Senate filibusters Becker nomination

BREAKING NEWS

Senate filibusters Becker nomination

From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell and Mark Murray

On a 52-33 vote, Illinois labor attorney Craig Becker's nomination to serve on the National Labor Relations Board failed, as expected.

This was a cloture vote to end debate, and not the actual nomination up or down.

Senate Democrats needed 60 votes. Among those voting no: the newest member, Sen. Scott Brown (R).

The AFL-CIO released this statement: "It is reprehensible that a minority in the U.S. Senate has blocked an up-or-down vote on Craig Becker, nominated seven months ago by President Obama to serve on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Once again, a Republican-led filibuster has put political interests over the needs of America's working families. For more than two years, the NLRB has had only two of its five members. Without a fully staffed NLRB, working families face a major disadvantage in winning justice in the workplace."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce countered: "While the Chamber rarely takes issue with presidential nominees, today's vote reflects a bipartisan rejection of the ideology behind the Card Check bill and this nominee's out-of-the-mainstream views about the rights of job creators in unionizing drives."

The Chamber also warned, "A recess appointment of this controversial nominee, instead of a new consensus candidate, definitely would send the wrong signal given the clear lack of support expressed by the Senate. The two other NLRB nominees have bipartisan backing, and the White House should use those as a model for who should be appointed to the board."

Source: MSNBC First Read

Democrats’ Misplaced Priorities by the Numbers (Healthcare)

This came in email to us this afternoon from the Republican Policy Committee. The title Misplaced Priorities by the Democrats has to be the understatement of the year!

When you look at these figures in black and white, it strikes you that the Senate only spent 25 days debating these healthcare bills. Something so important with thousands of pages and the Senate under the leadership of Sen Reid only allowed 25 days of debate. That is shocking but not surprising.

Democrats’ Misplaced Priorities by the Numbers
Senate Republican Politics Committee
9 February 2010

How Will A Job-Killing Health Care Bill Help Unemployment?

Even as President Obama now attempts to re-focus his attention on the economy, a look at Democrats’actions over the past year shows the party’s stubborn focus on a government takeover of health care that would kill jobs, not save them:

5,298—Total pages of health care legislation passed by three House and two Senate Committees[i]

30—Number of days House and Senate Committees spent marking up health care legislation[ii]

25—Number of days the Senate spent debating health care legislation[iii]

$729,500,000,000 and $518,500,000,000—Tax increases in the House and Senate-passed health care bills[iv]

5,000,000—Number of jobs that could be lost as a result of the taxes in the Pelosi health care bill,according to a model developed by Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer[v]

Meanwhile, all across America millions of workers have been struggling, even as Democrats rushed to pass a health care bill that would destroy jobs:

2,742,000—Number of jobs lost since President Obama signed the $862 billion “stimulus” bill[vi]

6,130,000—Number of workers unemployed for at least six months—an all-time high

29.1 weeks—Average length of time Americans have been unemployed—also an all-time high

15,267,000—Number of unemployed Americans—down only slightly from October’s 26-year high

17.3%—National rate of unemployment, including under-employed individuals and “discouraged workers” who have stopped looking for work

0—Days the Senate spent debating legislation providing permanent tax relief to small businesses

Even now, amidst the economic hardship facing American families nationwide, Democrats refuse to abandon their efforts to pass a government takeover of health care that would kill jobs, not create them.

Many may ask: how many more jobs must be lost before the President and Democrats in Congress will abandon their health care scheme that would raise taxes on hard-working families and businesses?

[i] Includes the 1,504-page Senate Finance Committee bill (S. 1796), the 840-page Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee bill (S. 1679),
the 794-page House Ways and Means Committee Chairman’s Mark to H.R. 3200, the 1,040-page House Education and Labor Committee Chairman’s Mark
to H.R. 3200, the 1,026-page House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman’s Mark to H.R. 3200, and a 94-page motion to instruct the Rules
Committee on H.R. 3200 approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
[ii] The Senate Finance Committee spent six days marking up S. 1796; the Senate HELP Committee spent 13 days marking up S. 1679; the House Ways and
Means Committee spent one day marking up H.R. 3200; the House Education and Labor Committee spent two days marking up H.R. 3200; the House
Energy and Commerce Committee spent six days marking up H.R. 3200, including one day debating a motion to instruct the Rules Committee regarding the
legislation.
[iii] According to the Congressional Record, the Senate debated H.R. 3590 on November 19-21, November 30-December 10, December 13-17, and December
19-24, 2009.
[iv] Figures based on Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation analyses of H.R. 3962 as passed by the House, and similar CBO and
JCT analyses of H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate.
[v] House Ways and Means Committee Republican staff calculation.
[vi] All jobs data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly employment data, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln

Heard on the Hill: Global Warming Snow Job

This Igloo built in DC is our nomination for the best idea to depict Al Gore and his 'Global Warming!' Looks to us like Senator Inhofe's daughter took after her Dad with her sense of humor. Great Job!

Roll Call
Heard on the Hill: Global Warming Snow Job
By Emily Heil and Elizabeth Brotherton
Roll Call Staff
Feb. 9, 2010

Link to Article

View More Pictures on Facebook


Visit Senator Inhofe's Facebook Page For More Pictures

While most Washingtonians took cover during the Blizzard of 2010 (or Snowpocalypse, or Snowmaggedon - whatever you want to call it) Sen. James Inhofe's family braved the storm to poke fun at former Vice President Al Gore.

The Oklahoma Republican's daughter, Molly Rapert; her husband, Jimmy; and their four children built an igloo - roomy enough to fit several people inside - at Third Street and Independence Avenue Southeast.

They officially dedicated the humble abode in honor of global-warming crusader Gore, even posting a cardboard sign on the igloo's roof reading "AL GORE'S NEW HOME" on one side and "HONK IF YOU [HEART] GLOBAL WARMING" on the other.

Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is famously one of Congress' most vocal critics of global warming. And he told HOH that he found his family's ironic tribute to Gore - which came during one of Washington's snowiest winters on record - "really humorous."

Inhofe was so proud of the construction effort, in fact, that he posted several pictures to his official Facebook page.

Inhofe noted he wasn't the only person who liked the igloo - several people honked to show support.

It took five hours Saturday and three hours Sunday to build the igloo. "The funny thing was seeing how many people would stop to pose in front of it," Molly Rapert said.

And while this week's expected snowy weather will ensure the igloo won't melt, Inhofe did admit that he fears the structure might meet a premature demise by global-warming believers.

"I know that somebody is going to end up tearing it down," Inhofe said. "Because there are a lot of people who can't take a joke."
###

Boehner, Cantor Question White House on Proposed Health Care Summit

Will the Obama Chief of Staff Emanuel answer the questions of the Minority Leader Boehner and Whip Cantor or will he send back spin? Time will tell but this puts the ball back in the Obama Court.

Press Release

Boehner, Cantor Question White House on Proposed Health Care Summit
GOP Leaders: “Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people?”

Washington, Feb 8 -
February 8, 2010

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses. Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?

Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of openness and transparency?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.


These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks.

For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.

We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Source: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3784561315774230886

Congratulations New Orleans Saints!

Congratulations to the players, the owner Tom Benson and his family, and most of all to the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast who have brought this area back. The Saints are what is really good about New Orleans and the Upper Gulf Coast that was devasted by Katrina -- they never quit and neither did the people of the Gulf Coast states. New Orleans had some unique problems with being a major city but the devastation wasn't any different to a resident of New Orleans or to someone living in Sliddel, LA, or Gulfport, MS. Their lives were turned upside down and it looked hopeless in so many areas.

At the time, the people of the region didn't know if the Saints were going to stay in New Orleans after playing on the road for a year, but members of the team kept coming back during that year to help. When the decision was made to renovate the Super Dome so the team could come back, the city and a region who had been through so much now had their Saints back with a new spirit and a new coach, Sean Payton from the Dallas Cowboys.

Non sports people probably think the rest of us are nuts who would put so much into a sports team but football/basketball or other sports are what brings a community together. If anyone ever wanted the proof -- look no further then New Orleans and the Upper Gulf Coast.

This time when the Saints return to New Orleans they are returning as Super Bowl Champs and bringing along the Super Bowl Trophy for the people of New Orleans!

A great way to end the football season! Mardis Gras has arrived early in New Orleans!

GOP fires back: White House did not tell us about reading Abdulmutallab his rights

Where did Obama find such intept people to place in his Administration? For John Brennen to say Republicans knew was stretching it a lot. Guess Republicans now have to become mind readers as well when dealing with this Administration so they know what they meant to say.

Brennan calls the Ranking Republican on Intelligence and doesn't tell him about mirandizing Abdulmulttallab which might lead to the assumption he didn't tell the Democrat Chairman of House Intelligence either. Did he?

We live in dangerous times that seem to be getting more dangerous by the day with the inept group of people in the White House on intelligence. First they cannot connect the dots and then Brennan comes out with his weasel worded statement that you are left with asking what is he saying. Making intelligence calls on an unsecure cell phone on this important breach of security brings more worry they don't have a clue.

GOP fires back: White House did not tell us about reading Abdulmutallab his rights
By: Byron YorkChief Political Correspondent02/07/10 2:24 PM EST

Republican lawmakers are denying a charge made by top White House counterterrorism official John Brennan that they were briefed about -- and did not object to -- the decision to offer full American constitutional rights to accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

On "Meet the Press," Brennan said that on Christmas night, just hours after Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253, Brennan called GOP Senators Mitch McConnell and Christopher Bond, as well as Republican Representatives John Boehner and Peter Hoekstra, and told them that Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody. "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point," Brennan said. "They didn't say, Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?"

Each of the lawmakers strongly denies Brennan's account. A spokesman for McConnell says, "During a brief call from the White House, Sen. McConnell was given a heads up that Abdulmutallab was in custody, but little else. He wasn’t told of the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab."

A spokesman for Boehner says, "On an unclassified/non-secure call to Boehner's cell phone that was very short, John Brennan informed Boehner that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was in custody. The call imparted no other substantive information and Brennan did not inform Boehner that the administration had read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights." And Bond released a statement saying that Brennan "never told me any of plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber -- if he had I would told him the administration was making a mistake."

In a conversation Sunday afternoon, Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, angrily denied Brennan's statement. The possibility of Mirandizing Abdulmutallab "never came up" in a call that Hoekstra describes as a "quick update." Hoekstra recalls Brennan calling between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Christmas, which would have been before Abdulmutallab was informed of his rights. "I think I talked to Brennan before they did it," Hoekstra says. "He could have told me that, and asked me what I felt about it -- but he didn't."

Hoekstra says if Brennan had brought up the subject of Miranda rights, then he, Hoekstra, would have discussed the issue with legal counsel from the Intelligence Committee. "If Brennan had called and said, 'Congressman, we're contemplating a legal strategy here,'" Hoekstra says, "the first thing I would have done is call up…my legal counsel and some other people and said, 'Hey, is this a sound strategy or not?' It never came up."

All the lawmakers describe Brennan's call as being very short; one recalls it as less than a minute. And all describe it as a heads-up, and not a briefing or an exchange of views.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Washington Examiner

Today is SUPER BOWL XLIV Sunday!

Kick back, relax, eat, drink, and enjoy the festitivites leading up to tonight's Super Bown game between the Saints and the Colts as you hear from some of the best authorities on the NFL explain what you are about to see from both teams. This over analyzed game comes one day after the seven new NFL Hall of Fame inductees were announced:

Jerry Rice
NFL's all-time leader in receptions, receiving yards and total touchdowns. ... Three Super Bowl rings with 49ers.

Emmitt Smith
Ran for an NFL-record 18,355 yards with 164 rushing touchdowns. ... Three Super Bowl rings with Dallas. (Emmitt joins Troy and Michael as part of the Cowboy triplets in the Hall of Fame)

Russ Grimm
Pro Bowl guard for Redskins' famed 'Hogs' offensive line. ... Member of three Super Bowl-winning teams.

Rickey Jackson
Six-time Pro Bowl linebacker in 13 seasons with Saints. ... Member of Super Bowl-winning 49ers in '94.

Dick LeBeau
Made 62 interceptions in 14 seasons as Lions defensive back. ... Became an innovative defensive coordinator.

Floyd Little
Amassed more than 12,000 all-purpose yards and scored 54 TDs as a running back for the Broncos.

John Randle
Pro Bowl defensive tackle registered 137½ sacks in 14-year career with Minnesota and Seattle

Festivities are already under way on TV and now it is time to pick our winner of the Super Bowl. It came down to basics as neither of these teams are our favorite team so we decided there was only one measure for us to choose our picks. Which team had Sooner players? Saints won 3-0 thus getting our nod to win the game:

24-21 Saints

Time to put politics on the back burner and enjoy what many think will be one of the better Super Bowls.

More Spin on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab by John Brennan, Obama Counterterrorism Official

Unfortunately, we cannot write what we are thinking about Mr. Brennan. Senator Bond's comment below has already pointed out that John Brennan never said a word about 'mirandizing' this terrorist. Guess Republicans were supposed to channel what Brennan was saying and draw their own conclusions.

Brennan needs to step down after this fiasco when he didn't even tell the Republicans he contacted they had or were going to mirandize this individual. Guess they wanted bi-partisan political cover for the decision to Mirandize but Brennan left out an important part in the discussion.

Lawmakers should have been the last to be called and only briefed on what was happening not trying to get them to agree to something without all the facts. Obama's picks for office are turning out to be disasters. You can add John Brennan to Disaster list.

Is anyone in charge in the White House? Do you feel safer with this group in charge now? We sure don't!

Thanks to Byron York for getting the facts out for everyone to draw their own conclusion including the comments from Senator Bond.

White House: Top GOP leaders didn't object to reading Abdulmutallab his rights
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
02/07/10 11:42 AM EST

Top Obama counterterrorism official John Brennan is blasting Republican lawmakers, accusing them of hypocrisy and of making a "political football" of the administration's decision to grant full American constitutional rights to accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Appearing on "Meet the Press," Brennan said that on Christmas night, just hours after Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253, Brennan called top Republican lawmakers, telling them that Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody. "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point," Brennan said. "They didn't say, Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?"

Here is Brennan's full statement, beginning with a question from NBC's David Gregory:

GREGORY: When you briefed some Republicans about how he was going to be treated, were they on board with the administration's decision?

BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond, I spoke to Representatives Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in FBI custody, that Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in FBI custody means that there's a process that you follow, as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point. They didn't say, Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized? They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we would keep them informed, and that's what we did. So there's been quite a bit of an outcry after the fact, where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government, that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes.

I'm trying to get reaction from some of the lawmakers who were contacted, but it's not clear how strong Brennan's point is. He says he told the Republicans that Abdulmutallab "was cooperating at that point," which suggests that Brennan called the lawmakers before Abdulmutallab stopped talking. It is not clear whether he then re-called them to say that, after a 50-minute interrogation, Abdulmutallab was no longer cooperating. It also appears that Brennan relied on the lawmakers to surmise that Abdulmutallab had been given the Miranda warning, since they were told that he was in FBI custody. And it's not clear whether the lawmakers knew there was no high-value detainee interrogation group to question Abdulmutallab. (Even the Director of National Intelligence didn't know that when he testified at a recent Senate hearing.)

Nevertheless, Brennan seems angry about Republican criticisms of the handling of Abdulmutallab. What is less clear is just what the administration told the lawmakers about it.

UPDATE: Sen. Bond responds, saying Brennan "never told" him of the plan to Mirandize Abdulmutallab. Bond's entire statement:

Brennan never told me any of plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber -- if he had I would have told him the administration was making a mistake. The truth is that the administration did not even consult our intelligence chiefs, as DNI Blair testified, so it's absurd to try to blame Congressional leaders for this dangerous decision that gave terrorists a five week head start to cover their tracks.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/White-House-Top-GOP-leaders-didnt-object-to-reading-Abdulmutallab-his-rights-83756337.html#ixzz0esEsitLi

Obama Budget Raises Small Business Tax Rate

Leave it to Obama and his Administration to raise taxes on small business owners at the same time they are touting how they are looking out for them. Word to the wise when Obama starts trying to help your group -- run away as fast as you can. With help like this, people will lose jobs or decide to shut down their business if they have to pay almost 50% in taxes like is in this Obama Budget for small business.

The Obama Budget From Michelle Fields
Friday, February 5, 2010

President Obama is touting all the advantages his budget has for small businesses. In particular, he's talking about using TARP funding (supposedly temporary, to be paid back to taxpayers) for small business lending.

Even if you limit yourself to the tax side of things, though, there are some pro-small business crumbs in the Obama budget: small business expensing is extended, a new jobs credit is created, and small business stock is exempted from capital gains. Good things, all, to one degree or another.

But there is one bad--very bad--tax increase on the small business sector in the Obama budget. Under his plan, the top two income tax rates increase from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent. Two-thirds of small business profits pay taxes in these bracket levels. Small businesses pass their profits through to their owners, who pay income tax on them. To raise taxes on "the rich" is a laser-beam tax hike aimed at small employers.

Small business owners also have to pay the Medicare portion of the self-employment tax at the high margin. Furthermore, they will face a phaseout of their itemized deductions (Pease) and personal exemptions (PEP) under the Obama budget, unlike 2010 law.

What does that mean for the marginal tax rate on small business activity? Assuming a 5 percent state income tax rate, the calculation is the following for a sole proprietor or general partner (S-corporation owners don't have to pay Medicare tax, so it will be slightly smaller for them):

Excerpt: Read More at ATR.org

Are the F-22 and F-35 the Tip of the Iceberg for Taxpayers?

After reading this article from IBD and starting to write up comments, it hit that this is only the tip of the iceberg in the Air Force for wasting money. It is easy to spot the waste of money when we are talking about a new shiny plane like the F-22 or F-35, but what about other peripheral but extremely necessary systems that are wasting millions and millions of dollars.

Starting next week we will delve into the contracting world of the Air Force -- you will be left shaking your head, shocked, and angry to realize these are your tax dollars at work.

We are going to give you the background that has led up to this point starting in the early 90's when checks and balances pretty much were thrown out the window. Those checks and balances lie at the root of the problem that a lot of things wrong on the F-35 were not discovered a lot earlier. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem as it spans four Presidencies starting with GHW Bush to Barack Obama.

One example of this culture of 'mega and bright, shiny, and new' found its way into the Automatic Test Systems (ATS) group at the Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC). We will detail what is happening and how this one small program that is so vital to the weapons systems is wasting millions of tax dollars and planning to to turn that into the billions by their actions. In the process, they will be putting over 60 business entities out of work and hiring lots of civil service.

ATS affects every Air Force weapon system including the F-35 which was promised to have the latest and best ATS ever. Is Lockheed going to deliver that product promised in the contract or are they out of money and will have to rely on the depot?

We filed the Freedom of Information paperwork not only on the ATE but also on the F-35. We received a reply back that was extremely short on data (none) and long on half truths and arrogance on ATE and nothing on the F-35.

With over 100 years of experience between us dealing with the Air Force as military, employees, and contractors, you know when something isn't right. That is what has happened to us when the FOI answer was received.

Read this article below which is excellent, but understand this is only the tip of the iceberg. Stay tuned next week for the beginning of a series that details not the F-35 but other systems as well and how it relates to our tax dollars.

F-22 Or F-35: The Plane Truth
Feb 5, 2010

Defense: The administration decision to scrap a proven aircraft in favor of a supposedly cheaper, more flexible replacement is proving to be an expensive mistake. We may wind up defenseless and broke.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that was supposed to be America's frontline fighter for the foreseeable future is in big trouble. Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the general in charge of the program this week amid concerns of spiraling costs and program delays.

Gates also announced he is withholding $614 million in fees from the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin. Daniel J. Crowley, one of Lockheed Martin's project managers, has acknowledged that the program is running at least six months behind schedule.

Gates was questioned about the program at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. He said he was unaware of a report by a special Pentagon assessment team in late 2008 that found development of the plane could be delayed by 2 1/2 years with $16.6 billion in cost overruns. Judging by his decisions, he is not unaware that the F-35 program, designed to fill the needs of all three services, is in trouble.

After hearing Gates' testimony, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said: "I'm still concerned about whether the services will get the (Joint Strike Fighters) when they need them."
He's right to be concerned: Further program delays will drive up per-unit costs, the wings are literally falling off our F-15s and F-16s, and the administration has killed further production of the F-22 Raptor. With what will we fight?

We've seen this one-size-fits-all, on-the-cheap procurement policy before. The 1960s saw the development of the TFX (Tactical Fighter Experimental), later the F-111, which was supposed to fill all requirements from being a land-based fighter-bomber to a carrier-based aircraft. It wound up too heavy to be a carrier jet and not fast or agile enough to be in a dogfight. Other aircraft had to be procured to fill those needs.

Production of the F-22 Raptor was capped at 187 in the defense cuts slated for the fiscal 2010 budget, with the last aircraft slated to be delivered in late 2011 or early 2012. It was felt we couldn't afford both an F-22 dedicated to air superiority and the F-35, even though the latter is vastly inferior in both air-to-air combat and ground-defense penetration.

The Raptor is perhaps the only plane that could evade the sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile defense system Russia has contracted to sell Iran. "Only the F-22 can survive in airspace defended by increasingly capable surface-to-air missiles," declares Air Force Association President Mike Dunn.

Source: IBD