House Pencils in Millions for Jets the Air Force Did Not Request

[Defender968]

Wow and the AF didn't ask for them but I guess our lawmakers know better. Considering the status of the rest of the AF fleet shouldn't we maybe focus on those capacities that are critical to national defense, like Refueling or fighters considering Air Force Fighters have been falling out of the sky at an alarming rate and the average age of an AF refueler is over 30 years old. But I guess those capacities don't help congress go on vacation so....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...est=latestnews

House Pencils in Millions for Jets the Air Force Did Not Request

House lawmakers approved millions for military jets the Air Force did not request. But an aide says the decision was made to speed up the replacement of an aging fleet.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, August 06, 2009
Congress is supposed to be taking a knife to the federal budget.

But when it comes to new military equipment, they've traded their knife for a spoon -- tossing in scoops of cash that the Pentagon hasn't even requested.

The latest example comes with the House approving more than $500 million for eight passenger jets, when the Air Force only asked for four.

In the 2010 defense spending bill, the Air Force originally requested money for one C-37 and three C-40s as part of its effort to replace its aging fleet. But the House Appropriations Committee added an extra $132 million for two more C-37s and $200 million for two more C-40s, according to an aide to the panel.

The aide, who asked not to be identified, said the decision was made in order to speed up the replacement process which was already underway, and that the move could save money in the long run.

"You've got an aging fleet," the aide said. "It costs more to fly aging planes that are unreliable. It's the same reason you update anything."

Though Roll Call reported Wednesday that two of the C-37s are to be assigned to units that routinely transport government officials and members of Congress, the aide disputed the notion that Congress was just awarding itself an upgrade, saying both types of jets can be used for "many purposes" including transport of military personnel and officials -- not just elected officials.

"It's not like there's two planes assigned for flying members of Congress around," the aide said. "It's not like Congress is buying Congress planes here."

But when asked about the addition, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the military generally frowns upon any appropriations that are above and beyond what is asked for.

"We ask for what we need and only what we need," he said.

He said when the military is funded above the requested level for any project, it generally comes at the expense of some other item in the budget. He said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is more focused, though, on making sure other more "big-ticket" items do not get over-funded.

Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, said members of Congress are abusing the military by using their jets too often for travel. He said that except for trips to war zones, members should fly commercial and expense it. He surmised the latest funding for more jets reflects members' personal interest in being able to fly in style.

"Congress wants to be ferried around as if they're kings and queens and they want to do it on taxpayer dime," he said.

The act of unrequested generosity toward the Air Force came as the House foisted several other acquisitions onto the military that the Pentagon said it didn't want.

Though lawmakers killed additional funding for the F-22 fighter jet -- at President Obama's request -- they kept in funding for unrequested C-17 cargo jets, a controversial new presidential helicopter fleet and an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. They did cut funding in other areas.

Ellis Brachman, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said budgeting for such items is part of Congress' "normal oversight responsibility" to make sure the military has everything it needs.

"If Congress just rubber-stamped the Defense Department's budget request every year, we would not have Predator aircraft today and our troops would not have the body armor they need," he said.

The C-37 is the military version of the Gulfstream G550.

The company Web site boasts that with its "long legs," the aircraft "easily links" from Washington, D.C., to cities like Dubai, Singapore and Tokyo. The site says the cabin combines "productivity with exceptional comfort," has three temperature zones and has many communications features -- including a fax machine, a printer, a wireless network and satellite communications.

The House aide said those "long legs" are important, since the aircraft that the C-37 will eventually replace did not have the stamina for long journeys.

"They have to do repeated stops for refueling and other activities," the aide said.

The Air Force originally asked for $66 million for one C-37, and $154 million to cover the cost of buying one C-40 and purchasing two other leased C-40s.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the additional funding for the aircraft.

[Richard]

I'm feeling like Congress is stimulating the hell out of my prostate - and I'm not enjoying it!

Richard's $.02

[Snaquebite]

two of the C-37s are to be assigned to units that routinely transport government officials and members of Congress

This says it all.

[Ret10Echo]

But however will Mistress Pelozzi wing-it back and forth to CA without appropriate airframes?

[Richard]

But however will Mistress Pelozzi wing-it back and forth to CA without appropriate airframes?

She'll just have to go back to using her private broom.

Richard's $.02

[Snaquebite]

But not just any ordinary broom......That wouldn't be appropriate for Queen P.

AAAAAg9lrAkAAAAAABkkZQ.jpg

[Utah Bob]

Planes the Air Force didn't want.
Ships the navy didn't ask for.
It's not about the military at all.

It's about the contractor$.

[afchic]

My boss told us today to expect to get some requests for information from a certain out of power political party on this one.

I think the Republicans are looking to hang some democrats over this one.

[Richard]

My boss told us today to expect to get some requests for information from a certain out of power political party on this one.

"DANGER, Will Robinson!"

Watch your six, afchic.

Richard's $.02

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Richard

"DANGER, Will Robinson!"

Watch your six, afchic.

Richard's $.02

Luckily I am not in that business at the present time!!! Just my office mates

[uboat509]

Sadly, this is par for the course. Even the good (perhaps less bad) politicians have to do things that are more in the interest of their constituancy than of the nation as a whole. That means, for instance, that even thought the nation does not need those foghters, various rep's and senator's constituancies might need (or want) the jobs and money that those contracts provide. Both parties do it and I just can't even work up the energy to be angry about it any more.

SFC W

[Praetorian]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

But however will Mistress Pelozzi wing-it back and forth to CA without appropriate airframes?

Southwest Airlines- Bags Fly Free

[kgoerz]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'm feeling like Congress is stimulating the hell out of my prostate - and I'm not enjoying it!

Richard's $.02

Just wait six months from now. When people can't pay for all the new cars they purchased with their Clunker Money......IT'S THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS BAIL OUT PROGRAM

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

Just wait six months from now. When people can't pay for all the new cars they purchased with their Clunker Money......IT'S THE CASH FOR CLUNKERS BAIL OUT PROGRAM

Not to further the detour too much...but I just shook my head on the whole deal with the CFC.

So someone is driving a "gas guzzler". (Chances are there are reasons for that.)

You give them $4,500 to buy a $13 - 20,000 car (or more)

Quick math shows they have just incurred $8500 - 15,500 in debt
Higher insurance rates
Higher taxes

Not to mention the 250,000 + junk cars that have to be disposed of.

[JAGO]

Originally Posted by uboat509

Sadly, this is par for the course. Even the good (perhaps less bad) politicians have to do things that are more in the interest of their constituancy than of the nation as a whole. That means, for instance, that even thought the nation does not need those foghters, various rep's and senator's constituancies might need (or want) the jobs and money that those contracts provide. Both parties do it and I just can't even work up the energy to be angry about it any more.

SFC W

uboat509

That is what they keep telling us.

It's a chicken/egg sort ofthing. I suspect the motive is more basic. MoCs have this craving to stay in power. In order to do that, they need contributions. The constituancies and the corps give the MoC money to get elected, and then the MoC pays them back for his getting elected.

Bottom line to me the problem is the "class" of people we have entrenched in the congress. We don't need public financing to keep these jokers in for 20 - 30 years. We need people that will go to Washington motivated by a desire to serve, who will then return to live in the home district and endure the silly laws the federal govt passes.

v/r
phil