from POGO, the Project On Government Oversight

There are excellent arguments that Romney and Ryan are the step'n fetchits for CEOs and corporate interests, big money, the 1%. Those claism about not cutting the military expenditures, which are already impoverishing this country, taking money away from more necessary expenditures like infrastructure, where we have tens of thousands of bridges and roads in bad repair - in the case of numerous bridges, ready to fall down like the I-35 bridge five years ago. It is enormously cheaper to repair than to replace, but we haven't done the necessary maintenance and repair. Former 5 star general and world war II leader, Dwight D. Eisenhower, a well-regarded REPUBLICAN president famously described the military industrial complex grasp for wealth and power. It extends even to the extent of paying Congress to buy things the Pentagon DOESN'T WANT OR NEED, to keep those corporate military industrial CEOs fat and happy. THIS is what Romney and Ryan are really talking about doing, NOT keeping this country safe.

Romney has surrounded himself with militant re-cycled Bush White House militant neo-cons who want to use military spending to rip us off.  If you have any doubts, read my prior posts, and the news coverage, both U.S. and foreign, on the F-35 or the F-22.

From POGO:

Weapons makers have been claiming for months that cutting the Pentagon budget will result in big losses of American jobs.

But the truth is that weapons companies make billions in profits, and pay their CEOs millions of dollars a year — none of which makes us more safe.

 

 

I love a parade, especially this one, in Ottowa.

"It's not about saving money. It's about imposing ideology."

The political right is afraid of a free exchange of information; objective reality, fact based discussion rather than ideology, and a free exchange of ideas are all threatening to them.  As extremists, as fascists, they use the word freedom a lot, but they routinely trample the freedom of others, only lockstep conformity is allowed.
Conservatives are anti-science.  That's true here, and it's true across our northern border.
As background to the protest parade of scientists on the national parliament building in Canada, the CBC, which unlike our national broadcasting network, still has funding, had this coverage earlier this year, published this earlier this year:

Are Canada's federal scientists being 'muzzled'?

By Janet Davison, CBC News  Posted: Mar 27, 2012 5:22 AM ETLast Updated: Mar 27, 2012 1:12 PM ET

The federal government says it is not muzzling its scientists, but others inside and outside Canada's scientific community are concerned with what they see as a alarming trend to limit the free exchange of knowledge.iStock

Kristi Miller would likely be able to help Canadians who don't have degrees in biology understand her groundbreaking — and complex — research into the Pacific salmon stock, which was published more than a year ago.
But so far, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist, who toils in a lab on Vancouver Island, has only spoken publicly at a formal inquiry into the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River.
Media requests to speak to her have not resulted in interviews — and the decision to keep her off-limits to reporters has reached as high as officials in the Privy Council Office in Ottawa.The federal government says it is not muzzling its scientists, but Miller's name often emerges when the issue arises, as it has more frequently of late both inside and outside Canada's scientific community.
For some, there's far more at stake here than a simple opportunity for a biologist or a climatologist to talk about viruses or the ozone layer.
"If scientists working within government are not free to discuss their science and the potential implications of it, then what does that say about us as a society?" asks Jeffrey Hutchings, a professor and Canada Research Chair in Marine Conservation and Biodiversity at Dalhousie University in Halifax.
For Hutchings, who had his own fight with federal government secrecy over the closure of the Atlantic cod fishery in the 1990s, there's a rather grim answer to his question.
It is, as he puts it, that "we have somehow deemed it OK or permissible for an Iron Curtain to be drawn across the communication of science in this country."

The Brantford Expositor covered today's parade here:

OTTAWA - Hundreds of scientists left their beakers and test tubes in the lab Tuesday to protest cuts to research programs.
"We are here today to commemorate the untimely death of evidence in Canada," said Katie Gibbs, a PhD student at the University of Ottawa who organized the rally. "After a long battle with the current federal government, evidence has suffered its final blow. Between sweeping cuts to federal science programs, legislative changes in Bill C-38 and the muzzling of scientists, the injuries to evidence have been overwhelming."
Scientists - many of whom were already in Ottawa for the International Congress on Evolutionary Biology conference - were joined by public sector unions, NGOs and opposition MPs as they marched from Ottawa's Convention Centre to Parliament Hill wearing lab coats and carrying protest signs.
The CBC covered today's protest by scientists here.   I couldn't get the video to embed properly, but here are some photos of the event.

From Common Dreams:

Canadian Scientists 'Mourn Death of Evidence' under Harper Government

Protest march will highlight public harm done by gutting of research programs

A funeral procession of scientists wearing white lab coats and mourners dressed in black will take to the streets of Ottawa today to "mourn the death of Evidence" and protest what they see as an attack on environmental science by the Harper government.

Canada's prime minister Stephen Harper: his government is accused of jeopardizing Canada’s scientific reputation. (Photograph: Todd Korol/Reuters) The scientists say a rash of recent cuts exposes the government's hostility to evidence-based research and is putting the public at risk. Despite claims by government officials that the cuts are a necessary part of a cost-cutting and efficiency plan, the scientists claim they are directed at research programs critical of the government's energy development plans, specifically the tar sands mining taking place in Alberta.

“There is a systematic campaign to reduce the flow of scientific evidence to Canadians,” said Dr. Scott Findlay, Associate Professor and former Director the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Environment. “As a result, the public hears and sees only information that supports federal government policy or ideology. That’s not evidence, that’s propaganda.”

Scientists and organizers contend the assault on science has been ongoing, but cite the following specific government cuts in recent months:

• Large reductions in critical research programs in Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the National Research Council of Canada, Statistics Canada and elsewhere.
• The shutdown of irreplaceable systems vital to the health of Evidence, including the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area, the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory and the First Nations Statistical Institute.
• Inadequate information diet resulting from the loss of such important sources of information as the National Science Advisor, Law Commission of Canada, and National Round Table on Environment and Economy.

"It definitely seems to us these cuts are not just part of fighting the deficit, that there is a systematic attack on science and the preferential cutting of programs that may produce results not in line with the Conservative agenda," says Katie Gibbs, a PhD student at the University of Ottawa and one of the organizers of the rally.
"The Harper government is the most environmentally hostile one we have ever had in Canada. Harper pulled Canada out of the Kyoto protocol, gutted the Fisheries Act (our strongest freshwater protection law), and hollowed out our environmental assessment legislation, making it easier for extractive industries to get licences to exploit," said Maude Barlow, a former UN advisor on water and chair of the Council of Canadians. "It is heartlessly shutting down a program that costs very little to run given the incredible benefits it brings, in order to silence the voices who speak for water."
"Scientists are generally not agitators, but this continuous set of decisions has got very many scientists hot under the collar," said Findley.
The rally will begin at the Ottawa Convention Center at noon and march to Parliament Hill following.

Canadian Conservatives Lied About the F-35, Just like the Military-Industrial Complex Encouraged Conservative U.S. Corruption

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:

Corruption Watch: Congressmen Awarding Big Defense Contracts to Companies in Which They Own Stock

By Lee Fang posted Apr 9th 2012 at 10:30AM

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.
– 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.

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).
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.

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?