Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
unhappycamper's Journal
Veterans groups find VA budget lackingBy Rick Maze - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday Feb 3, 2010 15:30:48 EST A Thursday hearing on funding for federal veterans program will focus on how much of an increase is enough. The Obama administration on Monday unveiled a $125 billion Veterans Affairs Department budget request for fiscal 2011 that includes funding increases of 27 percent for benefits and 8.5 percent for medical care accounts. VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, who will defend the budget before the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said the plan attempts to make improvements to speed disability claims, end homelessness and make it easier for veterans to access services, while also trying to transform how the VA does businesses. Appearing at the same hearing will be representatives of major veterans groups who have produced their own version of the budget — known as the Independent Budget — which concludes that VA’s $60.3 billion discretionary budget, covering everything but the payment of benefits, is $1.2 billion short. The single biggest discrepancy between the Obama and Independent budgets is a $3.3 billion disagreement over whether VA will be able to cover some of its medical care costs by collecting money from private insurers for patients who are not being treated for service-connected conditions. Rest of article about stiffing veterans at: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/02/mili...
McKeon will blast Obama’s defense policyBy Rick Maze - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday Feb 3, 2010 17:33:30 EST The House Armed Services Committee’s ranking Republican will lay into President Obama’s national security strategy in a Thursday speech. “A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California will say in a speech to be delivered to the Heritage Foundation, according to an advance copy obtained by Military Times. “This is an outcome we cannot accept. America in decline is not the type of change the American people signed up for, nor is it a change we should believe in.” In the speech, McKeon calls for a bigger defense budget — he does not give a specific amount — and warns of a “capability gap” that could “lead to hollow contingency plans and could embolden adversaries.” The $708 billion 2011 defense budget proposed Monday by the Obama administration represents a 3.4 percent increase over the 2010 budget. But after adjusting for inflation, the increase is only 1.4 percent over current spending, which McKeon says would force reductions in future weapons programs to pay for current operations. He is concerned about a forecast predicting that weapons programs, which make up 35 percent of the current defense budget, will be squeezed to 24 percent by 2020. Rest of article at: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/02/mili... / unhappycamper comment: Well Buck, let's take a look at some of the shit the pentagon has been spending money on the last eight years:
$5+ billion dollars:
$1.4 billion dollars:
$600 + million dollars:
$704 million dollars:
$355 million dollars:
$239 million dollars:
$1.1 million dollars a year:
$89,000 dollars:
$400:
Guam governor asks U.S. to delay military buildup By Teri Weaver , Stars and Stripes Online edition, Friday, January 29, 2010 TOKYO — Guam’s governor on Thursday asked the U.S. military to delay its plans to move more than 9,000 troops to the island. In a subsequent news release on Friday, Gov. Felix Camacho said he thought extending the construction timeline would lessen the overall impact on the island. He did not offer specifics, other than to say the buildup should extend beyond 2014. “There is support of the relocation of U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam and overall support for the U.S. armed services,” Camacho wrote to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus in a letter dated Jan. 28. “However, we must not overlook the reality that we have a fragile territorial economy, possess a limited amount of financial resources and lack the capacity to absorb the impacts of 20 years worth of growth in a five-year time frame.” The request is not meant to signal an overall decrease in Camacho’s support for the project, according to the governor’s spokeswoman Charlene Calip. Rest of article at: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section...
 Ambassador John Roos speaks Friday at Waseda University in Tokyo, where he made a case for the importance of the U.S.-Japan security alliance as the core of security in the region. “Make no mistake about it – the stakes are high,” Roos said before the packed auditorium in the school’s International Conference Center. “Our alliance is the critical stabilizing force in this area of the world.”U.S. ambassador stresses need for troops on Okinawa By Teri Weaver, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition, Sunday, January 31, 2010 TOKYO — The Marines stationed on Okinawa might be the least understood of the nearly 50,000 U.S. troops serving throughout Japan, according to the United States’ top diplomat here in a Friday speech to explain to Japanese the importance of the military alliance. “But in reality, it’s among the most critical of the forces we deploy in both peacetime and in the unlikely event of conflict,” Ambassador John Roos asserted Friday in a speech before students and faculty at Waseda University in Tokyo. Those Marines are the region’s first responders by air and ground, Roos continued as he made his case for U.S. troops in Japan. As China’s military spending grows and as North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs continue, Roos said, it’s up to the United States and Japan to maintain security in the area. “Make no mistake about it — the stakes are high,” Roos said before the packed auditorium in the school’s International Conference Center. “Our alliance is the critical stabilizing force in this area of the world.” Rest of article at: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section...
 Demonstrators hold up anti-U.S. bases slogans as some 6,000 people gather at a rally protesting against a U.S. Marine base stationed on the southern island of Okinawa, in Tokyo Saturday. The slogans written in Japanese read: "We don't need Futenma base," in red, and "We refuse new Henoko base," in blue.Protest held in Tokyo against US military presence By JAY ALABASTER Associated Press Writer TOKYO (AP) -- Thousands of protesters from across Japan marched Saturday in central Tokyo to protest the U.S. military presence on Okinawa, while a Cabinet minister said she would fight to move a Marine base Washington considers crucial out of the country. Some 47,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Japan, with more than half on the southern island of Okinawa. Residents have complained for years about noise, pollution and crime around the bases. Japan and the U.S. signed a pact in 2006 that called for the realignment of American troops in the country and for a Marine base on the island to be moved to a less populated area. But the new Tokyo government is re-examining the deal, caught between increasingly adamant public opposition to American troops and its crucial military alliance with Washington. On Saturday, labor unionists, pacifists, environmentalists and students marched through central Tokyo, yelling slogans and calling for an end to the U.S. troop presence. They gathered for a rally at a park - under a banner that read "Change! Japan-U.S. Relations" - for speeches by civil leaders and politicians. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has repeatedly postponed his decision on the pact, with members of his own government divided on how to proceed. Last week he pledged to resolve the conundrum by May, just before national elections. Rest of article at: http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stories/A/AS...
Fight over tainted water centers on health careBy Rick Maze - Staff writer Posted : Thursday Jan 28, 2010 21:13:35 EST A decades-old dispute over exposure to contaminated ground water at Camp Lejuene, N.C., exploded Thursday before a Senate committee into a battle over whether the Veterans Affairs Department or Defense Department should be responsible for providing health care for affected families and ended with a threat to freeze all of the Navy Department’s civilian leadership nominations. The fight revolves around draft legislation approved by the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee that authorizes health care for dependents who were exposed to environmental hazards at Camp Lejuene over a 30-year period and another group of dependents exposed to hazards at Atsugi Naval Air Facility from 1983 until about 2001. Additionally, the bill creates a process that could someday lead to health benefits for people exposed to environmental hazards at other military bases. The chief question about the legislation is who ought to be responsible for providing the health care. The bill puts the Defense Department and its Tricare health insurance program in charge, something that doesn’t sit well with Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, the committee’s top Republican. “It is unacceptable to me to put these people in the hands of the Department of Defense,” Burr said, complaining that the military has refused for decades to accept responsibility for contamination. “It is absurd. It is insane.” Rest of article at: http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/01/m...
House panel: Navy could seek fleet funding helpBy Philip Ewing - Staff writer Posted : Thursday Jan 21, 2010 6:00:55 EST The Navy will never afford the fleet it wants, its new European ballistic missile defense mission and a new class of ballistic-missile subs, defense experts told a House panel Wednesday — but it could try to get other parts of the government to pay for them.Two congressional shipbuilding experts and a high-profile defense analyst told the seapower subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee that a good strategy for the Navy might be to arrange for some of its big-ticket items to be funded elsewhere in the labyrinthine federal budget, rather than from the same pool of money the service gets each year to build ships.The cost of designing and building a replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine could vacuum up so much of the Navy’s regular shipbuilding budget — as much as half, according to one forecast — it could barely afford anything else by the middle of the century, observers worry. In answering lawmakers’ questions, defense analyst Loren Thompson gave the example of how the U.S. buys nuclear weapons, which are funded by the Department of Energy, even though they’re actually fielded aboard Air Force bombers or Air Force and Navy missiles. The Navy could make a similar case that it needs separate, strategic funding for the estimated $85 billion it will cost to replace Ohio-class boomers, Thompson said, which would leave its main yearly shipbuilding account free to build the rest of the fleet. “If (the submarine known as SSBN(X)) were funded as a separate priority, we’d probably get a better outcome,” he said. “If we were to do that, while leaving the planned shipbuilding budget at its current level, it would probably solve most of our forward shipbuilding problems.” Rest of article at: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/01/navy... / unhappycamper comment: So the plan is to suck the economic life out of other parts of the US budget? Comeon Guys. You're already getting a trillion dollars a year for your toys and occupations. Enough.
Report slams U.S. for building power plant Afghans can't runBy Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 WASHINGTON — A $300 million power plant in Afghanistan paid for with U.S. tax dollars was an ill-conceived and mismanaged project that the Afghan government can't afford to switch on now that it's almost finished, a watchdog agency has found.
The project in Kabul has ballooned $40 million over budget and is a year behind schedule because of missteps by the American contractors and the U.S. government, according to an audit released Wednesday by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.If the plant ever runs to full capacity, it could provide tens of thousands of Afghans in the Kabul region with electricity, which would be an achievement in a country in which only 10 percent of the population has it. Even when the plant is completed in March, however, the Afghan government is unlikely to be able to pay the millions of dollars for diesel fuel that's needed to power the plant and maintain it, the auditors concluded. The U.S. Agency for International Development has agreed to pay for the fuel temporarily."USAID may face the difficult decision of whether to continue funding the plant's operations or terminating U.S. involvement with the project and placing the plant's future operation at risk," the report says. Rest of article at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/82667... unhappycamper comment: At $400 per gallon, that's gonna be some pricey electricity.
Read all 46 pages of the report here. U.N. report lays bare culture of corruption in Afghanistan By Geoff Ziezulewicz, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Wednesday, January 20, 2010 LONDON — Bribes and kickbacks paid to local Afghan government and security officials are equivalent to roughly a quarter of the war-torn country’s legitimate gross domestic product, according to a U.N. report released Tuesday. In all, Afghans paid $2.5 billion over the past year in bribes and other illicit payments to everyone from government officials to policemen, the report states. Throw in the $2.8 billion made off the country’s drug trade, and that’s tantamount to roughly half of Afghanistan’s GDP. The report was based on a U.N. survey of 7,600 people in 12 provincial capitals and 1,600 villages across Afghanistan. It was conducted from late 2008 to late 2009. In general, 59 percent of respondents regard corruption as the biggest problem in their everyday lives, ahead of security and unemployment, according to the report by the U.N.’s Office of Drugs and Crime. While a patronage system has long existed in Afghan culture, the instances of bribery and the money involved have increased as the country’s drug trade exploded in recent years, Antonio Maria Costa, UNODC’s executive director, said Tuesday during a forum at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank. Rest of article at: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section...
Out of boredom I was watching the 20th Anniversary showing of Pretty Woman last nite. Since I haven't seen it for 10 years or so it was interesting. When Richard Gere's shitball lawyer was going after Ralph Bellimy's ship building company, Gere wanted to reach out to a Senator on the Appropriations Committee and put a hold on the $375 million that was coming Bellimy's company. So what was that $375 million for? A contact to build 10 destroyers.Imagine that. $37.5 million dollars to build a destroyer. For Uncle Sam's Navy. Color me surprised. Let's fast forward to 2008 when the first two DDG-1000 destroyers were built. These two destroyers came in at $10.5 billion dollars. Yup, you heard it right. Roughly $5.25 billion per destroyer. That's about 1,500 times more expensive than those 1990 destroyers. Needless to say, these two pigs in a pole will most likely be the last we ever see of the Zumwalt-class destroyers. Or our $10.5 billion dollars. The Navy went back to building DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers which were considerably cheaper than $5+ billion a copy. Now to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke... Development In 1980 the United States Navy initiated design studies with seven contractors. By 1983 the number of competitors had been reduced to three; Bath Iron Works, Todd Shipyards and Ingalls Shipbuilding.<7> On 3 April 1985 Bath Iron Works received a US$321.9 million contract to build the first of class, USS Arleigh Burke. <11> Gibbs & Cox was awarded the contract to be the lead ship design agent.<12> The total cost of the first ship was put at US$1.1 billion, the other US$778 million being for the ship's weapons systems. <11> She was laid down by the Bath Iron Works at Bath, Maine, on 6 December 1988, and launched on 16 September 1989 by Mrs. Arleigh Burke. The Admiral himself was present at her commissioning ceremony on 4 July 1991, held on the waterfront in downtown Norfolk, Virginia. So. The destroyer currently being built costs around $1 billion or so, which is 26.5 (or so) times more expensive than the 1990 destroyers. Ka Ching. So what can you buy these days for $37.5 million? Not much. The two LCS ships we have cost $600+ million and $704 million each. Ka Ching. Each of the two submarines we build each and every year cost $2.8 billion dollars a pop. Ka Ching. The new Ford-class aircraft carrier costs $11.5 billion sans people or airplanes. Ka Ching. F/A-18 fighter bombers cost $68 million a pop. Ka Ching. MV-22 Ospreys cost $70 million a pop. Ka Ching. National Security Cutters cost $536 million a pop. Ka Ching. F-22 Raptors cost $355 million a pop. Ka Ching. F-35 Lightnings cost $239 million a pop. Ka Ching. Don't forget it cost us (you and me) $1 million dollars per boot on the ground in Afghanistan per year. Ka Ching. The cost of delivered gas in Afghanistan costs around $400 dollars per gallon. Ka Ching. And now you have a good idea why we are spending almost a trillion dollars a year on the Department of Defense War.
Troops’ deployment burden unprecedentedBy Gregg Zoroya - USA Today Posted : Thursday Jan 14, 2010 5:33:32 EST WARDAK PROVINCE, Afghanistan — Army Staff Sgt. Bobby Martin Jr. has been fighting insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan longer than the entire three years the Korean War lasted. At age 34 and finishing a fourth combat tour, he has seen five of his men killed since 2003. Four died this year, including two on Martin’s birthday in May. Thirty-eight cumulative months in combat have left him with bad knees, aching shins and recurring headaches from a roadside blast, ailments he hides from his soldiers. ~snip~ For many, the fighting seems without end, a fatalism increasingly shared by most Americans. A USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted late last week found that 67 percent believe the U.S. will constantly have combat troops fighting somewhere in the world for at least the next 20 years. President Obama is sending 30,000 more troops here, expanding a war that by the end of 2010 will be the nation’s longest. ~snip~ With a growing number of injured or wounded soldiers, painkillers are now the most abused drug in the Army. One in four GIs admit to illicitly using narcotic medication during a 12-month period, according to a 2008 Pentagon health survey. Rest of article at: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/01/gns_...
Soldiers, kin face cuts in base servicesBy Kristin M. Hall - The Associated Press Posted : Sunday Jan 10, 2010 8:37:28 EST FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. — Soldiers and their families on Army posts around the country could see cutbacks in trash pickup, lawn-mowing and other services as the military tries to hold down non-war spending while escalating the fight in Afghanistan.
Even as total defense spending rises, the portion of the Army budget dedicated to running its bases is down 20 percent this year, according to figures provided to The Associated Press by an Army official who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about them.
The budgets for individual bases are not yet final. But the proposed cuts vary in size and run as deep as 40 percent at some major installations, including Fort Campbell, according to the figures.
Fort Campbell, the home of the 101st Airborne Division, is considering eliminating lawn-mowing and janitorial services and shortening hours at recreation centers, Fort Campbell spokeswoman Kelly Tyler said. But that may not be enough, she said.
Some members of the military are worried money will be pulled from programs that help spouses and children cope with soldiers' repeated tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.Rest of article at: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/01/ap_a... / unhappycamper comment: Whatever happened to 'Support Our Troops'?
U.S. convoy's driving questioned in wreck that kills IraqisBy Hannah Allam | McClatchy Newspapers Posted on Wednesday, January 6, 2010 HILLAH, Iraq — Dazed and blood-spattered, an Iraqi woman stumbled among the bodies of her relatives Wednesday on a strip of highway south of Baghdad where a U.S. military convoy had struck a passenger van in a deadly accident. Badriya Hussein whispered prayers over the blanket-covered bodies and then looked at the stricken American soldiers standing nearby. "Why?" she asked. "Why?" Iraqi forces and witnesses at the scene said the U.S. convoy was driving in the wrong lane when the vehicles collided, killing five members of one family and injuring seven more Iraqis and three American soldiers. The 41st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, which is part of the Oregon National Guard, disputes that its convoy was in the wrong lane, calling the incident a tragic accident. Even if the military's version proves to be true, the damage is done, however. Iraqi TV stations and wire services immediately reported that Americans driving on the wrong side of the road had caused the fatal crash, with one channel inexplicably bumping the death toll to 19. Rest of article at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/81776...
Replicating the Vietnam finale!The Nation By Khalid Iqbal | Published: January 4, 2010 A widely known reality that it is the Taliban (read Neo-Viet Cong) who rule Afghanistan outside the Presidential Palace and self-preserving fortified abodes of the occupation forces, has now been reconfirmed via a NATO source which has stated, "Taliban have their shadow governors in all but one province of Afghanistan." Yet, President Barack Obama laboured hard, at West Point, only a month ago that "Afghanistan is not another Vietnam." In the same vein, the other high marks of his speech were commitment for a speedy and effective employment of 'Surge II' and also the announcement about the withdrawal timeline. Right at the outset, Surge II seems to be losing steam in terms of intensity and focus. Indications are that the envisaged timeframe for the complete induction of 30,000-strong contingent is expected to drag on. And the last contingent would not be fielded before November, against the initially envisaged timeline of August. Time lag reinforces the perception that the American war potential is overstretched and is unable to take further load without resorting to draft. Another option is to recycle into Afghanistan the troops who would be withdrawn from Iraq. The later line of action appears to be the likely option. It is feared that the troops shortfall for Surge II may be made up by inducting additional air effort, especially the unmanned component; the notorious drones. As and when Surge II is operationalised, it would double the presence of occupation boots. Almost an equal number of followers and contractors could have come as a bonus. Moreover, direct war spending has crossed the one trillion mark, the US economy is in a nosedive and additional appropriations for war effort may no longer be tenable without having a telling effect on the social sector budgeting. Opacity continues pertaining timeframe of various activities in terms of capacity and capability enhancement programmes. A major shock generator is the news that President Obama has not agreed to double the strength of the Afghan National Army as recommended by General Stanley McChrystal. This raises serious doubts about the US commitment towards post-withdrawal stability of Afghanistan. ~snip~ Due to foot-dragging by Pentagon, now the induction of Surge I&II largely resembles the patterns followed by President Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam and by President Gorbachev in Afghanistan, towards the end of their occupation. Thus, the end result of Obama's surges is not expected to be far different. Rest of article at: http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-new...
U.S. intelligence: 'Time is running out' in AfghanistanBy Thomas L. Day and Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 KABUL — As the U.S. and its allies try to overcome logistical hurdles and rush some 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan in 2010, intelligence officials are warning that the Taliban-led insurgency is expanding and that "time is running out" for the U.S.-led coalition to prove that its strategy can succeed. The Taliban have created a shadow "government-in-waiting," complete with Cabinet ministers, that could assume power if the U.S.-backed government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai fails, a senior International Security Assistance Force intelligence official said in Kabul, speaking only on the condition of anonymity as a matter of ISAF policy. As the Obama administration and its European allies face dwindling public and political support for the eight-year-old Afghan war, the Taliban now have what the official called "a full-fledged insurgency" and shadow governors in 33 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces, including those in the north, where U.S. and other officials had thought the Islamic extremists posed less of a threat. The Taliban's return to the northern provinces, including Baghlan, Kunduz and Taqhar — which McClatchy reported Aug. 28 — poses serious security, logistical and political problems for the U.S.-led ISAF and Karzai's government. The northern region is under the command of German forces, but they and other European contingents operate under restrictions imposed by their governments that limit offensive operations against the Taliban. Rest of article at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/81358... unhappycamper comment: Is it time to bring them home yet?
|
Profile Information unhappycamper
39507 posts Member since Wed Mar 16th 2005 MA, trotting towards fascism Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. My Forums
Democratic Underground forums
and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
