home

Spending Priorities

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:29:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Which is more important to the Senate: protecting the troops from harm, or enhancing the profits of defense contractors? Here's a clue:

A Senate measure to fund the war in Iraq would chop money for troops' night vision equipment and new battle vehicles but add $230 million for a tilt-rotor aircraft that has already cost $18 billion and is still facing safety questions.

President Bush's request for the emergency appropriations to cover costs of the continuing war and Hurricane Katrina recovery operations included no money for the troubled V-22 Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies like a plane.

The Osprey, manufactured by Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron Inc., has been in development since the 1980s and has cost the government $18 billion so far. It has suffered numerous setbacks over the years, including two crashes in 2000 that killed 23 people. ...

To pay for the Ospreys, the Senate Appropriations Committee - guided by the Corps - cut into funding for night vision goggles, equipment for destroying mines and explosives, fire suppression systems for light armored vehicles and new vehicles that can be transported into battle inside the V-22.

A related question: could the money devoted to the war in Iraq have been spent more usefully?

$255 billion in taxpayer funds have been spent on the war, enough to have provided more than 153 million children with health insurance for one year.

< Open Thread | Don't Park in Judge Bradfield's Spot >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Spending Priorities | 9 comments (9 topical)
    Re: Spending Priorities (none / 0) (#1)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    enough to have provided more than 153 million children with health insurance for one year.
    That's pretty much all of 'em, isn't it?

    Re: Spending Priorities (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:03:58 PM EST
    It's crazy if you think about it. I often forget the monetary toll, concentrating on the human toll. Is it really taxpayer funds though? I thought we were putting the war on the Visa. And really, how many new and improved war machines do you need? Last I checked we were armed to the teeth with perfectly good tanks, planes, ships, and subs. Give every soldier a 25% raise, enough with the hardware.

    Re: Spending Priorities (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:32:41 PM EST
    Anyone have any numbers on how Bell and Textron have faired since the war began and what kind of grease they've been throwing to the Reps and Dems?

    Re: Spending Priorities (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    That's a foreign Visa we're putting it on, too. The gift of multiethnic debt.

    Re: Spending Priorities (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:45:29 PM EST
    It's everywhere you want to send other people's kids to fight. Don't drop bombs without it.

    Re: Spending Priorities (none / 0) (#6)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:48:05 PM EST
    Is it really taxpayer funds though? I thought we were putting the war on the Visa.
    Yeah, the money will come from taxpayers. Just not the ones who are paying taxes right now.

    Re: Spending Priorities (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:44:02 PM EST
    Kdog, Perfect. LOL.

    Re: Spending Priorities (none / 0) (#8)
    by swingvote on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 08:08:04 AM EST
    A few things TChris left out of his quote from the article: "The Marine Corps, however, followed up with a letter to lawmakers endorsing additional V-22s,..." "To pay for the Ospreys, the Senate Appropriations Committee - guided by the Corps - cut into funding for night vision goggles, equipment for destroying mines and explosives, fire suppression systems for light armored vehicles and new vehicles that can be transported into battle inside the V-22. The panel insists the equipment cuts won't affect readiness." Now I'm not trying to defend this decision, which, as the article notes, is "a curious choice to be funded in a bill whose defining purpose is to replace equipment worn out or destroyed in Iraq." But it sounds like the Marines don't agree with what the administration says they need right now, and given this administration's record on such issues, I would be more inclined to listen to the Marine Corps. With that said, I'd rather hear some more about why they feel this is a good use of the money. Beyond that, however, what is really missing here is mention of what the vote was an who voted for and against this change. While it's nice to see a little nonpartisan reporting, it would also be nice to know who to write to about their vote.

    Re: Spending Priorities (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    As a pilot and former chopper wrench ... excuse me, a turbine rotorcraft maintenance technician, I always liked the tilt-rotor concept, but 18 freakin' billion!? Not to mention the lives lost. I understand the costs of r&d, but this aircraft should never have been put into production.
    "The Marine Corps, however, followed up with a letter to lawmakers endorsing additional V-22s,..."
    The corps, or the guys in it who are about to be rotated out to their jobs at textron? BTW, justpaul, here's a link for how they've voted since 1991.

    Spending Priorities | 9 comments (9 topical)