| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"DemsLackGravitas" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2003 04:19:46 PM |
| Object: |
Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) Pork, Part I |
Democrats like to talk big about how "concerned" they are over "deficit
spending". But upon closer examination, the usual Democrat Party lies rise
to the surface. Consider, for example, one of the Pork Projects that Nancy
Pelosi, Democrat, House Minority Leader, pushed hard for:
$9,000,000 for the San Francisco, CA (her Congressional district) "Muni
Third Street Light Rail Project"
Way to go, you "We Democrats are terribly concerned about deficit spending!"
Democrats!!
.
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) Pork, Part I |
19 Dec 2003 05:13:05 AM |
|
|
"DemsLackGravitas" <LiteWeightDems@RNC.net> wrote in message
news:6KpEb.394235$Dw6.1245471@attbi_s02...
Democrats like to talk big about how "concerned" they are over "deficit
spending". But upon closer examination, the usual Democrat Party lies
rise
to the surface. Consider, for example, one of the Pork Projects that
Nancy
Pelosi, Democrat, House Minority Leader, pushed hard for:
$9,000,000 for the San Francisco, CA (her Congressional district) "Muni
Third Street Light Rail Project"
Way to go, you "We Democrats are terribly concerned about deficit
spending!"
Democrats!!
From http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-26-01.html
January 26, 2001
The Marines' Osprey Is a Taxpayer Albatross
by Ivan Eland
Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies.
After the fourth crash of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft last month,
Marine Corps Commandant James Jones asked to postpone indefinitely a
decision on whether to approve full-rate production of the aircraft. He also
called for a blue-ribbon panel to investigate the aircraft's cost, safety
and performance.
These steps are overdue. As secretary of Defense under President Bush, Vice
President ***** Cheney opposed the Osprey. Today, the facts clearly show that
this $40-billion defense albatross should be loosed from the taxpayers'
necks.
The V-22 is an aircraft that takes off like a helicopter, adjusts its
propellers and then flies like a normal fixed-wing aircraft. It is built
primarily to transport Marines (or their light equipment) inland from ships
off the coast during an amphibious assault. Each Osprey can transport up to
24 Marines or 15,000 pounds of equipment. It flies faster than the aging
medium-lift helicopters (C-46s) now used for such missions. This makes the
aircraft somewhat less vulnerable to enemy fire. Also, the V-22 can fly
greater distances than helicopters without refueling.
Unlike helicopters, which take up space on airlift aircraft and sealift
ships while being moved to distant theaters, the V-22's longer range allows
it to self-deploy. But those added capabilities make V-22s substantially
more expensive than helicopters. On average, each Osprey is about $80
million--several times that of a helicopter. As costs have increased, the
planned number of aircraft has dwindled to 360 for the Marine Corps (the Air
Force and Navy together may buy a total of 100 aircraft for special
operations forces and search and rescue).
But the V-22, though faster than many helicopters, is not especially swift,
survivable or efficient and may not be safe. The Osprey's enhanced
survivability when compared with helicopters has been exaggerated. According
to Defense Department officials' testimony before Congress and a study
commissioned by the Pentagon, the V-22 is more survivable than helicopters
with similar countermeasures only when under attack from small-arms fire. In
addition, compared to the slower--but less expensive--CH-53 helicopter, the
V-22 cannot carry heavy weapons or large quantities of supplies that would
be needed early in the battle. Even if the Osprey survives and successfully
transports Marines inland into enemy territory, the lightly armed Marines
may have a difficult time surviving until reinforced with the CH-53's heavy
cargo.
In addition, a November 2000 report by the Pentagon's own chief weapons
tester found that the Osprey was not operationally suitable because of its
marginal reliability and excessive maintenance and logistics requirements.
Yet the most important question may be whether the Marine Corps can afford
the high-priced aircraft. During the years when the Corps plans to buy the
V-22, it also plans to buy the joint strike fighter to replace the AV-8B and
F/A-18 tactical combat aircraft. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, the peak annual combined spending on the V-22 and joint strike
fighter would be $5.5 billion--about five times the current budget for
Marine Corps combat aircraft.
The V-22 should not enter full-rate production. Instead, a cheaper
alternative discussed in 1997 by the budget office should be adopted. Rather
than continuing production of the V-22, more of the less-expensive CH-53
heavy-lift helicopters might be produced. These helicopters can carry more
troops than the V-22. Alternatively, the Marines could buy the Army
Blackhawk helicopter for a fraction of the cost of the V-22.
The small number of V-22s already purchased might be used for specialized
missions in which heavy equipment is not needed; for example, search and
rescue or special operations, such as rescuing hostages.
President Bush's defense advisers complain that the Pentagon is buying more
aircraft than it can afford. In addition, the Bush-Cheney ticket ran on a
program of skipping a generation of weapons. The Osprey is a prime candidate
for one of the weapons to skip. Cheney now has another chance to help kill
the bird he valiantly, but unsuccessfully, tried to terminate a decade ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DemsLackGravitas" |
|
| Title: Re: Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) Pork, Part II |
19 Dec 2003 05:38:54 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53BEb.167$Qo1.49@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
"DemsLackGravitas" <LiteWeightDems@RNC.net> wrote in message
news:6KpEb.394235$Dw6.1245471@attbi_s02...
Democrats like to talk big about how "concerned" they are over "deficit
spending". But upon closer examination, the usual Democrat Party lies
rise
to the surface. Consider, for example, one of the Pork Projects that
Nancy
Pelosi, Democrat, House Minority Leader, pushed hard for:
$9,000,000 for the San Francisco, CA (her Congressional district) "Muni
Third Street Light Rail Project"
Way to go, you "We Democrats are terribly concerned about deficit
spending!"
Democrats!!
And here's another one from the Demmie Porker Pelosi:
$500,000 for a "grant" for (you guessed it) the "Women's Initiative for Self
Employment in San Francisco"
So not only is Demmie Pelosi a porker, she is also a SEXIST.
Way to go, Democrat frauds!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) Pork, Part II |
19 Dec 2003 06:43:31 AM |
|
|
"DemsLackGravitas" <LiteWeightDems@RNC.net> wrote in message
news:irBEb.602240$Fm2.546384@attbi_s04...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53BEb.167$Qo1.49@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
"DemsLackGravitas" <LiteWeightDems@RNC.net> wrote in message
news:6KpEb.394235$Dw6.1245471@attbi_s02...
Democrats like to talk big about how "concerned" they are over
"deficit
spending". But upon closer examination, the usual Democrat Party lies
rise
to the surface. Consider, for example, one of the Pork Projects that
Nancy
Pelosi, Democrat, House Minority Leader, pushed hard for:
$9,000,000 for the San Francisco, CA (her Congressional district)
"Muni
Third Street Light Rail Project"
Way to go, you "We Democrats are terribly concerned about deficit
spending!"
Democrats!!
And here's another one from the Demmie Porker Pelosi:
$500,000 for a "grant" for (you guessed it) the "Women's Initiative for
Self
Employment in San Francisco"
So not only is Demmie Pelosi a porker, she is also a SEXIST.
Way to go, Democrat frauds!
$1/2 million? So what?
$40 BILLION!!!!
$40 BILLION!!!!
$40 BILLION!!!!
$40 BILLION!!!!
$40 BILLION!!!!
$40 BILLION!!!!
$40 BILLION!!!!
That's almost 1/2 of a down payment on Iraq.
From http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-26-01.html
January 26, 2001
The Marines' Osprey Is a Taxpayer Albatross
by Ivan Eland
Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies.
After the fourth crash of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft last month,
Marine Corps Commandant James Jones asked to postpone indefinitely a
decision on whether to approve full-rate production of the aircraft. He also
called for a blue-ribbon panel to investigate the aircraft's cost, safety
and performance.
These steps are overdue. As secretary of Defense under President Bush, Vice
President ***** Cheney opposed the Osprey. Today, the facts clearly show that
this $40-billion defense albatross should be loosed from the taxpayers'
necks.
The V-22 is an aircraft that takes off like a helicopter, adjusts its
propellers and then flies like a normal fixed-wing aircraft. It is built
primarily to transport Marines (or their light equipment) inland from ships
off the coast during an amphibious assault. Each Osprey can transport up to
24 Marines or 15,000 pounds of equipment. It flies faster than the aging
medium-lift helicopters (C-46s) now used for such missions. This makes the
aircraft somewhat less vulnerable to enemy fire. Also, the V-22 can fly
greater distances than helicopters without refueling.
Unlike helicopters, which take up space on airlift aircraft and sealift
ships while being moved to distant theaters, the V-22's longer range allows
it to self-deploy. But those added capabilities make V-22s substantially
more expensive than helicopters. On average, each Osprey is about $80
million--several times that of a helicopter. As costs have increased, the
planned number of aircraft has dwindled to 360 for the Marine Corps (the Air
Force and Navy together may buy a total of 100 aircraft for special
operations forces and search and rescue).
But the V-22, though faster than many helicopters, is not especially swift,
survivable or efficient and may not be safe. The Osprey's enhanced
survivability when compared with helicopters has been exaggerated. According
to Defense Department officials' testimony before Congress and a study
commissioned by the Pentagon, the V-22 is more survivable than helicopters
with similar countermeasures only when under attack from small-arms fire. In
addition, compared to the slower--but less expensive--CH-53 helicopter, the
V-22 cannot carry heavy weapons or large quantities of supplies that would
be needed early in the battle. Even if the Osprey survives and successfully
transports Marines inland into enemy territory, the lightly armed Marines
may have a difficult time surviving until reinforced with the CH-53's heavy
cargo.
In addition, a November 2000 report by the Pentagon's own chief weapons
tester found that the Osprey was not operationally suitable because of its
marginal reliability and excessive maintenance and logistics requirements.
Yet the most important question may be whether the Marine Corps can afford
the high-priced aircraft. During the years when the Corps plans to buy the
V-22, it also plans to buy the joint strike fighter to replace the AV-8B and
F/A-18 tactical combat aircraft. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, the peak annual combined spending on the V-22 and joint strike
fighter would be $5.5 billion--about five times the current budget for
Marine Corps combat aircraft.
The V-22 should not enter full-rate production. Instead, a cheaper
alternative discussed in 1997 by the budget office should be adopted. Rather
than continuing production of the V-22, more of the less-expensive CH-53
heavy-lift helicopters might be produced. These helicopters can carry more
troops than the V-22. Alternatively, the Marines could buy the Army
Blackhawk helicopter for a fraction of the cost of the V-22.
The small number of V-22s already purchased might be used for specialized
missions in which heavy equipment is not needed; for example, search and
rescue or special operations, such as rescuing hostages.
President Bush's defense advisers complain that the Pentagon is buying more
aircraft than it can afford. In addition, the Bush-Cheney ticket ran on a
program of skipping a generation of weapons. The Osprey is a prime candidate
for one of the weapons to skip. Cheney now has another chance to help kill
the bird he valiantly, but unsuccessfully, tried to terminate a decade ago.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
