Dem Culture of Corruption

[fossten]

Feinstein Resigns
Senator exits MILCON following Metro exposé, vet-care scandal

By Peter Byrne

SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

Perhaps she resigned from MILCON because she could not take the heat generated by Metro's expose of her ethics (which was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute). Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005?

The MILCON subcommittee is not only in charge of supervising military construction, it also oversees "quality of life" issues for veterans, which includes building housing for military families and operating hospitals and clinics for wounded soldiers. Perhaps Feinstein is trying to disassociate herself from MILCON's incredible failure to provide decent medical care for wounded soldiers.

Two years ago, before the Washington Post became belatedly involved, the online magazine Salon.com exposed the horrors of deficient medical care for Iraq war veterans. While leading MILCON, Feinstein had ample warning of the medical-care meltdown. But she was not proactive on veteran's affairs.

Feinstein abandoned MILCON as her ethical problems were surfacing in the media, and as it was becoming clear that her subcommittee left grievously wounded veterans to rot while her family was profiting from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It turns out that Blum also holds large investments in companies that were selling medical equipment and supplies and real estate leases—often without the benefit of competitive bidding—to the Department of Veterans Affairs, even as the system of medical care for veterans collapsed on his wife's watch.

As of December 2006, according to SEC filings and www.fedspending.org, three corporations in which Blum's financial entities own a total of $1 billion in stock won considerable favor from the budgets of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs:


Boston Scientific Corporation: $17.8 million for medical equipment and supplies; 85 percent of contracts awarded without benefit of competition.

Kinetic Concepts Inc.: $12 million, medical equipment and supplies; 28 percent noncompetitively awarded.

CB Richard Ellis: The Blum-controlled international real estate firm holds congressionally funded contracts to lease office space to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also is involved in redeveloping military bases turned over to the private sector.
You would think that, considering all the money Feinstein's family has pocketed by waging global warfare while ignoring the plight of wounded American soldiers, she would show a smidgeon of shame and resign from the entire Senate, not just a subcommittee. Conversely, you'd think she might stick around MILCON to try and fix the medical-care disaster she helped to engineer for the vets who were suckered into fighting her and Bush's panoply of unjust wars.


WHAT DID NANCY PELOSI KNOW AND WHEN DID SHE KNOW IT?

 

[MonsterMark]

WHAT DID NANCY PELOSI KNOW AND WHEN DID SHE KNOW IT?

HoHum.

More Demo corruption. Back to the basics for the Dems. Yawn.

It will NEVER get covered in the MSM

 

[Joeychgo]

Its their turn.... Repubs had 6 years - now its the dems turn.

 

[Calabrio]

Its their turn.... Repubs had 6 years - now its the dems turn.

What are you talking about?

 

[shagdrum]

Good question....
Dems had over 40 years before the republicans and didn't accomplish anything, except to make things worse...as usual

 

[Joeychgo]

Oh thats garbage.

 

[fossten]

Oh thats garbage.

Which part? The part about the 40 years, or the part about making things worse? Because we can prove both.

 

[DLS8K]

Good question....
Dems had over 40 years before the republicans and didn't accomplish anything, except to make things worse...as usual

What didn't they accomplish and how did they make things worse?

 

[fossten]

What didn't they accomplish and how did they make things worse?

Where do I start?

Failed to stop Communism
Lost the war on poverty, despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars
Dumbed down our public school system, despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars
Appointed liberal judges who voted abortion legal, resulting in the deaths of 50 million unborn babies
Weakened our military
Increased the proportion of federal spending to a majority of entitlement programs
Notable - Jimmy Carter, with the aid of a Democrat Congress, achieved the distinction of being the first and only President who had an economic "misery index"
Failed to save Social Security
Gays in the military
Failed to help the black community, despite receiving 90% of its votes
Affirmative action
Enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act, and the Assault Weapons Ban, all unconstitutional
Historically enacted the largest tax increases in our nation's history while spending on more pork than any other party

I'm sure Calabrio and Monstermark will easily be able to add to this list.

 

[shagdrum]

I was mainly thinkin' LBJ's 'great society" initiatives...and his "illegal" war in vietnam. lol

 

[DLS8K]

Where do I start?

Failed to stop Communism
Lost the war on poverty, despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars
Dumbed down our public school system, despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars
Appointed liberal judges who voted abortion legal, resulting in the deaths of 50 million unborn babies
Weakened our military
Increased the proportion of federal spending to a majority of entitlement programs
Notable - Jimmy Carter, with the aid of a Democrat Congress, achieved the distinction of being the first and only President who had an economic "misery index"
Failed to save Social Security
Gays in the military
Failed to help the black community, despite receiving 90% of its votes
Affirmative action
Enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act, and the Assault Weapons Ban, all unconstitutional
Historically enacted the largest tax increases in our nation's history while spending on more pork than any other party

I'm sure Calabrio and Monstermark will easily be able to add to this list.

Wow......I find it hard to believe that you can even stand this country based on the list you just gave. I'll start from the top of your list.
1- You cannot blame the democrats for failing to stop communism....I believe the threat of MAD was responsible for that.
2- Lost the war on poverty? Uh.....no.
3- Dumbed down the schools? How is that??? Is it kind of like the "No Child Left Behind Act?" If you really understood how the program worked, than you might realize how stupid it really is.
4- Abortion.....the republicans had their chances and didn't get it overturned.
5- Weakend our military....that was because we had ended the Cold War.
6- You're going to talk about Federal Spending? Both sides are guilty in that department.
7- Jimmy Carter and economics....kind of like Bush and economics. Neither one of them has anything to brag about.
8- Failed to help the black community.....how did they fail again? Hurricane Katrina?
9- The problems with Social Security are more complex than simply blaming one party....plus, the republicans had a chance to do something and they didn't.
10- Gays in the military...sounds more like a religious problem for you and not a political one. In fact, it makes you sound like a bigot.
11- Gun control laws are a good idea.....and they are not unconsitutional.
12- Spending? That is what democrats do.....but taking a look at the current administrations track record on spending, I don't think anyone is free of guilt.

 

[fossten]

Wow......I find it hard to believe that you can even stand this country based on the list you just gave. I'll start from the top of your list.
1- You cannot blame the democrats for failing to stop communism....I believe the threat of MAD was responsible for that.

Talk about being 180 degrees out of phase. The Democrats appeased the Soviets for 40 years. It took Reagan standing up to them to finally end the Cold War. MAD is a pejorative term used by the pacifist, whiny left to describe nuclear deterrence, a subject you are no doubt in complete ignorance of.

2- Lost the war on poverty? Uh.....no.

Uh...yes.

3- Dumbed down the schools? How is that??? Is it kind of like the "No Child Left Behind Act?" If you really understood how the program worked, than you might realize how stupid it really is.

Really? Well, that makes perfect sense, since it was written by Edward Kennedy, D-MA. A perfect capstone to 40 years of stupidity and waste by the Democrats.

4- Abortion.....the republicans had their chances and didn't get it overturned.

You make my point for me. The Democrats were the ones in power for 40 years, therefore it was not overturned. Thank you for agreeing with me. By the way, laws that have been enacted by state governments to weaken Roe v. Wade were passed by Republicans.

5- Weakend our military....that was because we had ended the Cold War.

Again, a colossally ignorant statement. First of all, it was a Republican President who singlehandedly ended the Cold War, and handed over a relatively intact and peaceful world to Bill Clinton, who proceeded to gut our military and set us up to be attacked by Al Qaeda, thanks to his pathetic appeasement tactics concerning the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, and the FIRST WTC bombing.

6- You're going to talk about Federal Spending? Both sides are guilty in that department.

You ever hear of the Democrats urging spending cuts? No. Never. Republicans have been the ONLY ONES ever to advocate it and actually do it.

7- Jimmy Carter and economics....kind of like Bush and economics. Neither one of them has anything to brag about.

Our economic situation is far better than it was under Carter. Again, your ignorance is showing.

8- Failed to help the black community.....how did they fail again? Hurricane Katrina?

Let's see, New Orleans has had a Democratic leadership for 40 years, the black population was in the worst part of town, Mayor Schoolbus Nagin is a Democrat, Mary Landrieu is a Democrat, William Jefferson, D-La is a corrupt bribe-taker who used the National Guard to retrieve his stash of cold cash instead of helping out his fellow citizens, and Governor I don't need Bush's help because I'm too busy crying in my office Kathleen Blanco is a Democrat. The only branch of government that actually did something about Katrina WAS the federal government, which was being run by REPUBLICANS. I rest my case.

9- The problems with Social Security are more complex than simply blaming one party....plus, the republicans had a chance to do something and they didn't.

Wrong. Bush tried to get a bill passed in 2005 and the Democrats filibustered it in the Senate. But please enlighten the rest of us as to your knowledge of the Social Security system, and tell us all about how the Democrats have tried to save it. You won't find one single time that the Democrats have been in power and actually tried to do something about this failing ponzi scheme.

10- Gays in the military...sounds more like a religious problem for you and not a political one. In fact, it makes you sound like a bigot.

It was Bill Clinton who pushed allowing gays in the military, an unprecedented move. The military should be about killing people and breaking things, not a social experiment. Nice job of name calling, though, makes you sound like a dumba$$.

11- Gun control laws are a good idea.....and they are not unconsitutional.

Gun control is Stalinist, doesn't solve crime, puts citizens at the mercy of totalitarian governments, and unconstitutional. I guess we need to add the 2nd Amendment to the list of THINGS YOU ARE TOTALLY IGNORANT OF, including US and world history.

12- Spending? That is what democrats do.....but taking a look at the current administrations track record on spending, I don't think anyone is free of guilt.

You said it best in bold.

These are your best arguments? Ho hum, even AhmadineJohnny can do better than you. I'm not impressed. *yawn*

 

[Frogman]

11. Gun Control. This one's for you, DLS8K

Right click > Save as.

 

[shagdrum]

You cannot blame the democrats for failing to stop communism....I believe the threat of MAD was responsible for that.

.....MAD? Please explain

2- Lost the war on poverty? Uh.....no.

Must not be livin the real world on this one. Johnson declared a "war on poverty" as one of his great society programs. Under the "great society" federal spending went through the roof, and entitlement programs grew from less then a quarter of the Fed budget to a little over half. Most, if not all the "great society" plans were to be temporary, and ment to fix a percieved problem, like the "war on poverty". Poverty since that time has multiplied. See how well that turned out? So YES the Dems lost the war on poverty, and proved that throwing money at it isn't the solution, though they still cling to this same plans.

4- Abortion.....the republicans had their chances and didn't get it overturned.

U don't "overturn" that. It isn't a law, it's a precedent, and an unconstitutional one at that. Where is the right to "choose" in the constitution.

5- Weakend our military....that was because we had ended the Cold War.

So we weaken the military? That is the problem with libs, the military isn't "optional", at least not in this day and age. One of the main purposes of the federal government is to protect America and it's interests. If anything should be cut it is the failed entitlement programs.

6- You're going to talk about Federal Spending? Both sides are guilty in that department.

Yes both sides are, especially under Bush. But there is a matter of degree here. U can hardly compare the wasteful pork and unneccessary federal spending of Republicans to that of Democrats. Dems ran our defecit up to largest it had ever been until then in the 1980's in peacetime.

7- Jimmy Carter and economics....kind of like Bush and economics. Neither one of them has anything to brag about.

Jimmy Carter, the only president to have a "misery index", and u r gonna compare him to Bush, who was handed a recession, then 9/11 happened and his tax cuts as well as Alan Greenspan helped the American people bring the economy out of a reccession. Bush has a gr8 track record on the economy. The Laffer curve works, end of story!

8- Failed to help the black community.....how did they fail again? Hurricane Katrina?

Yes this was as much a "black" issue as the Simpson trial was. I forgot, Bush blew up the leves and used his evil weather machine built for him by Cheney's Haliburton to attack just the blacks in New Orleans. Give me a break.

9- The problems with Social Security are more complex than simply blaming one party....plus, the republicans had a chance to do something and they didn't.

Correction, the republicans tried to do something and were blocked by liberals in the house and senate.

11- Gun control laws are a good idea.....and they are not unconsitutional.

A D.C. Court just held that gun control laws are unconstitutional, and if it goes all the way to the supreme court, they will probably uphold it. Also, judging by your abortion view, u probably have no idea what constitutional is.

12- Spending? That is what democrats do.....but taking a look at the current administrations track record on spending, I don't think anyone is free of guilt

Already covered, but again, bad logic. "Because the republicans aren't perfect, they are just as guilty as the democrats."

 

[DLS8K]

Talk about being 180 degrees out of phase. The Democrats appeased the Soviets for 40 years. It took Reagan standing up to them to finally end the Cold War. MAD is a pejorative term used by the pacifist, whiny left to describe nuclear deterrence, a subject you are no doubt in complete ignorance of.
Uh...yes.
Really? Well, that makes perfect sense, since it was written by Edward Kennedy, D-MA. A perfect capstone to 40 years of stupidity and waste by the Democrats.
You make my point for me. The Democrats were the ones in power for 40 years, therefore it was not overturned. Thank you for agreeing with me. By the way, laws that have been enacted by state governments to weaken Roe v. Wade were passed by Republicans.
Again, a colossally ignorant statement. First of all, it was a Republican President who singlehandedly ended the Cold War, and handed over a relatively intact and peaceful world to Bill Clinton, who proceeded to gut our military and set us up to be attacked by Al Qaeda, thanks to his pathetic appeasement tactics concerning the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, and the FIRST WTC bombing.
You ever hear of the Democrats urging spending cuts? No. Never. Republicans have been the ONLY ONES ever to advocate it and actually do it.
Our economic situation is far better than it was under Carter. Again, your ignorance is showing.
Let's see, New Orleans has had a Democratic leadership for 40 years, the black population was in the worst part of town, Mayor Schoolbus Nagin is a Democrat, Mary Landrieu is a Democrat, William Jefferson, D-La is a corrupt bribe-taker who used the National Guard to retrieve his stash of cold cash instead of helping out his fellow citizens, and Governor I don't need Bush's help because I'm too busy crying in my office Kathleen Blanco is a Democrat. The only branch of government that actually did something about Katrina WAS the federal government, which was being run by REPUBLICANS. I rest my case.
Wrong. Bush tried to get a bill passed in 2005 and the Democrats filibustered it in the Senate. But please enlighten the rest of us as to your knowledge of the Social Security system, and tell us all about how the Democrats have tried to save it. You won't find one single time that the Democrats have been in power and actually tried to do something about this failing ponzi scheme.
It was Bill Clinton who pushed allowing gays in the military, an unprecedented move. The military should be about killing people and breaking things, not a social experiment. Nice job of name calling, though, makes you sound like a dumba$$.
Gun control is Stalinist, doesn't solve crime, puts citizens at the mercy of totalitarian governments, and unconstitutional. I guess we need to add the 2nd Amendment to the list of THINGS YOU ARE TOTALLY IGNORANT OF, including US and world history.
You said it best in bold.

These are your best arguments? Ho hum, even AhmadineJohnny can do better than you. I'm not impressed. *yawn*

Yep......those are my absolute best arguments. They are about as good as your post that prompted me to quick jot a few things down. And yeah, I guess I'm a dumbass.

 

[DLS8K]

.....MAD? Please explain



Must not be livin the real world on this one. Johnson declared a "war on poverty" as one of his great society programs. Under the "great society" federal spending went through the roof, and entitlement programs grew from less then a quarter of the Fed budget to a little over half. Most, if not all the "great society" plans were to be temporary, and ment to fix a percieved problem, like the "war on poverty". Poverty since that time has multiplied. See how well that turned out? So YES the Dems lost the war on poverty, and proved that throwing money at it isn't the solution, though they still cling to this same plans.



U don't "overturn" that. It isn't a law, it's a precedent, and an unconstitutional one at that. Where is the right to "choose" in the constitution.


So we weaken the military? That is the problem with libs, the military isn't "optional", at least not in this day and age. One of the main purposes of the federal government is to protect America and it's interests. If anything should be cut it is the failed entitlement programs.



Yes both sides are, especially under Bush. But there is a matter of degree here. U can hardly compare the wasteful pork and unneccessary federal spending of Republicans to that of Democrats. Dems ran our defecit up to largest it had ever been until then in the 1980's in peacetime.



Jimmy Carter, the only president to have a "misery index", and u r gonna compare him to Bush, who was handed a recession, then 9/11 happened and his tax cuts as well as Alan Greenspan helped the American people bring the economy out of a reccession. Bush has a gr8 track record on the economy. The Laffer curve works, end of story!


Yes this was as much a "black" issue as the Simpson trial was. I forgot, Bush blew up the leves and used his evil weather machine built for him by Cheney's Haliburton to attack just the blacks in New Orleans. Give me a break.




Correction, the republicans tried to do something and were blocked by liberals in the house and senate.



A D.C. Court just held that gun control laws are unconstitutional, and if it goes all the way to the supreme court, they will probably uphold it. Also, judging by your abortion view, u probably have no idea what constitutional is.



Already covered, but again, bad logic. "Because the republicans aren't perfect, they are just as guilty as the democrats."

MAD is mutually assured destruction.
The war on poverty is like the war on drugs.....ineffective. Both parties are to blame for failing to come up with solutions. It may be true that it was a democratic idea with LBJ, however, we did have a whole decade to fix a problem and we didn't get it accomplished.
The reason the military was weakened is becuase we had ended the Cold War and it was no longer necessary (at the time) to continue to have such a large force active. Hindsight being what it is, it would be of help right now.
I'm not going to argue that the democrats spend more than the Republicans on wasteful spending......but neither side is free of guilt.
As for Hurricane Katrina being a black issue.....I was joking. The entire government failed those citizens.....but more importantly, they failed eachother.
No political party is void of guilt.....you can blame the democrats for how crappy your life is.

 

[shagdrum]

MAD is mutually assured destruction.

Ok, now that I know what u meant by MAD, let me offer a correction. MAD kept the cold war from going nuclear, but the threat was still real. Reagan ended the cold war.

The war on poverty is like the war on drugs.....ineffective. Both parties are to blame for failing to come up with solutions. It may be true that it was a democratic idea with LBJ, however, we did have a whole decade to fix a problem and we didn't get it accomplished.

This is an example of the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats look to the government to "fix" poverty, in order to achieve a "perfect" society. Republicans realize that government is not the answer to these problems (this is demonstrated by the fact that the number of people on poverty increased dramatically after Johnsons programs were enacted). In addition, conservatives aren't trying to achieve a perfect society where there is no poverty. There is alway going to be poverty, and trying to change that only causes more problems, on a large scale. Besides, poverty is somewhat relative. People who earn $20 a week in some countries are considered "rich", while we have people in "poverty" in america who are overweight, and even own cars, TV's, refridgerators, microwaves, ect... Basically the dems (unlike the republicans) will make the perfect the enemy of the good.

U r saying the conservatives r to blame (at least in part) for not fixing something they don't view as a problem that the government should be involved in, or that even neccessarily can be "fixed". U r missing the point on this. The Dems tried to fix this problem and failed but left us with a greater burden because of their "fix". That is like me saying u r responsible for my broken window not being fixed last week, even though you don't view it as your responsibility (because it isn't).

 

[fossten]

DLS8K,

One more thing about gun control, Mr. Stalinist:

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm

 

[fossten]

The reason the military was weakened is becuase we had ended the Cold War and it was no longer necessary (at the time) to continue to have such a large force active. Hindsight being what it is, it would be of help right now.

A military should never assume that war itself is over. We will be paying for that mistake for the next 20 years. This has happened before. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

This one's for you - note the parts in bold.

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Eisenhower-Era Planes Still Defending U.S.
Dave Eberhart
Tuesday, April 3, 2007


U.S. Air Force pilots are flying planes so old that some were built during the Eisenhower administration, and still Congress is delaying new appropriations to modernize America's aging fighters, bombers and other military aircraft.

The average age of today's Air Force fleet is 24 years.

Big B-52 bombers, which played a critical role in America's recent efforts to liberate Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan, are over 45 years old.

Worse, many of these bombers rely on KC-135 aerial refueling tankers that are equally as old.

Add to the mix, the U.S. military critically depends on C-130 cargo planes for rapid deployment. Yet these planes -- many built at least 25 years ago - are crippled by serious wing cracks and have been grounded or restricted in the loads they can deliver. Giant tank-carrying C-5A cargo aircraft - about 35 years old - are also parked on runways owing to heavy maintenance requirements.


The bottom line: The United States is fighting the war on terror with an old and rapidly aging Air Force warplane inventory - and there is no quick cure in sight.

The results can be catastrophic.

In 2002, Maj. James Duricy was killed after ejecting from his F-15 when the warplane lost part of its tail while flying over the Gulf of Mexico. The F-15 was about 30 years old. An investigation showed that part of the old aircraft's internal structure had corroded. Eventually, the vertical stabilizers had to be replaced on almost half of the U.S. Air Force's F-15 fleet.

The heroic Duricy was a victim of what military experts call the "weapon systems procurement holidays of the 1990s" – when the U.S. government took advantage of the end of the Cold War, called it a "peace dividend" and didn't appropriate the necessary funds to modernize its aging fleet of military planes.

And the procurement curve of new hardware, particularly in the fighter department, cannot keep up.

According to a recent report in Air Force Magazine, even if the Air Force gets all the new fighters on its wish list - 381 F-22 Raptors and 1,763 F-35 Lightning IIs - for decades it will still have to rely on a record number of older fighters to meet the contingencies of national defense.

By sheer necessity, the USAF must lengthen the service lives of its 1980s-vintage fighters - F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s - with substantial structural changes and new state-of-the-art black boxes.

We are not talking about squeezing two or three more years out of the aging fleet, but keeping some of the refurbished warplanes serving until the 2030s - meaning pilots could then be flying jets 50 years old or even older.

But it's one thing to burn through taxpayer dollars to keep vital, albeit old, warplanes in the air - and another to simply toss good money after bad on planes that will not fly.

So argues U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., a member of the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee.

The lawmaker says the Air Force reported spending about $4 million daily and $1.7 billion annually to maintain 330 aircraft "they can't use and are not planning to use."

Included are a mix of ancient KC-135 tankers, C-130 air lifters, F-117 fighters, U-2 reconnaissance planes, and C-5As.

It's not the Air Force brass's idea to nurse along this old iron. Restrictions on retiring the nation's oldest aircraft are written into law -- thanks to some members of Congress who worried that deep-sixing the planes would make bases in their district or state targets for the dreaded base closing process.

Predictably, the old aircraft also provide lucrative jobs for defense contractors.

U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., for instance, lobbies hard for continuation of the effort to modernize the oldest C-5s, which is performed at a Georgia-based Lockheed Martin Corp. factory. The price tag for upgrading each C-5 is about $75 million.

In another example of parochial interests perhaps overriding the big picture, Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee chairwoman Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., has urged retention of the C-5s based at Travis Air Force Base in her district.

Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., the ranking member of the Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, has been the most vocal proponent of letting the Air Force manage its own inventory of warplanes.

"Congress has been micromanaging the Air Force," the lawmaker argues. "Several provisions in the 2007 defense authorization law bar the Air Force from getting rid of old planes.

"One requires the service to have a total of 299 C-5s and C-17s available at all times. The Air Force is also prohibited from retiring more than 29 KC-130Es in 2007 and must maintain tankers and F-117A fighters retired after Sept. 30, 2006, ‘in a condition which would allow recall to future service.' These provisions tie up parts that could be used to repair planes in better working order. They also force maintenance crews to care for aircraft that will never fly again." Akin endorses the straightforward plea of Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, the military deputy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, who recently told lawmakers: "We would like permission, as the other services have, to manage our fleet."

In the meantime, the embattled Air Force has had to resort to self-help. According to Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, the service will be downsizing the number of its personnel so it can afford to invest in newer aircraft. On the boards: a plan to cut the ranks by 57,500 airmen by 2011.

The savings from the force reduction will be invested in new aircraft, said Carlson, who explained: "We simply have to recapitalize the fleet to be ready to fight the next war."

Why the drastic measures? The answer can be easily gleaned from some dire numbers.

Today, more than 800 aircraft - 14 percent of the fleet - are grounded or operating under restricted flying conditions. This fact has had an impact on overall combat readiness, which has declined by 17 percent, according to Maj. Gen. Frank Faykes, deputy assistant secretary for budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management.

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review spelled out that the Air Force must have 86 combat wings to do its job. According to USAF officials, it has about 81 combat wings' worth of forces now. To help get up to snuff, the Air Force says it needs, among a host of things, 1,763 F-35s to replace the F-16 and A-10. But the pace at which F-35s will come online is troublesome.

As F-16s pass their planned life expectancy and must retire, the new F-35s won't appear in operational service for another six years. Furthermore, USAF budget documents indicate that the service can afford only 48 F-35s a year over the FYDP (Future Years Defense Program). If that number is not ramped up, it will take about 40 years to buy all the F-35s required.

Meanwhile, the expensive patch-and-fix of the so-called "legacy" aircraft grinds on, and there's nothing simplistic or cheap about it. A good example is the F-15. Even though the USAF will replace a large portion of F-15Cs with the F-22 Raptor, the service will still need to supplement the F-22s with the F-15 beyond 2025. By that time, the F-15 will have been in service for more than 50 years, and those still in the air will be more than 35 years old, according to Air Force Magazine.

Selected F-15s will undergo expensive renovations that include replacing the aircraft's analog radar; installing a new combined Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System; new radios; digital video recorder; new identification, friend or foe systems; and a helmet-mounted targeting system.

Add to the package new Pratt & Whitney engines, new wiring, new ribbing under weapons stations, and tinkering with the flight-control system.

Remember those tank-killing A-10 "Warthogs" that blasted Saddam Hussein's forces in the Gulf War? They've been in the U.S. inventory since 1975.

Some 223 are getting all-new wings, with replaced flight controls, new fuel pumps for the fuel tanks in the wings, and new wiring.

The workhorse F-16s have proved more nettlesome in the service-life extension process. The structural upgrade replaces some bulkheads, wing skins, and other pieces, but there's a built-in limit on remanufacturing. The F-16 is made with large amounts of composite materials, designed for a certain life expectancy.

And even that life expectancy has been pushed beyond the envelope. Originally figured to be flying about 250 hours a year, those deployed to combat have averaged 300 hours per year or more.

All this is reminiscent of that other fungible item consumed in wartime - the young men and women on the front lines, hoping to also get a renovation of sorts by getting to stay home for at least a year before rotating back into harm's way.

 

[DLS8K]

A military should never assume that war itself is over. We will be paying for that mistake for the next 20 years. This has happened before. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

This one's for you - note the parts in bold.

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Eisenhower-Era Planes Still Defending U.S.
Dave Eberhart
Tuesday, April 3, 2007


U.S. Air Force pilots are flying planes so old that some were built during the Eisenhower administration, and still Congress is delaying new appropriations to modernize America's aging fighters, bombers and other military aircraft.

The average age of today's Air Force fleet is 24 years.

Big B-52 bombers, which played a critical role in America's recent efforts to liberate Iraq and stabilize Afghanistan, are over 45 years old.

Worse, many of these bombers rely on KC-135 aerial refueling tankers that are equally as old.

Add to the mix, the U.S. military critically depends on C-130 cargo planes for rapid deployment. Yet these planes -- many built at least 25 years ago - are crippled by serious wing cracks and have been grounded or restricted in the loads they can deliver. Giant tank-carrying C-5A cargo aircraft - about 35 years old - are also parked on runways owing to heavy maintenance requirements.


The bottom line: The United States is fighting the war on terror with an old and rapidly aging Air Force warplane inventory - and there is no quick cure in sight.

The results can be catastrophic.

In 2002, Maj. James Duricy was killed after ejecting from his F-15 when the warplane lost part of its tail while flying over the Gulf of Mexico. The F-15 was about 30 years old. An investigation showed that part of the old aircraft's internal structure had corroded. Eventually, the vertical stabilizers had to be replaced on almost half of the U.S. Air Force's F-15 fleet.

The heroic Duricy was a victim of what military experts call the "weapon systems procurement holidays of the 1990s" – when the U.S. government took advantage of the end of the Cold War, called it a "peace dividend" and didn't appropriate the necessary funds to modernize its aging fleet of military planes.

And the procurement curve of new hardware, particularly in the fighter department, cannot keep up.

According to a recent report in Air Force Magazine, even if the Air Force gets all the new fighters on its wish list - 381 F-22 Raptors and 1,763 F-35 Lightning IIs - for decades it will still have to rely on a record number of older fighters to meet the contingencies of national defense.

By sheer necessity, the USAF must lengthen the service lives of its 1980s-vintage fighters - F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s - with substantial structural changes and new state-of-the-art black boxes.

We are not talking about squeezing two or three more years out of the aging fleet, but keeping some of the refurbished warplanes serving until the 2030s - meaning pilots could then be flying jets 50 years old or even older.

But it's one thing to burn through taxpayer dollars to keep vital, albeit old, warplanes in the air - and another to simply toss good money after bad on planes that will not fly.

So argues U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., a member of the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee.

The lawmaker says the Air Force reported spending about $4 million daily and $1.7 billion annually to maintain 330 aircraft "they can't use and are not planning to use."

Included are a mix of ancient KC-135 tankers, C-130 air lifters, F-117 fighters, U-2 reconnaissance planes, and C-5As.

It's not the Air Force brass's idea to nurse along this old iron. Restrictions on retiring the nation's oldest aircraft are written into law -- thanks to some members of Congress who worried that deep-sixing the planes would make bases in their district or state targets for the dreaded base closing process.

Predictably, the old aircraft also provide lucrative jobs for defense contractors.

U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., for instance, lobbies hard for continuation of the effort to modernize the oldest C-5s, which is performed at a Georgia-based Lockheed Martin Corp. factory. The price tag for upgrading each C-5 is about $75 million.

In another example of parochial interests perhaps overriding the big picture, Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee chairwoman Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., has urged retention of the C-5s based at Travis Air Force Base in her district.

Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., the ranking member of the Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, has been the most vocal proponent of letting the Air Force manage its own inventory of warplanes.

"Congress has been micromanaging the Air Force," the lawmaker argues. "Several provisions in the 2007 defense authorization law bar the Air Force from getting rid of old planes.

"One requires the service to have a total of 299 C-5s and C-17s available at all times. The Air Force is also prohibited from retiring more than 29 KC-130Es in 2007 and must maintain tankers and F-117A fighters retired after Sept. 30, 2006, ‘in a condition which would allow recall to future service.' These provisions tie up parts that could be used to repair planes in better working order. They also force maintenance crews to care for aircraft that will never fly again." Akin endorses the straightforward plea of Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, the military deputy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, who recently told lawmakers: "We would like permission, as the other services have, to manage our fleet."

In the meantime, the embattled Air Force has had to resort to self-help. According to Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, the service will be downsizing the number of its personnel so it can afford to invest in newer aircraft. On the boards: a plan to cut the ranks by 57,500 airmen by 2011.

The savings from the force reduction will be invested in new aircraft, said Carlson, who explained: "We simply have to recapitalize the fleet to be ready to fight the next war."

Why the drastic measures? The answer can be easily gleaned from some dire numbers.

Today, more than 800 aircraft - 14 percent of the fleet - are grounded or operating under restricted flying conditions. This fact has had an impact on overall combat readiness, which has declined by 17 percent, according to Maj. Gen. Frank Faykes, deputy assistant secretary for budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management.

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review spelled out that the Air Force must have 86 combat wings to do its job. According to USAF officials, it has about 81 combat wings' worth of forces now. To help get up to snuff, the Air Force says it needs, among a host of things, 1,763 F-35s to replace the F-16 and A-10. But the pace at which F-35s will come online is troublesome.

As F-16s pass their planned life expectancy and must retire, the new F-35s won't appear in operational service for another six years. Furthermore, USAF budget documents indicate that the service can afford only 48 F-35s a year over the FYDP (Future Years Defense Program). If that number is not ramped up, it will take about 40 years to buy all the F-35s required.

Meanwhile, the expensive patch-and-fix of the so-called "legacy" aircraft grinds on, and there's nothing simplistic or cheap about it. A good example is the F-15. Even though the USAF will replace a large portion of F-15Cs with the F-22 Raptor, the service will still need to supplement the F-22s with the F-15 beyond 2025. By that time, the F-15 will have been in service for more than 50 years, and those still in the air will be more than 35 years old, according to Air Force Magazine.

Selected F-15s will undergo expensive renovations that include replacing the aircraft's analog radar; installing a new combined Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System; new radios; digital video recorder; new identification, friend or foe systems; and a helmet-mounted targeting system.

Add to the package new Pratt & Whitney engines, new wiring, new ribbing under weapons stations, and tinkering with the flight-control system.

Remember those tank-killing A-10 "Warthogs" that blasted Saddam Hussein's forces in the Gulf War? They've been in the U.S. inventory since 1975.

Some 223 are getting all-new wings, with replaced flight controls, new fuel pumps for the fuel tanks in the wings, and new wiring.

The workhorse F-16s have proved more nettlesome in the service-life extension process. The structural upgrade replaces some bulkheads, wing skins, and other pieces, but there's a built-in limit on remanufacturing. The F-16 is made with large amounts of composite materials, designed for a certain life expectancy.

And even that life expectancy has been pushed beyond the envelope. Originally figured to be flying about 250 hours a year, those deployed to combat have averaged 300 hours per year or more.

All this is reminiscent of that other fungible item consumed in wartime - the young men and women on the front lines, hoping to also get a renovation of sorts by getting to stay home for at least a year before rotating back into harm's way.

I never said it was right.