Simply because -- Lockheed Martin can BUY more votes than voters can
vote.Just like taxpayers bailing out WallStrreet and Banks who
don't pay taxes, while foreclosing on the very taxpayers
themselves.Gadiantons 'control' Governments, they are NOT
USAF test pilots have noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during
evaluation flights and said that this will get them shot down in every combat.
Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from the flight evaluation
reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption. The same report found
(in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):•Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot
training.•Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.•Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on
touch screen controls.•The radar performs poorly or not at all.•Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two
hours specified.•Maintenance tools do not work.And for this we
will spend $277B over the next 22 years and we are expected to pay more than $1
trillion to maintain the fleet – to one contractor, Lockheed Martin, while
U.S. workers get sequestered. Does that make sense?
Obama proposed Sequestration. Now he has to live with it. Article 1, Section 7
requires that all revenue bills originate in the House. Revenue bills HAVE
originated in the House. Harry Reid refused to let the Senate vote on those
bills. The problem is not the House, it is Obama and the Senate. Obama has
said that he would veto the House budget bills if they ever crossed his desk.
Instead of doing his duty to execute the laws of the land, he is dictating
legislation. He has no authority to legislate. The Court has no authority to
legislate. Only Congress has the authority to legislate. Reid's duty is
to see that the States have the opportunity to vote on legislation.Yes, people are being hurt by Sequestration. That's exactly what Obama
wants. He wanted to disable the airports. He wants to keep people out of the
White House. But, he wants to take Air Force One out for a spin several times a
week. Ground Air Force One. Obama's job is in the White House. Let him
stay there for the rest of his term.
meanwhile barack vacations in martha's vineyard
Leroy,you are correct, congress should not be buying weapons systems the
military does not want.LDS? lib,thanks for admitting BO and
his cabal, along with harry reid, are gadiantons.sequestration is
BO's idea;Boehner and BO had a deal worked out, until harry and
chuckie pulled the rug out from under BO.No one to blame but BO,
harry, and chuckie.
Mr. Gallegos, you are exactly on target. Thanks for an excellent letter. Congress and the Administration have the latitude to make the
sequestration cuts where they deem necessary. As you stated, it makes no sense
to cut veterans assistance programs while continuing military spending on the
F-35. The F-35 currently costs $235,000,000 ($235 million) EACH!
That is a total waste of money. The reason it continues is to fund Defense
industry jobs. So, we're funding jobs that are a waste of money.I am a former Air Force pilot and flew in Vietnam. Manned fighters and
aircraft carriers are enormous wastes of our limited tax dollars. The old
generals need to develop 21st Century defense and leave behind cold war
weaponry. Manned attack aircraft are a thing of the past.We would
be far better off paying for veteran's benefits and assistance and putting
defense funding into cyber security, defense satelites and drones. These are the
defenses/weapons of the present and future.
Mike,And here I thought you were a constitutional expert. Have you
forgotten that under the Constitution, the President has the right to veto
legislation that he deems improper or unwise? His duty to execute only arises
after Congress has overridden his veto, or if he waives his right to veto.
That's one of the important checks and balances in the Constitution, as you
should know. Further, there is no Constitutional restriction on the executive
proposing legislation; Congress still has to vote on it. There is nothing wrong
with the president proposing legislation; all presidents have done so from the
beginning, including your favorites, Reagan and the Bushes.Finally,
if it is Reid's duty to see that the States (meaning, presumably, the
Senate) have the opportunity to vote on legislation, isn't it also
Boehner's duty to allow the House an opportunity to vote on legislation
passed by the Senate?
VST - you are absolutely right. Eisenhower called it perfectly in his departing
speech - "Beware of the military industrial complex..." Today the
Pentagon has military bases in every state and U.S. territory and Congress
doesn't dare cut defense spending lest they lose there own jobs in the
process. It really leaves us in quite a conundrum. Let's reduce federal
spending but where do we start? Some will say to start with welfare,
entitlements, medicaid. Others will say unnecessary weapons systems, expansive
military operations (700+ bases worldwide). And some will suggest we neglect
our national infrastructure. But as we see, federal spending impacts almost
everybody in some way. Someday we might enough members of Congress
with enough courage to take on that challenge. But not today.
To the libs out there wanting to maintain the welfare programs, tell us why it
is that the cuts only are applied to us "little people" and not the
politicians pet projects?Why is it that AF1 wasn't grounded to
save a few million?Why is it that Congress isn't furloughed one
day per week, along with all of their staff?Why is it that so much
of the Executive branch are not touched by it?
Keep in mind that the F-35 is a highly technical program. Unless you are an
engineer, you are probably not qualified to understand a lot of what is going
on. I am familiar with the evaluation from which these criticisms arise. The
primary point of the evaluation was that the practice of training with an
immature aircraft is unwise and should be halted. It is a point well taken. But,
it is NOT a criticism of the aircraft itself. As an engineer for DOD, I see
nothing in the list of problems that is unsolvable or unexpected. Indeed
everything on this list looks like normal teething problems of a brand new,
state of the art, fighter aircraft. As for the use of drones in place of manned
aircraft, that day is coming. But it is not here yet. The Navy's X-47B
project is precisely what you are talking about - an attack drone designed to
operate from aircraft carriers. But, this is a demonstrator project - not ready
for combat. The bad guys are not standing still in their anti-aircraft systems.
We cannot rely on legacy aircraft to carry through to the drone stage.
@Mike Richards"Obama proposed Sequestration. "Obama
and Democrats wanted a debt ceiling increase without any cuts. Republicans are
the only reason we're in this mess. Sequestration is still better than
going off the cliff and defaulting (or instantly slashing 30% of the budget
which would be the sequester on steroids) which was the tea party plan.
The fact is the government didn't spend less. They just withheld money from
government works and diverted it elsewhere. In a very literal sense, this
so-called sequestration is nothing more than an additional tax on
government-employed citizens. At the same time, they continue to fund many
questionable, even needless, activities and programs.
Atl134,March 3, 2013, Forbes Magazine reported: "None other
than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief economic
advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the third
presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve
proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling finally
wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes, in
fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”Obama proposed Sequestration. Spin it all that you want, but the fact remains
that OBAMA proposed Sequestration. It was his idea. He wanted to shut down the
country unless he got his way. Some people in Congress (Republicans) are
educated enough to know that the Constituion does not allow the President to get
his way and that the role of the President is to enact the laws passed by
Congress. Congress is not Obama's "flunky".
@Mike Richards Republicans wanted to shut down the gov't unless they
got their cuts. Obama did not want the sequester, he only proposed it as a means
to get Republicans to stop threatening to make the nation default. If he had his
way there'd have been a debt ceiling increase with 0 mandated cuts but
Republicans refused to go with that so Obama had to propose something that would
satiate their bloodlust for deficit cutting. The Republicans actually wanted
more cuts than the sequester had but moved to that as a compromise. After all
Speaker Boehner said he got 90% of what he wanted in that sequester deal.
Obama proposed sequestration in the same sense that Solomon proposed cutting a
baby in half. Completely unbelieving that either side would allow it. Never
underestimate the depths of foolishness Congress will sink to in the name of
short term partisanship.
This isn't limited to the F35, nor just to sequestration. In any case of
cuts, programs for people will always get cut before any sort of procurement
from a business big enough to turn up on a candidates' donation radar.