House Set to Spend $6.9B on Unwanted Military Equipment

[undeterred]

Source: The Washington Post

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 29, 2009; 5:00 PM

The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives 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 support of political contributors from the defense industry under an approach the Obama administration has decried as "business as usual" and vowed to end.

The unwanted equipment in a military spending bill expected to come to a vote on the House floor Thursday 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."

The dispute over Congress's insistence on additional spending for items such as the C-17 transport plane, a troubled missile defense interceptor program and the VH-71 presidential helicopter reflects a continuing struggle between Gates and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are loyal to existing military programs benefiting contractors that provide jobs and heavy campaign donations.

Gates vowed in April to fundamentally overhaul the military's "approach to procurement, acquisition and contracting" and urged Congress to back a shift from many traditional weapons programs toward spending on counterinsurgency efforts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But House lawmakers who support past priorities appear likely to prevail in this round, because an unusually restrictive rule for floor debate agreed upon Wednesday will only allow amendments to strip less than half of the spending the administration dislikes.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072902676.html?hpid=topnews

[bluestateguy]

1. This is why the line item veto was needed

But of course the Supreme Court only reigns in presidential powers when its a Democratic president using them.

[Oregone]

2. Its not needed

[saigon68]

12. GREEDY PIGS at the PUBLIC TROUGH

Brought to you by the DNC and other corrupt types.

[No Elephants]

13. Not true at all. The SCOTUS has limited the power of Republican power grabbers as well

as Democratic power grabbers. The Patriot Act cases, among many others, show that. Problem is, the SCOTUS cannot do anything, unless and until a case gets to it. Most often, only Congress has standing to bring the case; and Congress has not been quick to bring cases. The separation of, and balance of, the respective powers of the three branches is not to be taken lightly.

We've seen the unitary executive. No thanks, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat. And, when a SCOTUS precedent gets set, it often stays set for a very long time, through many Democratic administrations and many Republican administrations.

More importantly, as far as the line item veto, your problem would seem to be not with the SCOTUS but with the Founders and the Constitution, and perhaps with the apathy of the American voter.

The Contitution is not crystal clear on many things, but it has been pretty clear from Day One that only Congress has the power of the purse. That includes the power to open the purse and the power to close it. And with good reason. It would be bizarre if one person had the power to overrule 435 duly elected members of the House, who face voters every two years, and 100 Senators, forcing them to overturn a veto.

Thing is, Americans are supposed to hold their Senators and members of Congress accountable for wasteful spending by hounding them and booting them out of office, if they do not respond to the hounding. We don't do that. And we blame lobbyists, greed, corruption, the SCOTUS--anyone and anything except the laziness and apathy of the American public, which either stays home, especially at midterm time, or votes the same shlubs back to Washington until they croak.

[Orsino]

17. It's why we need to prosecute those who try to bribe Congress...

...and the willing Congressional whores themselves.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Who drew up this list? Which Congressmen from what states?

[Renew Deal]

4. Military

[HillbillyBob]

5. They add pork for campaign lobbyists that bribe them.

Socialism is just f king dandy for pig corporations err big corpses but not universal health care which would do way more for our economy than campaign bribes.

I am disabled, but every now and then I have a chance to make a few bucks, but IF I do that I lose out on my medicaid and medicare and my meager 800$ a month Social Security Disability.

I cannot depend on my health being good enough from month to month to earn a regular income, let alone the 3,000 to 4,000$ a month for meds, drs and lab tests.

Its like these wealthy congress critters want people like me to stay impoverished.
If I have an extraordinary expense that I can't pay for like our ac went out and thats a 2,500$ to 4,000$ repair or replace (its an old machine).
We are just SOL.
My partner has an ok job, but he has health care bills and he helps his mom out.

We have done a lot to make the house more energy efficient, replacing lights with cfls then leds as we can afford it, painted the roof white (took me since last summer to do that, run out a bucket of paint, have a surgery recover put up another bucket, and so on). It is not 20 degrees over the outside temp like last year, it is 10 15 under but 88 to 95 inside is still too stifling with all the windows open and as many fans going as I can get my hands on.
So wtf is so wrong with 'Socialist' health care? Is it because these sobs are so GD greedy ? or is it they can't figure out a way to make a living? or is it just that they are so goddamned Anti Social that they have to have someone to piss on?

I have not bought any new clothes in several years, I bought a new pair of shoes a few months ago because my last pair were not fit to wear in public anymore. My jeans are holey..beyond fashionable holey

[undeterred]

6. You never see earmarks directed toward human needs.

But we gotta have more war toys. And then we gotta have more war.

[msongs]

7. gotta keep those bribes coming in from the military-industrial criminals complex lol nt

[L0oniX]

8. Money for war machines but none for health care ...sociopath asscarrots!

[fascisthunter]

9. more important to kill, rather than heal

contrast this crap with a public health-care plan being blocked. That is how fucked up this country is....

[jmowreader]

10. Congress always does this and always will; here's why

Military spending = JOBS! And the more districts a system is made in, the more congressmen you can get to sign onto it. Healthcare doesn't create as many new jobs as the war machine.

[No Elephants]

15. Single payer health care could create jobs, if given a chance, though. And with a lot less

profit going to the few.

The reason,s IMO, are that Americans are easily frightened and Congress panders AND takes lobby money.

Just tell Americans that they may be unsafe and they seem willing to do and spend anything, even on bs like this. So, both Republicans and Democrats can safely vote for "defense" money. And safely grab the big bucks from the "defense" industry lobbyists. Only the pacifists disagree and they are a small and aging breed, especially after 911.

BTW, a smaller defense budget need not eliminate jobs. The jobs going to consume billios in unwanted and/or obsolete equipment and other massive waste could be put to uses more beneficial to our country. However, that would require people in our gubbamint to think and they can get re-elected without either thinking or benefiting society.

[Dr.Phool]

11. The Blue Dog Job Security Act.

Just count how many of these "fiscally conservative" assholes vote for it.

[No Elephants]

14. Thing is, Blue Dogs and Republicans will not be the only ones who vote for it. As long

as we keep acting as though Republicans, and now the Blue Dog and Republican coalition, are our only problem, we are misdiagnosing.

Our problem is people who act only to get re-elected, be that voting for pork for their own states and districts, or be that selling what is left of their souls to lobbies. And those people include Democrats. Our other problem is that WE do not primary them or vote them out, in part, because we like the pork when it heads in our own direction and it part because we are lazy and idolatrous.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. Military Industrial Complex's Welfare Queens.