Return to Article: Defense measure could steer billions toward contractors

By Robert Brodsky rbrodsky@govexec.com July 23, 2008
  • 55244

    We can all find examples of earmarks that look like whitewashed bribery. Some of the probably are. On the other hand, if the C-17 line closes, jobs would be lost, and if we ever needed to restart the line, it would be pretty costly. I think we should be judicious in slamming all earmarks -- I can think of some that were done to correct flaws or oversights on the part of the executive branch. And for people in Long Beach, where the C-17 is assembled, and for those who work on the P&W assembly lines where the engines are manufactured, this probably doesn't seem like such a bad idea. I think this whole thing is more complicated than we're making it right now.

    Bob S Posted July 29, 2008 2:10 PM
  • 54958

    The "problem" in government is not with the Executive Branch - it's with the Congress. Our nation's civil servants toil to administer the myriad programs authorized and funded by the Congress. There's not a dime spent on a Federal program that wasn't both authorized and funded by Congressional action. In this story, it's interesting to note that Congress defends earmarking billion of dollars to commercial firms while at the same time criticizing the supposed lack of competitive bidding in the acquisition process. Reminds of the the old cowboy western where the Native American says "white man speaks with forked tongue."

    Dave G Posted July 24, 2008 3:35 PM
  • 54951

    Defense contractors provide the best pay systems that taxpayer dollars can buy. All the while DoD continues to squeeze Federal employee salaries! Kind of lets you know what the intent of NSPS is. Get rid of civil servants and contract everything out!

    Bart Tanner Posted July 24, 2008 2:08 PM
  • 54928

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST!! BRIBERY? Taxpayers for Common Sense found that 60 percent of lawmakers who serve on the House Armed Services Committee received contributions from companies that also received earmarks in the Defense bill. The group did not complete a similar analysis on the Senate side.

    American Taxpayer Posted July 24, 2008 11:30 AM
  • 54910

    this screams of waste, Fraud and Abuse. At time when we should be conserving resources, to squandering them of criminal organizations is unconscionable. Vote these crooks out of office.

    Dr. H.T. Fade Posted July 24, 2008 10:07 AM
  • 54836

    You are using the wrong terminology. It is not "ear marks". Today, we call it what it really is: "ROB" (return on bribary)- what congressmen/women have to give back to their campaign supporters. I think it is in the nation's interest to continue this practice as we don't really need mass turnover in the congress. If that happened, we would have to learn all of the new crooks' names.

    Don E. Posted July 23, 2008 3:02 PM

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.

Defense measure could steer billions toward contractors
*
*
*
Vendors Solutions Center