Redstate

I dont believe the bridge is in here because these are specifically earmarks. Although the bridge was originally an earmark but was removed as such due to pressure. Alaska still got the money and can spend it on the bridge but doesnt have to. This is according to wikipedia.

Earmarks are different because they dont get the scrutiny that the regular bill does. Again, according to wikipedia

"earmarks are often contained only in reports issued by House and Senate Appropriations Committees before formal debate begins in the House or the Senate, rather than appearing in the actual legislation itself. This makes earmarking a non-transparent process that is difficult to quantify."

As defined by the CAGW: "A "pork" project is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures."

To qualify as pork the spending must...

"meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most" (in their annualCongressional Pig Book) "satisfy at least two:

Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.

Of course, you may already know all of this info (besides the bridge part) in which case, never mind.

Building more C-17 and C-130J transport planes - as passed by Congress via the appropriations process - could be seen as pork. So would Congress deciding to procure additional F-22s not requsted by the DOD, or deciding to bringback the KC-767 project.

That's not exactly wasteful spending, particularly when we have old C-130Es, C-5s, KC-135s, and F-15s that need to be replaced.

According to the CAGW:

$591,017,000 added in conference for eight additional C-130J aircraft. A February 2005 Associated Press article noted, “A 2004 report from the office of the inspector general of the Department of Defense rated the J model unsatisfactory and cited deficiencies in, among other things, its defensive systems.”

and if the DOD specifically told Congress the aircraft was unsatisfactory and they approriated the money anyway. I would agree.

The Air Force had to ground over 100 C-130Es because of fatigue last year. The C-130Js are newer, they have longer range, and require a smaller aircrew. The CC-130J has even more capacity than the C-130E and C-130H.

Tell you what - if the folks at CAGW are willing to fly a combat mission in a C-130E whose wings are near the end of their structural life, then I'll consider their listing.

Until then, I'd rather keep that production line going.

that, even with these benefits the DOD specifically deemed them unsatisfactory yet Congress still approved the budget for them. I would think that if Congress collaborated with DOD to end up with a better aircraft to be put on the table this wouldnt be an issue.

The C-130Js are not perfect, but imperfect replacements with longer range and lower aircrew requirements far better than no replacements at all. Sooner or later, the rest of the C-130 fleet is going to get old.

The C-130Es (the type that the Air Force had to ground 100 planes' worth) were first deployed in 1962 - that's the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The C-130H was deployed in 1974 - the year Nixon resigned.

They've been used a lot since then. The C-130Es currently in service have flown in the Vietnam War, the usual peace-time cargo missions, Grenada, Operation Just Cause in Panama, Desert Storm, the 12 years of no-fly zone enforcement, and the War on Terror. That's a lot of work. It's time to replace them with a newer and better cargo plane.

Or will it take losing aircrews to put the objections of a bunch of bean-counters at a special-interest group aside?

Military.com reports that in the latest budget amendment, the Department of Defense requested four C-130Js.

Citizens Against Government Waste has apparently cherry-picked its facts with regards to the C-130J.

While all spending needs to have a close watch over, I would place Defense spending into a seperate category with a few more allowances as it really is one of the very few spending items specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Most of the other stuff should never have seen the light of day. Earmark or not.

Scrutinize Defense spending FAR more closely.
Purchasing for $600mil, 8 aircraft that the DoD specifically declared unsatisfactory and unsafe is a perfect example of stupid Defense spending.
Paying the Army Corps of Engineers to build however many schools in DC and letting them continue to receive funds for that project when they are 5 years past the completion date needs to be stopped.
Letting the Army spend hundreds of millions and even Billions of dollars on a weapons system that has Fundamental problems and will never see the light of day (OICW, for example) needs to be stopped.

I'm sure you get the general idea...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Put it this way:

Ask me if we can spend over a million for the "University of Virginia Center for Politics for the Youth Leadership Initiative" I I would tell you from the title that there is no Constitutional provision to do so...rejected

Ask me about a defense spending bill and I'm willing to listen.

But waste is waste and even a friend who wastes my money soon stops being a friend.

The Air Force grounded nearly 100 C-130Es in 2005 due to fatigue issues. Congress has only ordered eight C-130Js in this earmark. The Republicans in Congress need to amend this so that it is an order of 100 C-130Js to fully replace the worn-out planes we can no longer, not a mere eight planes.

Lets say for arguments sake that these 8 planes are not pork because they fulfill a minimal emergency need. You actually are proposing that we should instead build 100 planes deemed unsatisfactory at a cost of $7.5 billion?

And you also think it's ok to be done as an earmark instead of a transparent process?

I'm fine with an earmark, if that is whjat it takes to replace the C-130Es that had to be retired. The C-130Es still in service are not getting any younger - and the same goes for the C-130H, although we may have a decade before we have worry about those going. I think you would be hard-pressed to find one C-130E that isn't older than the aircrew flying it.

for this thread, he'd be able to give you a full accounting of the bridge and everything it does for the US and Alaska and not just the residents of the area.
In his absence, i shall do my best:

WRT the ferry: In bad weather, the ferry shuts down. The hospital is on the same island as the airport.

The Airport is also a major freight transport hub. The bridge will connect it to the AlCan and allow easier/faster/cheaper transit of containers to the interior of the US.

This is good for the US because of lower transport costs both ways and because freight that doesn't have a high priority of reaching its destination in just so much time won't get backlogged in Cali and WA the way it does now.

It's good for Alaska because we get to handle more freight transit, creating more jobs, more revenue...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

That being the case, and I don't question your point, pay for the bridge from State oil revenue.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The Alaskan contingent here at Red State is dead-set on suckling at the federal teat.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong