Tasty Pork in the Defense Bill
Wash Post on porkalicious defense bill working through the Senate with President Obama's blessing:
President Obama has repeatedly promised to fight "the special interests, contractors and entrenched lobbyists" that he says have distorted military priorities and bloated appropriations in the past. In August, he told a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that "if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it."…
The bill, however, would add $1.7 billion for an extra destroyer the Defense Department did not request and $2.5 billion for 10 C-17 cargo planes it did not want, at the behest of lawmakers representing the states where those items would be built. Although the White House said the administration "strongly objects" to the extra C-17s and to the Senate's proposed shift of more than $3 billion from operations and maintenance accounts to projects the Pentagon did not request, no veto was threatened over those provisions.
The absence of such a threat provoked Winslow Wheeler, director of a military reform project at the Center for Defense Information, to describe Obama's stance as "too wimpy to impact behavior." Wheeler, who earlier criticized the House for approving a version of the bill that includes extra C-17 planes, $2.7 billion worth of earmarks and other projects that Gates dislikes, said that "as a long-time Senate staffer who has read these documents for years, my interpretation of it is that the House-Senate conference will listen politely . . . and then do as it pleases."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Reason, and I, both defend the right of corporations to lobby to advance their interests. But then, when this lobbying pays off, Reason, for some reason, gets pissed. Does Reason only believe in free speech for corporations when it has no effect?
"And to my no-account nephew Ralston--"
"This is so predictable."
"--I leave a boot to the head."
"Uh! I knew it."
But then, when this lobbying pays off, Reason, for some reason, gets pissed.
I see nothing inconsistent here. I support the right of the Klan to petition as well, but certainly would howl if it "paid off".
Dear Senate,
This deserves further analysis. DoD does not have enough analysts and some of this money should go towards that.
Sincerely,
John Tagliaferro
Defense Analyst
Does Reason only believe in free speech for corporations when it has no effect?
Most of us believe that the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Constitution for that matter, do a pretty good job of limiting the ability of the federal government to do much "paying off" once a lobbyist has exercised his right to free speech.
Shocked, I am.
I think I should go lie down with a cool wet cloth over my eyes. It's too early to start drinking.
This.
No, the Obamessiah told the truth again. The bill isn't "loaded with a bunch of pork;" just a couple of little rinds. You have to carefully listen to what he says, not read into it what you want to hear.
"President Obama has repeatedly promised to fight "the special interests, contractors and entrenched lobbyists" that he says have distorted military priorities and bloated appropriations in the past."
Funny how the Dems are only concerned about "bloated appropriations" when it comes to defense spending but not anywhere else in the budget - especially if it would gore any of their traditional constituencies.
How about the "bloated appropriations" for overpriced union labor on every federal construction contract from buildings to highways due to the Davis-Bacon Act, Barry O?
That particular political giveaway to labor unions has been around since the 1930's and no doubt has resulted in wasting mucho billions and maybe even trillions of taxpayers dollars on a cumulative basis over all those decades.
Let me get this right: yes to destroyers and C-17s the DoD doesn't want, but no to more F-22s? That's insane.
The destroyer, a DDG-1000 (Zumwalt) class is a weapons platform waiting for the weapons (rail guns and free electron lasers) to be developed.
The DDG-51 (Arleigh Burke) class tin cans equipped with the most advanced seagoing combat system on the planet (Aegis) is still a generation ahead of every other surface platform out there.
Eisenhower had a point.
Let us not forget Obama's first veto threat, a promise to block any attempt by Congress to block $350 billion in TARP slush funds. That's basically a promise to veto an important check on executive power, without which TARP would not have passed Congress. There was no hope of change after that, for me at least.
Eisenhower had a point.
Indeed he did (or at least his speach writers did). Initially he was going to say military-industrial-congressional complex but was talked out of it.