Conservatives are trying to anything and everything to renege on their agreement to reduce military spending. They never did negotiate in good faith to begin with; and as we phase out of Afghanistan and engage in more predator drone and other asymetrical warfare, the demonstrable need for Pentagon spending on bogus projects is even more tenuous than before. |
| There is even an appropriate pork spending outfit for politicians, if they were honest enough to wear it. |
The Minnesota Republian contingent has consistently supported this spending, effectively lying through their shiny, bright white government insurace maintained teeth about their spending concerns and their devotion to reducing the deficit. All they clearly appear to care about is lining the pockets of politicians on the F-35 pork spending trough. Anyone surprised, raise your hand, or better yet, put on the winged pig costume because clearly fantasy appeals to you.
But that doesn't stop the money flowing in Congress, and to Congress to keep Pork flying with miliitary spending. Most of the members of the F-35 Caucus are Republican, but we have a token Democrat taking money that is a clear conflict of interest as well, possibly because he is retiring and needs to get his last grab at the Congressional trough. Hooray for Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown for trying to put a lid on that trough, and for trying to end that corrupt kind of conflict of interest. I would remind readers, again, that the World Bank definition of corruption is use of public office for private gain.
Republic Watch, which monitors corruption, noted this:
Congressmen Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant of Texas and Richard Hanna of New York all have two things in common. One, according to their personal financial disclosures, they own stock in defense contractor Pratt and Whitney. Two, they are all members of the F-35 Caucus, a group of Congressmen dedicated to awarding more contracts to defense contractors like, well, Pratt and Whitney.
The Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, White House officials, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) all agree: Spending hundreds of millions for new F-35 engines are a waste of taxpayer money. The planes have already cost taxpayers over $56 billion in research and development. Constant cost overruns have turned a plane that was supposed to cost $69 million each into one that now comes with a $156 million price tag. Some suggest that the entire F-35 program could spiral out of control and cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over fifty years.Defense contractors are pushing back against proposed cuts aggressively. In addition to increased lobbying spending and pro-F-35 advertisements in the Metro stops of Washington D.C., members of Congress agreed to form a “F-35 Caucus” to keep the taxpayer money flowing to the companies. As the Center for Responsive Politics noted, the F-35 Caucus members collectively received over $325,400 in contributions from the companies that make the F-35, including Pratt & Whitney, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems.
Republic Report has reviewed the personal finance disclosures of F-35 caucus, and found that a number of the lawmakers are also personally invested in the companies that produce the F-35:
– F-35 Caucus Member Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) owns between $350,000 and $750,000 in stock in the parent company of Pratt & Whitney.Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA), whose campaign committee is a top recipient of F-35 contractor cash, is helping to lead the F-35 Caucus along with Congresswoman Kay Granger (R-TX).
– F-35 Caucus Member Congressman Kenny Marchant (R-TX) over $11,000 in stock with Northrop Grumman, over $5,000 in stock with Lockheed Martin, and over $5,000 in stock with the parent company of Pratt & Whitney.
– F-35 Caucus Member Congressman Richard Hanna (R-NY) owns up to $50,000 in stock with Lockheed Martin, and up to $15,000 in stock with the parent company of Pratt & Whitney.
In February, Congress refused to attach Senator Sherrod Brown’s (D-OH) strong reform amendment to the Stock Act that would have forced legislators to place their investments in a blind trust. So, this form of corruption goes on as perfectly legal.
Then we have the overflow of the corruption over our norther border, where it has continued to affect the Canadian government - notably the CONSERVATIVE current Canadian Government, who appears to be caught lying to Parliament and the people of Canada about the F-35. I would bet U.S. dollars to ......well, Candian dollars, that money to induce spending for government contracts with the same corporations has flowed north as well. Just like the corrupt practices of voter fraud and voter suppression by conservatives in their elections, emulating U.S. GOP practices. The right wing 'smaller government' doesn't REALLY mean smaller government, more efficient government, it means a greater concentration of corporate corruption...........which is a kind of efficiency, but not an efficiency in government.
From CTV news (follow the link - the video is worth a view, but no embed code provided)
The Canadian Press
Date: Thu. May. 3 2012 9:19 PM ET
OTTAWA — The Conservative government
wanted the public to believe the F-35 program was cheaper than it was actually
going to be, says the parliamentary budget officer.
Kevin Page took the opportunity Thursday to refresh his long-standing criticism of the proposed multi-billion dollar purchase with an appearance before the House of Commons public accounts committee. It came just weeks after the auditor general accused National Defence and Public Works of misleading Parliament over the program.
Conservative MPs took turns trying to rip apart the assumptions, economic models and research that went into Page's March, 2011 report and its startling conclusion that the plan to buy 65 stealth fighters would cost $29 billion, not the $14.7 billion reported by Defence.
The auditor general pegged the total cost of the program $25 billion.
The guidelines on how the numbers should be presented are clearly laid out in federal Treasury Board policy and should be followed, Page said.
"I think what we need to get in place, so we can really enhance trust in this country, is the kind of information that goes to cabinet to support decisions also goes to parliamentarians," he said.
Auditor general Michael Ferguson testified last week that cabinet knew the full $25 billion cost when it approved the project's budget in two stages in 2008 and accused the government of keeping two sets of books -- a charge that's been denied by a phalanx of deputy ministers and officials who also appeared before the committee.
The key difference has been over whether National Defence should have disclosed $10 billion in operating costs for the lifetime of the jets.
Page said National Defence withheld some key information from his office as he tried to estimate the full cost of the program and those holes became evident with the release of Ferguson's report.
The department was obliged by a parliamentary motion to give him everything, Page said.
However, in later testimony, deputy defence minister Robert Fonberg denied anything had been held back.
The testimony became bogged down in testy exchanges with government MPs, most notably junior defence minister Chris Alexander, who suggested it was the budget officer who was deliberately misleading with his estimate on the cost of initial production aircraft.
Other Conservatives said Treasury Board guidelines are just that -- guides -- leaving the suggestion the rules were open to interpretation. Still others asked Page why he, an officer of Canada's Parliament, would use U.S. figures on the aircraft's cost and sustainment in his assessment.
"Well, um, sir, we are purchasing the plane from our American colleagues," Page said replied.
New Democrat MP Malcolm Allen said the debate is simply mind-boggling and it's clear the Harper government tried to massage the figures.
"What this tells me is that they've learned no lessons whatsoever," he said. "At this point, unless they're independently validated, I don't think anybody should trust the numbers.
Kevin Page took the opportunity Thursday to refresh his long-standing criticism of the proposed multi-billion dollar purchase with an appearance before the House of Commons public accounts committee. It came just weeks after the auditor general accused National Defence and Public Works of misleading Parliament over the program.
Conservative MPs took turns trying to rip apart the assumptions, economic models and research that went into Page's March, 2011 report and its startling conclusion that the plan to buy 65 stealth fighters would cost $29 billion, not the $14.7 billion reported by Defence.
The auditor general pegged the total cost of the program $25 billion.
The guidelines on how the numbers should be presented are clearly laid out in federal Treasury Board policy and should be followed, Page said.
"I think what we need to get in place, so we can really enhance trust in this country, is the kind of information that goes to cabinet to support decisions also goes to parliamentarians," he said.
Auditor general Michael Ferguson testified last week that cabinet knew the full $25 billion cost when it approved the project's budget in two stages in 2008 and accused the government of keeping two sets of books -- a charge that's been denied by a phalanx of deputy ministers and officials who also appeared before the committee.
The key difference has been over whether National Defence should have disclosed $10 billion in operating costs for the lifetime of the jets.
Page said National Defence withheld some key information from his office as he tried to estimate the full cost of the program and those holes became evident with the release of Ferguson's report.
The department was obliged by a parliamentary motion to give him everything, Page said.
However, in later testimony, deputy defence minister Robert Fonberg denied anything had been held back.
The testimony became bogged down in testy exchanges with government MPs, most notably junior defence minister Chris Alexander, who suggested it was the budget officer who was deliberately misleading with his estimate on the cost of initial production aircraft.
Other Conservatives said Treasury Board guidelines are just that -- guides -- leaving the suggestion the rules were open to interpretation. Still others asked Page why he, an officer of Canada's Parliament, would use U.S. figures on the aircraft's cost and sustainment in his assessment.
"Well, um, sir, we are purchasing the plane from our American colleagues," Page said replied.
New Democrat MP Malcolm Allen said the debate is simply mind-boggling and it's clear the Harper government tried to massage the figures.
"What this tells me is that they've learned no lessons whatsoever," he said. "At this point, unless they're independently validated, I don't think anybody should trust the numbers.
Read the rest of the article here.
 |
| If you're bored or frustrated with the corruption and political dishonesty, print this out,get out your crayons, marker, highlighters, whatever you have, and take a coloring break, LOL. It might help lower your frustration levels and blood pressure. |
Here, piggy piggy piggy piggy..... anyone else smell bacon?
No comments:
Post a Comment