GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: GAO advises against spending on F-22 fighter jets

• 17582
  

  RJR, I know what you mean. How many "taxpayers" use that abrasive, "I'm such an expert," "if I can't have it then nobody should have it -- I resent vets, they don't deserve it as much as I do," tone. Oh yeah, there's also the exclamation marks. Taxpayer uses them with uncommon frequency. Yep, I know exactly what you mean. Taxpayer too;)

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 29, 2006 9:30 AM
• 17541
  

  RJR, Is it possible there is more than one taxpayer? My guess is that there is no job that a taxpayer has not done. I guess there are about 80 million taxpayers.

  Taxpayer Posted June 27, 2006 7:59 AM
• 17532
  

  One of the problems we're seeing in Iraq is that the military failed to adapt its doctrine to include lessons learned from Vietnam -- fighting guerilla forces and insurgents. We have the power to fight conventional wars and win but there's too much reliance on technology in areas when boots-on-the-ground are needed. Maybe if politicians truly cared about the security of this nation, they would focus on doing what's best instead of corporate welfare for their defense contractor buddies by dumping billions into weapons systems that either don't work or aren't needed.

  Army Vet

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 27, 2006 7:03 AM
• 17514
  

  What is the need for this new fighter, when the fighters we currently operate outclass anything else that is out there in the hands of our potential adversaries? The fighters we have now will be around for a long time, with software and other upgrades, and can't be beat. We are the world's only superpower, and are no longer fighting the Cold War. Unless China or Russia is coming out with advanced aircraft that surpass what we are currently flying, why spend billions on a new aircraft that we don't need, and won't be needing for the foreseeable future? Better to stick with the tried and true, and acquire what we need now, than to throw more billions at what is fast becoming another overly expensive and unnecessary pork barrel project!

  GovExec.com reader Posted June 23, 2006 11:35 AM
• 17493
  

  Is there any job you haven't done Taxpayer? Maybe you should run for office.

  RJR Posted June 22, 2006 10:52 AM
• 17487
  

  "GAO is out of touch, is the best I can say," the aide said. "If this would've been submitted for a college paper it would have been a C-minus."

  I agree with the aide that the GAO is out of touch. Especially in the area of accrual accounting that GAO and OMB are imposing on the federal government and that results in absolutely worthless information that costs a lot of taxpayer money to produce but does little if anything to help manage government! However, the aide also is not in touch with reality yet either. The comparison to a college paper illustrates where the aide is coming from -- they probably have no real experience of any kind. Sounds like they are fresh into an internship that places them in a position to evaluate actions that they have no knowledge of or experience in, and then lets them make decisions that are ridiculous.

  Having been a college professor for many years, I have seen few papers that are of much practical use. Also, most faculty "research" is worthless and they simply put the crap in journals they edit and run for the sake of getting promoted and retained by the universities at wages far in excess of the value they produce. The cost of college is increasing tremendously because college professors are paid to do worthless "research" and not to teach students in a meaningful and practical way! Most professors should be teaching six courses a week (not three) and research should be minimized in its importance for promotion and retention at colleges. This would cut the major operating expense for a university almost in half and that could be passed on to students in lower tuition rates. The cost of a college education is becoming so great that it is highly unlikely that the student should be making the investment on financial terms. If they do it without student loans that the federal government will forgive if they go to work there it is a bad investment in many cases.

  Taxpayer Posted June 22, 2006 7:14 AM
• 17486
  

  The GAO could be right on this one. In the war on terrorism, A-10s and C-130 gun ships are probably more useful type assets. Special Operations type aircraft are needed now and for a very long time into the future in the type of warfare we are in now and will be for many decades.

  Rick Posted June 22, 2006 7:07 AM
• 17484
  

  I'd really like to know who the "senate aide" is, who said "GAO is out of touch, is the best I can say.... If this would've been submitted for a college paper it would have been a C-minus." It seems to be right on the money considering that Pentagon can't even budget for its ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The F-22 is a nice aircraft, there's little strategic value unless some country will match it. All we're doing is going broke, build more C-17s to support the Army and Marines.

  Phil Posted June 22, 2006 12:57 AM