GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Defense earmarks went beyond mission, IG says

• 54875
  

  I support Sen Coburn's efforts to shine the light of day on earmarks. I agree with the post that said earmarks need to have names attached to them, so we the voters can hold them accountable.

  This is exactly why the services can't retire old weapon systems and acquire new ones in a timely manner -- Congressional interference. Then the taxpayers rightly get offended and pressure Presidents and Congress to cut the Defense budget...in a time of war! Congress blusters but in reality they are the big offenders since constitutionally they control the purse strings.

  Sam Posted July 24, 2008 7:39 AM
• 54832
  

  If each earmark were less than $15M and there were 219 earmarks, how do you arrive at >$5B worth of earmarks? The total must be <$3.3B.

  Mike Posted July 23, 2008 2:18 PM
• 54796
  

  The Intelligence Committee did the same thing with the planning and funding of the Afghanistan war. Money went to pals like Kennedy friends, special forces and PC friends and constituents of members.

  It went through USIAD, so members like Shays and others were making sure the dems got paid for Afghanistan - PC and Green Berets. So, we see successes like USIP and others attached to the Afghansitan war. The funding of the war made it obvious NATO operates differently than Iraq and it's a penalty for not going into Iraq. It's considered every man for himself and a bunch of spies.

  The earmarks made all this obvious.

  HTie Posted July 23, 2008 9:15 AM
• 54764
  

  You have to defer to congress on these earmarks they all have extensive military backgrounds. Some have flown over bases on their way to a junket, they have used military cargo planes to fly back the stuff their wives buy on fact finding missions overseas. Who better to know what the military needs

  Dan ketter Posted July 22, 2008 5:59 PM
• 54757
  

  RE: "Wise Old Owl" comments above -- A point very well taken. But, I must ask --QUESTION: Wouldn't it be a fine duel of the "inspectors" to have a Congressman (listen up staffers, add another tab to the daily brief book) request that GAO, the Library of Congress Research Service, and the Congressional Budget Office -- all -- analyze the VERY SAME earmarks as the Dod-IG - to see if the inspectorates from Dod and the Congress agree on extent, significance, appropriateness, efficiency and economic benefit? Ohhhh..yess...pure wonk heaven..this would be like a wonk rock concert...or, better...a wonk extreme fighting match-up. My god, the graphs, the formulae, the appendices, the stochastic regressions, and mini-max assumptions. For all the fans of dueling experts we'd have the benefit of cross-cutting reports - just like those Thursday entertainment sections in our local newspapers, where dueling film critics have their summary scores of the new movies published side by side (e.g. the new Batman movie say three reviewers is = 3 stars, C minus, and 85%). Of course..of course, we'd have to keep our expectations sufficiently low (a very sophisticated low) since it's a good bet, the major news media editors (alas, GovOnline included) would be unlikely to play such a battle of the bands with any degree of editorial prominence nonetheless, listing a summary -- side by side (or via one of those USA Today pizza pie charts) -- would be a real hard-fact treat -- some raw meat for all the partisan bloggers, easy homework for perky interns everywhere, and some intelligent conversational tid-bits for the refined audience of Washington policy fans. More dreaming .. let's also specify -- to best indemnify Committee members gainst any follow-up actions or reactions -- --that no Congressional Committee need to call reps of the three analyst bodies to a hearing on the substance of their reports, or if any are called, that there need be no simultaneous seating at the witness table (let grad students do the boring cross-comparisons, and photog editors patch up the montage). Well, I confess to severe sleeping here on the Comment line...let now the sleepers among us awake... and return to the "real" world of published inspectorate reports and the news revealed therein.

  Concerned Retiree Posted July 22, 2008 4:59 PM
• 54740
  

  It's compromise for the immediate benefit and ingratiation of one Congressperson to another, but its damge in the long run. Recall all the hullabaloo over the sheer size of the defnse budget? So politicians have no probelms inflating the defense budgetto fund their pet projects and then turn around and castigate the Executive Branch on the proportion of the total budget DoD consumes; the question of bang per buck. So it uses the whole number, including the earmarks, as its starting point to cut the defense budget in effect giving even less to those who need resources to actually do "defense". It's all self serving!

  Wiser Old Owl Posted July 22, 2008 11:05 AM
• 54724
  

  Only $18M ... Hmmm, not bad!

  Art Posted July 22, 2008 8:47 AM
• 54714
  

  Per the Constitution, congress outranks the IG. Ig's are mere employees.

  Earmarks are good. They promote compromise even if the bean counters resent them.

  Wise Old Owl Posted July 22, 2008 7:55 AM
• 54708
  

  Is my math wrong? $15M TIMES 219 EARMARKS didn't come out to $5.87M. Is this embelliousment, creative journalism, or what?

  Also, why ask the Department of Defense for comment? Did they add the earmarks or Congress? funny none of our most upstanding Americans filling those positiuons have the guts to say " I did it". The voters would probably forgive them and re-elect them anyway.

  Best idea, no more earmarks, and if there is one, put your name on it.

  e.g Posted July 22, 2008 7:31 AM
• 54697
  

  It's unfair for the IG to complain about DoD investments in education and communities. After all, private business has been fleeing the United States for decades though outsourcing and establishment of foreign addresses to escape income taxes. If DoD doesn't invest in our communities, who will? If DoD starts cutting back, where will it all end?

  Jim Slack Posted July 21, 2008 10:24 PM
• 54694
  

  'Army personnel at Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate stated that they had not managed nor had they been involved in a program known as Night Hunter,' the report said."

  -- Very carefully worded, must have been some of those DoD contractors that work right there along side the active duty... putting a little something in the bill for themselves?

  $1.1 million for the Air Force Research Laboratory to increase the number of students in kindergarten through college studying science, technology, engineering and math.

  -- guess the AFRL is pinch-hitting for a the sponsor of the no-child-left-behind program?

  $2.4 million, of pork for Victorville, Calif. -- Republican Congressman Darryl Issa's district?

  nanotechnology research center in where Springfield, Mo? can anyone name a scientist within 200 miles of springfield doing any nanotechnology research?

  frank Posted July 21, 2008 9:39 PM