House Passes $696B Defense Policy Bill

AP via SFGate ^ | 12/12/7 | ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

[LS]

Actually, having written two books on national defense, including what I think is THE biography of the Trident submarine program, those “$1,200 hammers” were pure fiction. I can explain to you how it can appear that there are expenditures like this, but it’s nonsense.

[LS]

We have now, and since the 1970s, have always spent somewhere aroud 5.5% of our GDP on defense. That’s incredibly low, especially in the middle of a war.

[rednesss]

I have a hard time swallowing $137.7 million per F-22 Raptor. But compared to $2.1 Billion a pop for a B-2 bomber I guess it’s a bargain at twice the price.

[quant5]

Probably right about Washinton never reigning in spending but I believe this is money well spent. In case you haven’t noticed we have begun pulling the mask off of Russia and Chinese affiliation with terrorism. A new arms race has started and Russia is flushed with cash and selling arms across the world. We will always have to stay ahead for our enemies to fear us, no real choice in the matter.

[rednesss]

"Actually, having written two books on national defense, including what I think is THE biography of the Trident submarine program, those “$1,200 hammers” were pure fiction. I can explain to you how it can appear that there are expenditures like this, but it’s nonsense."

A South Carolina defense contractor pleaded guilty yesterday to bilking the Pentagon out of $20.5 million over nearly 10 years by adding hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of shipping spare parts such as metal washers and lamps. The parts were bound for key military installations, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan. In one instance, in 2006, the government paid C&D Distributors $998,798 in transportation costs for shipping two 19-cent washers. Charlene Corley, 47, co-owner of C&D Distributors, used the money to pay for luxury homes, cars, plastic surgery and jewelry, according to court documents.

"It is a troubling case because the fraud took place during a time of war," said Kevin McDonald, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the District of South Carolina. The $20 million "that could have gone to assist our military was diverted and used in a fraudulent manner for excessive personal enjoyment."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081602230.html

So yes I guess you are right, those $1,200 hammers are probably $200,000 hammers now. I stand corrected. Never happened, nothing to see here, move along. Poppycock. This is just one that got caught for being uber-stupid and greedy. An aberration?? I highly doubt it.

[rednesss]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. occupation authority in Iraq (search) was unable to keep track of nearly $9 billion it transferred to government ministries, which lacked financial controls, security, communications and adequate staff, an inspector general has found.

I'm sure that some very nice people have some very nice vacation homes in the Med now. Maybe a place or two in the Swiss Alps for skiing in the winter. Money well spent. I'm sure this is all fiction.

[jveritas]

Excellent news. The President, our troops, and America won again and forced the traitors to fund the war and the VICTORY.

[jveritas]

Yes, I like your headline better :)

LS, do you think that "Lame Duck President" is the dumbest expression in American politics?

[jveritas]

We are at war, are you forgetting about this simple fact?

[jveritas]

A huge portion of the Defense money is going back to the American economy by buying weapons and military equipments from defense companies where millions of American workers are directly or indirectly related to that segment of our economy.

[jveritas]

Agree, it is a great victory for America and our troops.

[rednesss]

"A huge portion of the Defense money is going back to the American economy by buying weapons and military equipments from defense companies where millions of American workers are directly or indirectly related to that segment of our economy."

Yes I'm sure a "huge" portion of that is paid to the workers.

Lockheed Martin

Executive Compensation
Chairman, Former CEO: Vance D. Coffman
Total Cash: $3,560,000.00
Total Compensation: $19,034,951.00

President and CEO: Robert J. Stevens
Total Cash: $3,371,442.00
Total Compensation: $12,643,350.00

Executive Vice President, Aeronautics: Dain M. Hancock
Total Cash: $1,610,669.00
Total Compensation: $6,108,023.00

Executive Vice President: Robert B. Coutts
Total Cash: $1,576,169.00
Total Compensation: $5,626,271.00

Executive Vice President: Michael F. Camardo
Total Cash: $1,375,538.00
Total Compensation: $5,024,517.00

Senior Vice President: Frank H. Menaker
Total Cash: $1,463,177.00
Total Compensation: $4,781,693.00

Former Vice President: Albert E. Smith
Total Cash: $1,496,669.00
Total Compensation: $4,775,695.00

And this is not a diatribe against corporate CEO's making big bucks. Your premise that this defense money that is funneled into the U.S. economy benefits ordinary people is I think a little naive.

[rednesss]

"A huge portion of the Defense money is going back to the American economy by buying weapons and military equipments from defense companies where millions of American workers are directly or indirectly related to that segment of our economy."

I'm going out on a limb here, but it might be better for the economy, if Uncle Sam just didn't take as much out of the taxpayers wallet and then we wouldn't need to pump the money that it just took back into the economy???? Seems a little circular to me.

Smaller government used to be a plank in the conservative platform, I guess not anymore. Viva Las Vegas baby, let's throw away some money. I'm hearing Yankee Doodle in the background already.

[LS]

Yes, an aberration. Sure, crime occurs everywhere. Bet there's some in your line of work.

The fact is, every single nut or bolt (and hammer) that is used in military production must be guaranteed, warranteed, and insured. It's cost-effective to ensure an engine or a destroyer hull, but it's incredibly expensive to warranty bolts and the like. Also, it is typical procurement practice, to get the unit price of the overall piece down to spread larger costs over smaller component items.

The whole military contracting system is extremely difficult: contractors spend BILLIONS with no guarantee of a contract at the end; and contracts are cancelled by a simple vote of Congress.

I've worked with enough of these contractors and seen them up close to know what kinds of houses they (don't) live in and what cars they (don't) drive.

[LS]

Don't be ridiculous. There is fraud and waste in everything. But overall, having, for example, seen up close the M1A1 tank factory at Lima, I'm proud of our military contractors.

But you don't need to worry. Our military protects you regardless.

[LS]

The fact is, sometimes the nature of what a president can do changes after re-election. Some of Reagan's most famous moments cane in the second term---the Berlin wall speech, the 1987 INF treaty, the Summits. But no doubt Reagan didn't have the same legislative clout after the election (see the Contras, for ex.)

Overall, however, it's ludicrous to think that a President in his second term is ineffective. Andrew Jackson was MORE effective, as was Teddy Roosevelt (for ill).

[LS]

And the vast, vast majority of these defense contractors are hard-working, honest, and very effective. When I toured the Lima, OH tank factory last year, I was impressed by the incredible level of technology they are bringing to the new weapons-making processes.

[Reeses]

That’s $2,000 per American!

Another way to look at it is national defense costs about 2%/year of total assets protected. The world is a dangerous place and 2% is what it costs. More importantly most new technology originally springs from defense spending. America's great wealth comes from using technology to create more value per worker. The whole reason America is the richest country right now is because of our huge investments in defense technology in the 50s and 60s. That 2% is the best use of tax money there is.

[rednesss]

"But you don't need to worry. Our military protects you regardless."

The "have you stopped beating your wife" post of this thread. Now promoting fiscal responsibility and oversight is now synonymous with being against the military. Bravo. Disingenuous much??

Sure there is fraud and waste everywhere, but nowhere is it as prevalent as it is with anything that is connected to a government contract/tit.

I guess "for the troops" is now on the shelf right next to "for the children" in the toolbox of debate stifling. Once enacted, no further investigation is allowed. Regardless of whether any of that money is actually used for the troops or for the children. But it gives the issuer a very warm feeling in their bellies and makes them feel good.

[rednesss]

"More importantly most new technology originally springs from defense spending."

I don't know if you can single out defense. I think more knowledge and technology has come out of NASA than the Pentagon.