Skip to comments.California Republican Congressman "Earmarks" Millions of Our Tax Dollars... (Hunter)
Posted on 06/13/2007 9:05:29 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento
San Diego Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter has wasted over $60 million dollars in taxpayer money, shoveling it to a political contributor through budget earmarks.
An earmark is money inserted in a bill by a single Congressman. No hearing. No oversight.
Hunters earmark went for research and development on a plane design which was unwanted by the Pentagon. A warplane unwanted by our warriors. Hunter has been throwing money at it for years. It has not flown successfully. It doesnt work. (Thats probably why the Pentagon doesnt want it).
So why has Hunter continued to throw our tax dollars into this plane design? Is he a visionary? Does he know more than the Pentagon experts?
Or was he unduly influenced by the $36,000 the design firm contributed to his account?
Voters will have to draw their own conclusions
The Congressman is reported to have vigorously defended his earmarking actions, saying in effect that the Pentagon is too conservative in design approval. Other sources argued that the plane in question was more in the nature of a hobby than a serious defense R and D project. A hobby funded by taxpayers.
Now that the Democrats are in control, this process of earmarking for hobbies will be stopped (at least for Republicans like Hunter).
And since when does anyone trust what the MSM’s spin is? Remember the big NBC exclusive on body armor a few weeks ago? What a joke.
After two decades most people would expect the plane to rise higher than a couple of feet before it lurches.
“The project was initiated in the Office of Naval Research in Fiscal Year 1997”
Washington Post, Jun 19, 2006 (excerpt)
Breaking a tradition of keeping such wish lists secret, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, issued a statement last month of his key "funding initiatives" for the fiscal 2007 budget.
Hunter, whose committee authorizes the defense budget, bristles at criticism of the earmarking process.
"There's a little thing called the Constitution," he said. "It says Congress shall equip the military, not the Pentagon. The Pentagon proposal is just that." He challenged the "presumption that the Pentagon's bill is correct in all respects and any departure is somehow a mistake."
The thought of Congress "giving up its prerogative -- not only prerogative but responsibility -- to the non-elected doesn't make any sense," he said.
Of the 13 defense projects totaling $254.3 million that Hunter listed in his news release, more than $210 million of it was for programs to address roadside bombs, the chief source of casualties for U.S. troops in Iraq. Two others -- $27 million for an inexpensive missile called the "affordable weapon" and $25.7 million for a catamaran ship called Sea Fighter -- would benefit Titan Corp., a large defense contractor in southern California.
There was also $8 million for the DP-2 "vectored thrust aircraft," made by DuPont Aerospace, another southern California firm. The plane's testing was delayed because of what this year's Navy budget justification called "a nozzle box failure" in late 2004.
Hunter also requested $1.7 million to develop a skin disease test for troops in Iraq and $1 million for a wound dressing that includes pure oxygen.
Anyone want to guess who was there to deflate the media egos once again??? It wasn’t FRED!
Exactly. One of the few who consistently goes to to toe with the libs in congress, the political hacks at the Pentagon, the ACLU, the media, the gay rights lobby, and Bush when necessary.
Yet, he gets this kind of treatment here from some conservatives. Yikes.
(VSTOL) airplane DP-2.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:04 AM
VERTICAL TAKEOFF AND LANDING TECHNOLOGY: ANTHONY A. DUPONT
05-09-2001 TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY A. DUPONT
To address the problem of runway saturation at the large metropolitan airports, the duPont Aerospace Company is developing a high performance, vertical and short field takeoff and landing (VSTOL) airplane, the DP-2. The 50-passenger aircraft has both commercial and military applications. Technology to produce this aircraft is available and well proven. Modern turbofan engines currently in worldwide airline service combined with the capabilities of new composite materials provide a vectored thrust propulsion system. A simple mechanical control system powered by the pilot’s hand controls the aircraft in both hover and up and away flight. An autopilot can be clutched in to greatly reduce the pilot workload in hover or for conventional flight autopilot functions.
1 - the notion that you can find some folks in the Pentagon that “don’t want it” is like saying you can find some freepers that have their own opinion on politics.
2 - Duncan Hunter has butted heads with the Pentagon ever since he got there. The average Pentagon planner, pro-curement types have a life span in the job of about 2 to 4 years. Then take the fact that the Pentagon leadership is political appointees.
3- Hunter fought the “pentagon” to retain far more in SDI/Missile defense funding than was “wanted” during the Clinton Years. He made the Pentagon invest in more stealth, more ships, more C-17 airlifters thatn they “wanted”. He put the brakes on Rumsfelds desire to make the Army even smaller than it is, and he FORCED the Pentagon at various times to purchase ammo they were sorely lacking but not requesting.
4 - 63 million for this type of R&D is peanuts.
5 - This particular program had advocates in the Pentagon and the Military.
Here is the Statement of Thomas D. Taylor, Chief Scientist and Program Manager of Naval Expeditionary Warfare Science and Technology, Office of Naval Research in the 2001 testimony to the Armed Services Committee:
If it is earmarks, Hunter is toast politically in my book.
Are we talking about a BRIDGE TO NOWHERE???? No, we’re talking about EQUIPMENT FOR OUR TROOPS....big difference.
For crying out look at the thing, it is a toad!
One of the Ruskie's first jets looked like this.
Remember the Late Roy Lopresti's axiom, if it looks good it will probably fly good.
** ping **
Experimental aircraft can be pretty ugly and still be used to solve problems that no one considered before. Unlike a bridge to an eskimo village that no one will ever use.
So since when have some gotten religion when it comes to earmarks and corruption in big gubamint or the appearance of it anyway.
Much hoopla by some over much of nothing (63 million? chump change imo)..
nothing new here or grand jury worthy, move on kids.
In the 80âs I was the guy at a high tech company that got to break in the NEW College Grads in various engineering disciplines. We hired almost exclusively from Stanford and Berkeley. The higher their degree the longer it took to make them useful and the less they knew about the real world. Had one Berkeley PhD that never did figure out how to load the large format printer - physics.
Read post 14 and the link I provided. This story is full of shit. Period.
One of the Cal kids I worked with was actually “smart”. Could do math very well. But damn if he wouldn’t stress out and nearly have a nervous breakdown when electricians started pointing out the flaws in his designs.
....well is some ways that is true of alot of disciplines.. you can be #1 in your law class and don’t know crap how to be a lawyer or #1 in your medical class and still don’t know shit about being a doctor....it is all a weeding process...experience is always best but that would then be true for all other schools as well....
author of this is a card carrying Liberal/Socialist
The article linked to in paragraph 3 contradicts you. It says two decades and 1988.
That’s why you can’t trust articles. Even the lib websites propogating the story posted a memo from Hunter from 1992 where he was telling the DOD to start funding the program, because they had not done so.
The program to develop a prototype model started funding in fiscal year 1997, as the testimony states.
BTW, did you catch all the hoopla NBC created with their Dragon Skin body armor story last couple of months? How the DOD purposely chose a body armor not as good as Dragon Skin? Guess who debunked it during the first oversite hearing?
You should know better that to trust the liberal media by now.
You sound like Dan Rather.
No, the guy who wrote this and the fools that believe the spin sound like Dan Rather. I took the time to dig up and post the congressional record regarding this craft.
I see logic was not included in your studies.
In the 4th and 5th line it says funded exclusively thru congressional earmarks since 1988.
Written by democrats. I’ve got lots more on this. Stay tuned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.