Tanks For The Shame

(Cartoon by Jack Ohman published 8/19/14 in the Sacramento Bee and featured at McClatchy DC.)

(Cartoon by Kevin Siers published 8/15/14 in the Charlotte Observer and featured at McClatchy DC.)

I've slipped back into that bad habit of watching the news on television and reading the news on line.  Unfortunately, the news has been more than a little distressing.  The big stories right now are the crazy Islamic terrorists who are into beheading folks who aren't sufficiently Islamic for them and (closer to home) the news out of Ferguson, Missouri of a police shooting of a young black man who turned out to be unarmed.  It was another case of "Walking While Black."

The latter story really depressed me.  Here we are in the 21st Century and this nation just can't get past its racism.  What makes it even worse is that the police are armed to the teeth with military grade weapons.  The excuse is that the "bad guys" have them, so the police should too.  Or something.  The victim in Missouri was shot six times by the automatic weapon the officer was carrying.

Why do police departments have to have tanks, or armed drones, or even the kind of automatic weapons that can fire off six rounds in quick succession.  Wouldn't one shot by a trained officer be enough to bring "the bad guy" down?  Are our police lousy marksmen?  What?

Wouldn't wearing protective body armor be a better choice if a military arsenal is involved?

I know: too many questions from a loony old broad.  It's just that I'd hoped to see some good kind of changes before I died.  I guess I'm asking for too much.

MOS*

*More Of Same 

(Cartoon by Lee Judge, published 6/22/14 in the Kansas City Star and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then return, please.)
No, I'm not through yelling about this.  I'd set my hair on fire if I thought it would do any good (or if it were longer than 1/8th inch all the way around).  I'm really that furious.

And so should every American be, regardless of political persuasion.  This administration isn't fooling anybody when it says that the 300 troops being sent to Iraq are there merely as advisors to Iraqi security forces.  Yeah, right.  And I was the inspiration for "My Sharona."

From McClatchy D.C.

“‘Combat’ is an elastic term when you talk about special operations guys, because you never know what they’re going to be doing,” [Former Marine Corp Sgt. Andrew] van Wey, who now does marketing for a military apparel firm in Fort Worth, Texas, said in an interview. “The nature of these guys’ jobs is covert. When you send in special operations, they leave a smaller footprint than infantry or other conventional forces. That’s how they get around violating the spirit of ‘no boots on the ground.’”

Others who served in Iraq said that once the new U.S. troops are embedded with their Iraqi counterparts, all bets are off, because there are few safe havens in a very dangerous country.

“It’s a stretch to say they won’t see combat,” Eric Young, a former Marine corporal who fought in Fallujah during two deployments to Iraq, told McClatchy. “More than likely those Green Berets will take up leadership roles in the Iraqi military. They may not be doing a lot of fighting, but they won’t just sit back and call for support. They’re there to lead from the front. You don’t lead from the back.”   [Enphasis added]

 The US troops will get involved, perhaps wounded or killed and certain elements will call for vengeance and then, just in time for November, 2016, it will become the kind of issue the GOP has been dreaming of.

Like I said last week.  Here we go again.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/06/20/231083/iraq-vets-say-obamas-promise-of.html#storylink=cpy

There Be Monsters

(Editorial cartoon by Pat Oliphant 6/14/2012 and found here. Click on image to enlarge and then please return.)

Vladimir Putin has been getting plenty of ink and electrons since his return to direct power in Russia. He has cracked down on dissidents and now is showing his support for bad-guy Bashir Assad of Syria by shipping Russian military helicopters to the Syrian government to help put down dissidents there. Further, Putin has effectively hamstrung the UN by vetoing any measure which would isolate and weaken Assad enough to stop the massacres.

Pat Oliphant hasn't been the only cartoonist to portray Putin. Jim Morin has a nasty cartoon dated 6/18/12 and featured here. David Horsey has a more cerebral one published 6/14/2012 here.

The column appended to Horsey's cartoon makes explicit what I think is implicit in the other cartoons and in the coverage of Putin in general.

Putin is letting his Russian soul show through quite openly these days, particularly with his support of Syrian President Bashar Assad's brutal crackdown on opponents of his regime. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton complained this week that the Russians were sending helicopter gunships to Syria, a step that would "escalate the conflict quite dramatically."

The United Nations, the Europeans and the U.S. have been trying to build a united front against Assad, but the Russians -- with their Security Council veto -- are blocking any meaningful step in that direction. Their great idea is to bring Iran into the discussion, which is a bit like bringing in a fox to guard a henhouse.

All of this -- plus Russia's belligerent reaction to a proposed European missile defense system -- is reminiscent of the bad old days of the Cold War. Of course, there are differences; Russia is not the superpower the Soviet Union was and Putin, for all his ruthlessness, is not a pathological tyrant and mass murderer like Stalin. But certain patterns are the same. The Russians are still picking their friends among the world's most repressive regimes. They are still paranoid and certain the West is ready to gang up on them. And, like the communist apparatchiks before them, Putin and his team assume everyone is as diabolical, power-hungry and duplicitous as they are. [Emphasis added]

It is hard to fault Horsey's argument, especially since Putin's behavior since he declared for the presidency has pretty much matched the description put forward in the column. The argument does raise some questions in my mind, however, and one in particular: why did Putin return? He was safely ensconced in a position where he could still exert some power on his government.

I don't pretend to be a foreign policy expert, nor have I ever played one on TV, but I suspect this new/old scenario is playing out against the back drop of ten years hegemony by the US. Unrestrained by the Soviet bogey-man, the US has increased its influence in the Middle East and Africa and in central and eastern Europe. We have increased our military and intelligence presence all over the globe, and we feel perfectly comfortable sending in our drones to assassinate those we perceive as terrorists in places such as Yemen. And that's just the stuff which has been reported in the Western press.

If Putin's return to power was intended as a response to all of that US activity, then we may very well find ourselves back in a Cold War, one in which the stakes are high and the military budgets even higher. And then we really are screwed.

Inured To War?

[Click on image to enlarge and then come back.]

David Horsey's recent cartoon and post is quite depressing for many different reasons. I'm not sure I agree with all of Horsey's opinions on the possibility of war with Iran, but I do admit that is certainly a possibility.

War has become a matter of presidential choice. That’s why we should take seriously what the candidates for president have to say about attacking Iran. They can promise to cut the deficit or bring down gas prices or scuttle Obamacare, but, if they promise war, it’s the one promise we know they can keep. ...

Obama has pushed tough sanctions on Iran. His hard-edged diplomacy has gotten Europeans to line up with him to demand that Iran refrain from building nukes. The president, showing his grimmest face, insists he is not bluffing when he says that military action is a real and ready option if Iran does not comply with the demands of the international community (at least the international community that does not include Russia and China, which, for obvious self-interested reasons, do not approve of military intervention in countries where the governments are corrupt and authoritarian).

Obama’s rhetoric may be more nuanced than the campaign speeches of Santorum and Gingrich – that is why the Republicans attack him for "apologizing" to America’s adversaries -- but the president’s foreign policy is very much in line with the philosophy that has guided U.S. actions in the world since 1945: engagement everywhere on the globe where there is a perceived national interest, backed by military power that is second-to-none and quick to be employed.

It's pretty hard to quarrel with that, especially given the last decade or so. Congress effectively ceded the right to declare war to the White House after 9/11, but even before that presidents have pretty much gotten their way when it comes to initiating armed conflict. It became much easier after the draft was abolished because not everyone had to worry about doing the fighting or sending a loved one to do it. But Horsey carries the argument further:

The truth is, Americans are not a peace-loving people. We pretend otherwise because it seems wrong to admit that the United States is a nation that has mostly benefited from war. We were not like the contented Canadians, who patiently waited for the Mother Country to bestow self-government. We went to war and tossed the British out. Through one war with Mexico and relentless wars with Indian tribes, we became a country that spanned a continent. The Spanish-American War and the First World War marked our arrival on the world stage. And the Second World War left us as one of the two preeminent powers on the planet.

Wars in Korea and Vietnam were not popular, but, by the time of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans had become used to fighting wars with ambiguous results. War is now simply what we do. It is part of our national identity; facing any foe, bearing any burden in the twilight struggle to defend freedom.

Put in less idealistic terms, our country is a national security state built on the vast military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about. Our government and our economy are permanently geared up for war, and very few Americans can remember a time when this was not so. It’s hard to imagine any president resisting the temptation to use this awesome force and even harder to imagine that a majority of Americans would ever elect a man who would. [Emphasis added]

Yes, we do now live in a "national security state built on the vast military-industrial complex," but I am not so certain that the American public has become inured to the constant state of war we've been in for all these years to the point where we will just shrug our shoulders as the next one begins before the last one ends. It has become too costly, both in terms of our national treasury and in terms of our national psyche. Too much has happened, especially the last four years. Too much has been lost and too many people are tired of being the pack animals for these kinds of whims.

At least I hope so.

Easily Bought

I had thought about titling this post "Cheap Whores", but then it occurred to me that such a title would be unnecessarily insulting to decent sex workers everywhere. They at least work hard and provide a service. Some of our congress critters clearly don't do either.

It’s the steal of the century. For the price of buying a condo in Washington, D.C., you can support the political campaigns of members of Congress who support your trillion-dollar program. Talk about return on investment!

On November 9, Reps. Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) announced the formation of a Congressional Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Caucus that they are co-chairing. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive program in Pentagon history, and it has been plagued by delays, cost overruns and defects that have raised eyebrows at the Pentagon and in Congress (the latest official report on JSF problems was made public by POGO yesterday). As of its announcement, the JSF Caucus had 48 members of the House on its roster. ...

The primary contractors building the JSF -- Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt & Whitney -- have contributed $326,400 to members of the JSF Caucus in the first year of the 2012 election cycle, according to a joint analysis of campaign finance data by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). These firms’ political action committees (PACs), which distribute campaign contributions to promote the contractors’ political goals, gave the average member of the JSF Caucus $6,094 -- nearly double what they gave to the average representative not in the caucus ($3,077).

And, it’s not just the corporate PACs that are funneling money to these legislators; individuals working for these firms also disproportionately direct their campaign contributions to these representatives.

In fact, thus far in the 2012 election cycle, the average member of the JSF Caucus has received nearly twice as much money ($706) from employees of the top four JSF contractors as the average House member who is not in the JSF Caucus ($387).

The F-35, years late and still deeply flawed, is turning out to be one of the greatest boondoggles in Pentagon history. Many in the military are so disgusted that they've made it clear that they don't even want the fighter jet, especially with the latest problems which will cost about $1 million per plane to fix, thereby adding to the cost over-run.

So why are members of the Joint Strike Fighter working so hard to keep the plane in production? The official reason is the program provides jobs in their respective district. I tend to think the "donations" from the contractors and their employees have a great deal to do with it.

What surprises me is how little money it takes to buy off members of Congress. I guess that the corporate cookie jar I mentioned yesterday has all sorts of goodies in it.

Nothing new here; move along, move along.

Another Revolving Door

We're used to seeing former congress critters and their staffers move from their congressional offices to new offices on K Street or corporate board rooms. We're also quite familiar with White House staffers signing on with private concerns anxious for their expertise and contacts. Well, cashing in on government service is not just for civilians.

This weekend the Boston Globe published a remarkable article on the role retired generals and admirals have in defense contracts. They get hired not only by the Pentagon to serve as consultants, but also by many of the same contractors they had dealt with while on active duty.

Among the Globe findings:

■ Dozens of retired generals employed by defense firms maintain Pentagon advisory roles, giving them unparalleled levels of influence and access to inside information on Department of Defense procurement plans.

■ The generals are, in many cases, recruited for private sector roles well before they retire, raising questions about their independence and judgment while still in uniform. The Pentagon is aware and even supports this practice.

■ The feeder system from some commands to certain defense firms is so powerful that successive generations of commanders have been hired by the same firms or into the same field. For example, the last seven generals and admirals who worked as Department of Defense gatekeepers for international arms sales are now helping military contractors sell weapons and defense technology overseas.

■ When a general-turned-businessman arrives at the Pentagon, he is often treated with extraordinary deference — as if still in uniform — which can greatly increase his effectiveness as a rainmaker for industry. The military even has name for it — the “bobblehead effect.’’

A huge chunk of the federal budget goes to the Pentagon, and clearly that part of our government would like to see the flow continue. It's pretty obvious from this article just why that is. It's an investment for the future. Unfortunately, it's not the nation's future which is uppermost in these generals' and admirals' minds.

A Sweet Deal

I've been neglecting Watching America the last few weeks because our national papers have had plenty to keep my blood pressure up. This week I ambled over, and I'm glad I did. I found an article from Junge Welt which makes it clear that one facet of our economy is booming: the weapons companies.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal published a huffy piece outraged that the US government was selling fighter jets and other armaments to Saudi Arabia. What the article didn't make clear was, first, that the George W. Bush administration had been selling armaments to Saudi Arabia, and second, that the material being sold were essentially upgrades to fighter planes sold to that country 30 years ago. The point the WSJ was trying to make is that poor Israel would now be doomed.

Of course, that is certainly not the case, and for several reasons. First, the Israeli government jawboned our government into agreeing that the F-15s being shipped to the Saudis would not be the top of the line, most up to date version of the fighter plane.

Second, and here's the real kicker:

...The planned deliveries, which have already begun, mean a win-win situation for the U.S. armaments industry: according to agreements already long in effect, the United States unconditionally and perpetually guarantees Israeli military superiority in the region. The deals with Arab states, therefore, automatically assure that Israel will receive additional counterbalancing weaponry, a part of which is paid for by American taxpayers. [Emphasis added]

But, wait! there's more!

The WSJ had to have known all of this, but as a favor to the Israeli government and to the armament industries, they proceeded to publish this piece filled with faux outrage, knowing that both the munition boys and the Israelis would win and win big with this bit of puffery:

In reality, it appears the reports were instigated by the WSJ in order to provide Israel justification for its own armaments wishes. Israel had planned to buy 75 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters -- a model already superior to the most modern version of the F-15 -- but, because of the high cost, currently it can only afford 20 of these aircraft. By publicizing the deal, the WSJ could be trying to toss a monkey wrench into the machinery so that Israel gets a larger number of F-35 aircraft, free of charge.

I would call this a win-win situation, except for one thing. Yes, Israel and the captains of that industry both make out like bandits. The taxpayers, however, aren't so lucky. We'll be picking up the tab for a bunch of fighter jets that our own government won't purchase because they are too damned expensive.

So, we're laying off teachers, people are losing their homes, unemployment benefits are running out for hundreds of thousands of people, but we're adding to the armaments of governments in the most volatile part of the planet.

Nope, no change here. I even looked under the refrigerator.

Death Merchants

I got quite a jolt during my weekly visit to Watching America. The featured article is from Norway's Dagsavisen, from which I learned that the United States has become the leading exporter of military weapons, passing Russia for that dubious honor. If you think that's bad, wait until you see to whom we are providing that weaponry:

The U.S. provides more than 70 percent of weapons exports to developing nations. Because America is so dependent on the weapons industry, it makes it difficult for Obama to change course, says political scientist William Hartung.

While the world’s weapons exports dropped last year, the United States increased its exports to developing nations by almost 50 percent compared to 2007. The U.S. is selling far more weapons than all other countries combined. New numbers from the Congressional Research Service show that America is surging past Russia, who used to be the number one weapons exporter to developing nations. On top of the list of recipients are the Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Morocco. ...

Ensuring stability and security for America’s allies is an important part of Washington's foreign policy. But according to a report from the World Policy Institute, the United States is selling weapons or providing military training to almost 90 percent of the countries that, according to the U.S. itself, are harboring terrorists. ...

William Hartung admits that there are advantages for America, but he thinks the world is paying too high a price for American military hegemony. According to a report from the New America Foundation, the U.S. is selling weapons to 18 of the 25 countries at war, and often to both or all of the sides fighting. And Hartung says that with countries like Saudi Arabia on top of the list, America is undermining human rights. [Emphasis added]

This "dependency on the weapons industry" provides a certain cognitive dissonance to a liberal like me. I, too, have watched in dismay as our manufacturing base has been transferred overseas so that the megacorporations can avoid taxes, hire cheap labor, and ignore environmental concerns. That said, I am appalled that we are considered the best supplier of death on the planet. Yes, I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but why do we have to be the ones to provide the means for the murder, especially on such a grand scale? And why do we have to do so in such a blatantly amoral (if not immoral) fashion?

As the article notes, President Obama has taken a few tentative steps towards ratcheting down the flow.

Hartung still thinks that Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama has shown signs of improvement. The fact that Obama has scrapped the plans for a missile shield and has called for a world free of nuclear weapons has gained a lot of attention. But he also stopped funding for the development of new warheads and has scrapped some new weapons systems, and those are changes Hartung cannot recall any other president has made.

These are modest steps indeed, but at least they are going in the right direction. Defunding a few more projects which will ultimately be shifted overseas to such regimes as Saudi Arabia should be next on the agenda.

"We're Number One!"

Shameful.

The F-22 Lemon

Earlier today I suggested a way to save a little money in the federal budget so we could afford to provide universal health care access. After spending a few hours reading the news on-line, I've found another, equally as valid way. Cancellation of the F-22 program.

The F-22 is this hot-stuff new fighter plane that was designed yarons ago to offset the advances the military thought the Soviet Union was making in their fighter plane program. That, by the way, was more than 25 years ago. Since then, the Soviet Union has, well, dissolved, along with a lot of their plans for hot-stuff fighter planes and other military hardware. That doesn't seem to bother a lot of folks tied into the military-industrial-complex here in the US. They still want that damned plane and they still want to spend billions on the program, even though the plane is, by all accounts, a freakin' lemon.

Now, when I speak of folks tied into the military-industrial-complex, I'm not talking about just the CEO of Lockheed-Martin and the CEOs of the subcontractors (including Boeing), I'm talking about members of Congress, including such Democratic luminaries as Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. John Kerry, and New Hampshire Rep. Paul Hodes, all of whom are willing to fight President Obama over the issue, according to this article in the Boston Globe.

Now, the reason President Obama wants to cancel the program is that his Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, and most sane people in the Pentagon don't want the hot-stuff new plane. It's expensive, was designed for warfare that is a thing of the past, and it just doesn't work. On Friday, the Washington Post contained a lengthy article which detailed the costs and the failures of the plane:

The United States' top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show. ...

While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

And what does this do to the cost of the program? Well, the Globe article provides some astounding numbers:

One defense analyst estimates that $65 billion has been spent on the F-22 program to date; the price tag for each of the stealth fighters, designed during the Cold War for the next generation of air-to-air combat, is about $200 million.

That's $200 million per plane before it gets put into use. As the WaPo article points out, the costs rise astronomically once the plane leaves the ground.

So why are normally sane Democrats fighting so hard for this losing program?

Jobs.

This is pork, pure and simple. Now, I'm of the opinion that pork isn't necessarily such a bad thing, but only under the right circumstances. This just isn't one of those times. I recognize that right now, unemployment is through the roof as a result of our economic collapse, but why should we spend money and precious effort on a program that doesn't work, that will never work, and that the recipient of the taxpayers' largess, the Pentagon, doesn't want? Surely there are other ways to put Americans back to work, even at these companies, that make more sense.

Instead of spending a trillion dollars (there's that number again) on a project that is useless, how about we spend it in ways that will grow the economy and will provide collateral benefits to the entire nation. Why can't these companies build rail carriages and buses that are currently being purchased from Europe and Asia to make public transportation a viable option for Americans, thereby reducing our reliance on foreign oil and cleaning up the environment. Why can't their engineers design a power transmission grid, and then build it, so that alternative sources of energy can light our homes and run our factories?

More importantly, why can't this money be spent in ways that ensure the health and welfare of the entire nation, say in (oh, I don't know) maybe universal access to health care.

I guess it's a matter of whose bottom line is more important.

The Devil Does Details

The spending on our military grew exponentially over the previous maladministration, independently of war costs. Over the years 1999 through 2008, 58% of the world's total military outlay was U.S. spending. This is not chump change, though chumps are in charge of the huge cost run-ups. We should get a handle on this atrocity, for a simple reason; we can't afford this.

Milbank writes at WaPo on the worst, that comes out at appropriations time on the Hill.

This meeting of the Senate Military-Industrial Caucus will now come to order.

The chair recognizes the senator from Northrop Grumman for a question.

"We've noticed the increase in the amphibious ship fleet needs that go beyond traditional military missions," said Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). "Do you see a continuing need for shipbuilding in the amphibious area?"

Of course, Senator. Nobody will hurt the DD(X) destroyers they build in Pascagoula.

Does the senator from General Dynamics have a question?

"Littoral combat ships," said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). "Do you believe that this program will play a vital role in our Navy's future fleet?"

Certainly, Senator. Tell the folks in Mobile that their shipbuilding operation is safe. The chair now recognizes the senator from Boeing.

"I wanted to ask you today if you can tell me how you are taking into account the health and longevity of our domestic industrial base," asked Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Sure, Senator. Your constituents in Everett will get another shot at that aerial refueling tanker contract they lost to the Airbus consortium.

And so it went at yesterday's hearing of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, attempting a bold reshaping of the military-industrial complex to meet the changing nature of war, pleaded with the lawmakers to rise above the powerful contractors that fund their campaigns and influence their elections. "The responsibility of this department first and foremost is to fight and win the nation's wars," Gates reminded them. "I know that some will take issue with individual decisions. I would ask, however, that you look beyond specific programs and instead at the full range of what we are trying to do."

Not likely, Mr. Secretary. Lawmakers are perfectly happy to reform military procurement, as long as the cuts are not made in any of their back yards. The result will inevitably be that the Pentagon is forced to fund many programs it doesn't want while shortchanging others it urgently needs.

The country is ill served by the mismanagement of our military appropriations. Should we ever need that military in combat, we would have to scramble to re-direct our effort to catch up.

Much of the waste is in areas that are already recognized not to be pertinent to reality. Star Wars is a prime example. This is a pipe dream, and the pipes are clogged. It doesn't work, and wouldn't be worthwhile if it did. The billions poured into it would do well to go to actual needs, of which this country has no lack.

While our lawmakers are eying social needs for spending cuts, they treat waste on military as sacrosanct. The true 'entitlement' is this heedless throwing of money at pure frills - while we desperately need real services the government is meant to provide.

The article I've excerpted reads like comedy, but it's producing a tragedy.


****************************************************

Heard this a.m. on Washington Journal, at CSpan.

Dr. Dean re; Rep. Gingrey's misinformation about wife Dr. Steinberg (who does accept Medicare patients contrary to that misinfo.) - 'Good thing he's in congress because I'd hate to see what he does to patients.'

On Republicans speaking about health care; "What they say is not so."

Three cheers.

Who Really Runs Congress

Yesterday, I posted on the role lobbyists play in the California state legislature. Today, in a disconcerting bit of synchronicity, the NY Times published an article on the looming legal troubles of lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti (described as a "protege" of Democratic Congressman John P. Murtha). The article suggests that Mr. Magliocchetti just might be another from the Jack Abramoff line of corrupting lobbyists.

...many on Capitol Hill, recalling the scandal that mushroomed around the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, are wondering who else will be ensnared in the investigation as prosecutors pore over the financial records and computer files of one of K Street’s most influential lobbyists, known both for the billions of dollars in earmarks he obtained for his clients and for his open hand toward those he sought to influence.

Former PMA staff members familiar with the inquiry say prosecutors’ initial questions have focused on the possibility that Mr. Magliocchetti used straw campaign contributors — a Florida sommelier and a golf club executive, for example, appear to have given large sums in coordination with PMA — as a front to funnel illegal donations to friendly lawmakers, a felony that could carry a minimum sentence of five years.

More alarming to lawmakers and aides, however, is that prosecutors may turn their attention to the dinners at the Alpine and Capital Grille or other gifts they might have accepted from Mr. Magliocchetti — potential violations of longstanding Congressional ethics rules that could lead to more serious bribery charges if linked to official acts.

Mr. Magliocchetti developed his own niche in the lobbying world, one he prepared for while working as a Navy budget analyst for a Congressional subcommittee.

Mr. Magliocchetti helped pioneer the lucrative specialty of helping contractors lobby for military earmarks, the several billion dollars in pet spending items that members of the panel insert in annual spending bills, often with little oversight.

Earmarks: those nasty little add-ons to bills that never go through the regular budgetary process before the floor vote. Most congress critters aren't even aware of their existence as they vote, and often with the military earmarks even the Pentagon is surprised by the largess, some of which they neither need nor desire.

Another Abramoff? It's hard to tell at this point of the investigation, but one thing is clear. This scandal might involve Democrats as much as the Abramoff scandal involved Republicans. And to that I say good! Political stripe doesn't matter when this kind of corruption is involved.

At some point those who are elected to serve in Congress have got to get the message that their job doesn't involve expensive dinners and gifts from wealthy businessmen for which they pay in the coin of the taxpayer dollar. If it takes a scandal and some convictions to drive that message home, then so be it.

Maybe then we can remove earmarks from the congressional lexicon and the legislative process.

The Boys And Their Toys

The US Defense budget is larger than those of the rest of the world combined. It eats up nearly half of the federal spending (depending on whose figures you use) and a lot of what taxpayers get for their buck is nothing more than waste, bloated cost overruns, and military equipment ordered based on the geopolitics of thirty years ago. Some of the projects involve fighter jets, tanks, and battleships that even the military doesn't want because it knows that these costly items simply won't do the job that the military needs to do in the early 21st Century. Yet Congress keeps pushing these appropriations through, something that President Obama would like to stop.

A cogent editorial in yesterday's Boston Globe suggests that President Obama will have a real fight on his hands when it comes to this issue, and from some not-so-surprising quarters.

THE BEST measure of President Obama's commitment to reducing the deficit by cutting defense spending is his appointment of Harvard's Ashton Carter as the Pentagon official in charge of buying weapons. A veteran of the Clinton Defense Department who has never worked for an arms-maker, Carter has been a critic of the Pentagon for buying weapons it doesn't need, and failing to keep track of cost increases in weapons systems.

The selection of Carter, a Kennedy School of Government professor, has set off alarms in the defense industry. But it should win plaudits from taxpayers.

What an interesting concept: appointing someone without military-industrial complex ties to a position which will keep track of spending when it comes to weaponry.

I'm sure that alarms are going off in more than weapon suppliers offices, however. Congressional offices, especially those with major companies like Raytheon and Boeing in their districts must be especially distressed. Republicans and Democrats have both fought to keep that pipeline open and flowing over the years, as the editorial pointed out. These suppliers provide a lot of jobs for constituents and this would appear to be the wrong time to cut back on spending to support those jobs.

Or is it?

...Obama will get a fight on weapons cutbacks not just from the industry but from members of Congress who see even ill-conceived weapons systems as jobs programs for their districts. When it comes to stimulating the economy, however, a costly ship or plane that will rarely if ever fire a shot cannot hold a candle to a high-speed train or a new high-voltage transmission line for renewable energy.

This isn't an inappropriate comparison when you consider the last great industrial shift made during the 1940s. Within a very short time, months, the Detroit auto makers went from building sedans to building tanks. There is no reason why, with a little innovative thinking, the military industrial complex can't do the same thing in reverse and go from building tanks to building state of the art locomotives running on green energy.

In the meantime, while the weapons builders contemplate their next move, keeping them on a short leash is a pretty good idea, and the president's pick to hold that leash looks to be an excellent one.

Nicely done, President Obama.