the states.....

 

[Damocles]

so what are they supposed to be? if not earmarks, then what? is money never to flow back to the states via the federal government? come on, that is what our government is founded on....the federal government shall give money to the states.....

LOL.


Yeah! Wasn't that in the 1/3 Amendment?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

LOL.


Yeah! Wasn't that in the 1/3 Amendment?

while tongue in cheek....i have seriously pondered how to actually get rid of earmarks....according to the law, earmarks are legal and the government can legally attach strings so long as the strings do not interfere with states rights.

how is it possible to get rid of this system? you point to the limited form of government and liberals laugh at you, you point the limited form out to most republican politicians and they nod their head in agreement and then go behind closed doors and act like liberals.....

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, but somebody told me that Earmarks like that aren't inherently wrong.

We agree, it's not the right thing to do.

Somebody told you that earmarks like what aren't inherently wrong?

I swear to Christ you wingers have this weirdo lingo and in-jokes that appear to be clever little insights but when you think about them for more than one second you realize they make no fucking sense.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

dungheap is absolutely right....and i do not know if there really is anyway of truly fixing this....earmarks or pork apparently are legal under the constitution, and i am not sure they should be illegal because you open up pandora's box as to what is an earmark and what is not....

Earmarks are simply a legislative direction to the executive on how to spend money. All pork is earmarks, but not all earmarks are pork.

It would be relatively easy, actually. Just declare that the federal government expects local governments to pay for there own crap, and direct the rules committee to examine each bill and remove irrelevant portion.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The entire problem really comes down to a single member district system. The house is supposed to have a national perogative, but it's elected locally. So often reps just ignore their national mission and direct the federal government to help out their own fiefdom. Less powerful areas miss out.

 

[Bonestorm]

The entire problem really comes down to a single member district system. The house is supposed to have a national perogative, but it's elected locally. So often reps just ignore their national mission and direct the federal government to help out their own fiefdom. Less powerful areas miss out.

The problem isn't necessarily with single member districts necessarily. I mean, it makes perfect sense for a representative to earmark funds in a highway bill for roadways in his or her district because the representative knows the district and what ought to be done and what ought not be done. Leaving it up the the federal Department of Transportation makes little sense.

Here, we have the opposite. Individual representatives making decisions about national defense spending not based on national defense spending needs but based on local concerns.

In the former situation, local control makes sense. In the latter it makes no sense at all.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Yes, but somebody told me that Earmarks like that aren't inherently wrong.

We agree, it's not the right thing to do.

Of course it's the right thing to do. All of us in California are quite happy that the government or shall we say taxpayers, will pay for our tatoo removals. It's their duty, doncha know?

 

[Damocles]

Somebody told you that earmarks like what aren't inherently wrong?

I swear to Christ you wingers have this weirdo lingo and in-jokes that appear to be clever little insights but when you think about them for more than one second you realize they make no fucking sense.

Just read the last sentence, you are getting confused by sarcasm based on past posts again. I'm sorry for adding something that speaks about what somebody argued earlier on the board and not adding a silly smilie so that you would understand that it was sarcasm.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The problem isn't necessarily with single member districts necessarily. I mean, it makes perfect sense for a representative to earmark funds in a highway bill for roadways in his or her district because the representative knows the district and what ought to be done and what ought not be done.

It makes more sense that an engineer working on the project studying population and demographic trends would have an even better idea of what needs to be done. Relying on that system, also, you don't get the curious imbalance of a lack of projects in the districts of non-powerful members and lots of funding for useless projects in the districts of powerful members. They just have a much better idea of what needs to be done to move people around. House members understand pork, pork, pork, gimme gimme gimme gimme, and that's about it.

Using representatives responsible to local units to determine national policy leads to a natural conflict of interest. The individual districts don't add up to the total will of the US.

 

[christiefan915]

Of course it's the right thing to do. All of us in California are quite happy that the government or shall we say taxpayers, will pay for our tatoo removals. It's their duty, doncha know?

At least be honest enough to say that the tattoos are gang-related symbols and those people have finally wised up enough to leave the gang and look for gainful employment. Would you want to hire somebody with a big old sign prominently displayed on his arm?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

At least be honest enough to say that the tattoos are gang-related symbols and those people have finally wised up enough to leave the gang and look for gainful employment. Would you want to hire somebody with a big old sign prominently displayed on his arm?

So if you would move to Cali, you could finally get your forehead cleared of how you're defined. "STUPID"

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The entire problem really comes down to a single member district system. The house is supposed to have a national perogative, but it's elected locally. So often reps just ignore their national mission and direct the federal government to help out their own fiefdom. Less powerful areas miss out.

the house and senate are also to represent the people in that district though...i don't how else to get around that

 

[Damocles]

At least be honest enough to say that the tattoos are gang-related symbols and those people have finally wised up enough to leave the gang and look for gainful employment. Would you want to hire somebody with a big old sign prominently displayed on his arm?

We did. The best employee I ever had. When I shut down my small company and gained direct employment for the employees with the company we had contracted to it sucked for me (turned out to be the right decision) but he still works there. A fantastic worker, studious, and careful.

 

[Bonestorm]

Just read the last sentence, you are getting confused by sarcasm based on past posts again. I'm sorry for adding something that speaks about what somebody argued earlier on the board and not adding a silly smilie so that you would understand that it was sarcasm.

I understand that it's sarcasm, it's just stupid. That's all. There is no joke. There's just a statement that resembles a joke.

 

[Damocles]

I understand that it's sarcasm, it's just stupid. That's all. There is no joke. There's just a statement that resembles a joke.

It was simply sarcasm, funny or not. Things like that happen in years worth of conversation between people. Why do you find it so important?