Congress spends 550 million on EIGHT JETS!

[UCGal]

Just for the record… It was a Florida Republican who added the funding. Dem’s are objecting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124969431303416161.html

Some lawmakers say they often know more about what the military needs than the executive branch does.

“The Pentagon is not the fountain of all knowledge,” said Rep. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who was senior appropriator on the House floor last month when the Pentagon spending bill was approved. “They don’t have all of the knowledge, and they don’t have all of the wisdom. Neither does the administration, neither does the Congress. That’s why we work together.”

(He seems to be trying to expand on Murtha’s earmarking prowess.)

[SK in CV]

The headline is more than a little misleading. According to the Columbia Journalism Review:

These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php

Not to mention that the addition just may make financial sense. From the WSJ article, well after the disingenuous lede:

The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.

[SK in CV]

The headline is more than a little misleading. According to the Columbia Journalism Review:

These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php

Not to mention that the addition just may make financial sense. From the WSJ article, well after the disingenuous lede:

The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.

[SK in CV]

The headline is more than a little misleading. According to the Columbia Journalism Review:

These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php

Not to mention that the addition just may make financial sense. From the WSJ article, well after the disingenuous lede:

The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.

[SK in CV]

The headline is more than a little misleading. According to the Columbia Journalism Review:

These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php

Not to mention that the addition just may make financial sense. From the WSJ article, well after the disingenuous lede:

The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.

[SK in CV]

The headline is more than a little misleading. According to the Columbia Journalism Review:

These planes are for an Air Force fleet that’s barely used by Congress—at least compared to the others who also use it. Over the last five years, 86 percent of the use of the private-plane fleet has been by the White House and the military. Just 14.5 percent has been congressional use.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/journal_misleads_congress_jets.php

Not to mention that the addition just may make financial sense. From the WSJ article, well after the disingenuous lede:

The House Appropriations Committee says the new purchases are designed to replace seven aging and more expensive business jets. The net impact is one additional plane owned by the federal government and a substantial increase in its passenger capacity.

[CostaMesa]

Why does anyone care what someone clueless enough to call themself ‘maniac’ has to say?

[CostaMesa]

Why does anyone care what someone clueless enough to call themself ‘maniac’ has to say?

[CostaMesa]

Why does anyone care what someone clueless enough to call themself ‘maniac’ has to say?

[CostaMesa]

Why does anyone care what someone clueless enough to call themself ‘maniac’ has to say?

[CostaMesa]

Why does anyone care what someone clueless enough to call themself ‘maniac’ has to say?

[partypup]

[quote=UCGal]Just for the record… It was a Florida Republican who added the funding. Dem’s are objecting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124969431303416161.html

Some lawmakers say they often know more about what the military needs than the executive branch does.

“The Pentagon is not the fountain of all knowledge,” said Rep. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who was senior appropriator on the House floor last month when the Pentagon spending bill was approved. “They don’t have all of the knowledge, and they don’t have all of the wisdom. Neither does the administration, neither does the Congress. That’s why we work together.”

(He seems to be trying to expand on Murtha’s earmarking prowess.)[/quote]

I am literally amazed that there are people who still believe – in the face of what is happening all around us – that there is a difference between the parties. Both sets of clowns voted for TARP; both sets of clowns are hell-bent on keeping us in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least one set of clowns (the Dems) just voted to throw another $600 billion at “defense”. And both sets of clowns are bag men for Wall Street, having debased our currency and sacrificed our futures, either out of stupidity or greed, I don’t know which and I don’t care.

Two teams. One owner. It would actually be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.

[partypup]

[quote=UCGal]Just for the record… It was a Florida Republican who added the funding. Dem’s are objecting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124969431303416161.html

Some lawmakers say they often know more about what the military needs than the executive branch does.

“The Pentagon is not the fountain of all knowledge,” said Rep. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who was senior appropriator on the House floor last month when the Pentagon spending bill was approved. “They don’t have all of the knowledge, and they don’t have all of the wisdom. Neither does the administration, neither does the Congress. That’s why we work together.”

(He seems to be trying to expand on Murtha’s earmarking prowess.)[/quote]

I am literally amazed that there are people who still believe – in the face of what is happening all around us – that there is a difference between the parties. Both sets of clowns voted for TARP; both sets of clowns are hell-bent on keeping us in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least one set of clowns (the Dems) just voted to throw another $600 billion at “defense”. And both sets of clowns are bag men for Wall Street, having debased our currency and sacrificed our futures, either out of stupidity or greed, I don’t know which and I don’t care.

Two teams. One owner. It would actually be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.

[partypup]

[quote=UCGal]Just for the record… It was a Florida Republican who added the funding. Dem’s are objecting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124969431303416161.html

Some lawmakers say they often know more about what the military needs than the executive branch does.

“The Pentagon is not the fountain of all knowledge,” said Rep. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who was senior appropriator on the House floor last month when the Pentagon spending bill was approved. “They don’t have all of the knowledge, and they don’t have all of the wisdom. Neither does the administration, neither does the Congress. That’s why we work together.”

(He seems to be trying to expand on Murtha’s earmarking prowess.)[/quote]

I am literally amazed that there are people who still believe – in the face of what is happening all around us – that there is a difference between the parties. Both sets of clowns voted for TARP; both sets of clowns are hell-bent on keeping us in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least one set of clowns (the Dems) just voted to throw another $600 billion at “defense”. And both sets of clowns are bag men for Wall Street, having debased our currency and sacrificed our futures, either out of stupidity or greed, I don’t know which and I don’t care.

Two teams. One owner. It would actually be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.

[partypup]

[quote=UCGal]Just for the record… It was a Florida Republican who added the funding. Dem’s are objecting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124969431303416161.html

Some lawmakers say they often know more about what the military needs than the executive branch does.

“The Pentagon is not the fountain of all knowledge,” said Rep. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who was senior appropriator on the House floor last month when the Pentagon spending bill was approved. “They don’t have all of the knowledge, and they don’t have all of the wisdom. Neither does the administration, neither does the Congress. That’s why we work together.”

(He seems to be trying to expand on Murtha’s earmarking prowess.)[/quote]

I am literally amazed that there are people who still believe – in the face of what is happening all around us – that there is a difference between the parties. Both sets of clowns voted for TARP; both sets of clowns are hell-bent on keeping us in Iraq and Afghanistan. At least one set of clowns (the Dems) just voted to throw another $600 billion at “defense”. And both sets of clowns are bag men for Wall Street, having debased our currency and sacrificed our futures, either out of stupidity or greed, I don’t know which and I don’t care.

Two teams. One owner. It would actually be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.

[Author]

Posts