MN-02 : Kline - Penny UnWise, Pounds Foolish

Adage : "If you're not part of the solution, you must be part of the problem."

Major General Paul Monroe was called to testify before John Kline (R-MN-02) and the House Education and Labor Committee last week.
Major General Monroe was testifying on behalf of over 130 other retired generals, admirals and senior military leaders in calling on Congress to address an issue that “threatens to diminish our military strength and put our national security interests at risk. ”
In very compelling testimony, the situation was outlined :
--- At least 9 million young adults, or 27 percent of all young Americans ages 17 to 24, are too overweight to enlist. Since 1995, the proportion of candidates who failed their physical exams due to weight problems increased by a staggering 70 percent.
-- Every year, the military discharges over 1,200 first-term enlistees before their contracts are up because of weight problems; the military must then recruit and train their replacements at a cost of $50,000 for each man or woman, thus spending more than $60 million a year.
-- The journal Health Affairs reports that 80 percent of children who were overweight at ages 10-15 were obese at age 25.

Supporting these comments, former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Army Generals John M. Shalikashvili and Hugh Shelton wrote : “Our school districts need the resources to offer our children more vegetables, fruits and whole grains as well as products with less sugar, sodium, fat and calories in school cafeterias and vending machines. Yes, this will mean increasing funding for child nutrition programs. But with our nation spending at least $75 billion a year on medical expenses related to obesity, we think these steps will pay off over the long term.”

The legislation in question is H.R.5504, the Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act which is being crafted by Mr. Kline’s committee with Representative Todd Russell Platts (R-PA), ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities stating : “Given the serious fiscal challenges facing our country, we must ensure that we devote our limited resources to our nation's most urgent priorities. Providing nutritious meals and improving health standards for our nation's children, especially those most in need, are such priorities. I am pleased to join with Chairman George Miller and Chairwoman Carolyn McCarthy in sponsoring this important legislation."

However, Mr. Kline statement is less than accepting of the military’s plea : “We stand ready on this side of the aisle to reauthorize the programs and improve their effectiveness and efficiency.
What has given us pause, however, is the $8 billion price tag attached to this bill.
[SNIP]
But I hope we do not allow an important discussion about nutritional science and wellness policy reporting to detract from our larger obligation to prevent hunger and improve child nutrition responsibly.”
Mr. Kline is once again offering lip service … his job is to offer solutions … but instead he’s being an obstructionist.

First, this is not a free lunch … it will cost money … as it did when it was created as the National School Lunch Act of 1946. Then it was passed as a matter of national security – the military’s concern then was that malnourishment would render American youth unfit to defend the nation.
Mr. Kline’s using the $8 billion price tag does not acknowledge that it is actually over a ten year period, so that is $800 million a year. If $75 billion is spent on medical expenses related to obesity, then spending less than a billion should be a good preventative …sorta wisely spending a Penny today so that a Pound will not be needed tomorrow.

But if the Mr. Kline wants to find $800 million to offset it that should not really be a problem.
Here’s some suggestions.
--- Reduce payments in the Conservation Reserve Program or CRP. Few people outside of the farm belt have heard of this program, but for 25 years, CRP has been the backbone of the government’s welfare system for farmers. The program pays agriculture producers to take highly erosion-able lands out of production and plant it to some kind of cover vegetation—usually grass. The program currently covers 36 million acres or about 8 percent of all cropland.
Farmers elect to enroll in the program which pays a rental fee that averages about $50 an acre. Farmers typically sign 10 year contracts promising not to farm or even graze such lands. In 2007 the federal government paid $1.9 billion dollars to farmers and ranchers under this program -- something they should be doing anyway—which is to avoid farming highly erodible lands.

--- As Brian M. Riedl, of the Heritage Foundation wrote : “Lawmakers who are serious about fiscal restraint should consider farm subsidies one of the most justifiable places to find savings. These corporate welfare programs enrich agribusinesses and other non-farmers at the expense of family farmers, the farm economy, and taxpayers.”
Eligibility for farm subsidies is determined by crop, not by income or poverty standards. A glance at those who received farm subsidies in 2002 shows that many of them do not need federal dollars. Farm program benefits are highly concentrated in the hands of a small minority of subsidized individuals and operations, with the top 1 percent of beneficiaries claiming 17 percent of the crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005. Twelve Fortune 500 companies received farm subsidies in 2002. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance's $2.3 million farm subsidy payment was by far the largest among these companies. The farm subsidies granted to these Fortune 500 companies since 1995 are--on average--70 times larger than those granted to the median farmer.
IF you need details of this program, Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06), Tom Latham (R-IA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) can probably give you personal stories ... since they have received subsidies in the past.

--- Of course, if you don’t want to impact Ag programs, there is always the “earmarks" that Congress has requested (i.e. F-18, F-22, C-17, etc.) but Pentagon has not requested … Tom Coburn (R-OK) wrote : Not counting the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “base” Pentagon budget has increased from $407 billion in 2001 to $553 billion for 2011 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the newest US defense budget data. Over the past decade, this means a cumulative total increase of almost $1 Trillion for the base DOD budget.

Why highlight Ag and military programs for possible cuts … because Mr. Faux Fiscal Conservative, John Kline voted for the Farm Bill and Republican-sponsored “earmarks”.
“Stop the Pork” is an effective campaign slogan, but Mr. Kline’s votes do not support his rhetoric.

Mr. Kline, the military says Obesity is a national security concern … Republicans recognize it … it’s time for YOU to work for solutions instead of being the obstructionist problem. It's time to quit hiding behind this faux fiscal conservative image ... it's time to invest wisely for America's future.

MN-02 : Kline Puts Out Help Wanted Sign

Don’t want to wait for the full effects of the healthcare reform and get a job in an industry that’s growing ...

In fact, remember when Senator Chuck Grassley was asked by a constituent how he can get the same kind of health care options members of Congress have, Mr. Grassley said “You can. Just go work for the federal government.”

Good News ! John Kline’s hiring !

Scheduler/Executive Assistant - The office of Rep. John Kline (R-MN) is seeking a D.C. Scheduler/Executive Assistant. This position is responsible for managing the Member’s DC schedule, making travel arrangements, coordinating the DC intern program, and supervising front office operations and staff. Candidates must possess meticulous attention to detail; excellent communications skills; and the ability to multitask, organize, and balance competing priorities in a fast-paced environment. Candidates must have Hill experience. Minnesota ties preferred. Salary commensurate with experience. Please send resume, and cover letter to: JobMN02@mail.house.gov.

Ah, how interesting that we keep hearing that if only government would run like a profit-making business. In today’s economy, most companies are taking every opportunity to reduce staff … attrition means reduction in staff … re-assignment of duties … carry a little extra load.

In essence, the message is : “The American people are tightening their belts and making tough decisions, and they expect the same of their elected leaders. It is time for Washington to get its priorities straight, put our fiscal house in order, and give job creators the freedom they need to put Americans back to work.” … or so said John Kline (R-MN-02) on June 4, 2010.

This really brings us to a discussion of how the Congressional staff is funded.
Of course, the answer is : You and me, the taxpayer.
But who decides how those funds are spent : The Representative.

Each member of the House of Representatives has a Member’s Reimbursement Allowance … which is basically the same amount for everyone with those with Committee leadership given additional monies. The first thing to remember is that the MRA does not have to be spent in total … in fact, Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN-01) has routinely returned monies every year … and Congressman Walz has never accepted a pay increase.
The member can essentially allocate their MRA however they want with some maximum headcount considerations.
In essence, if the Congressman wants to give out year end bonuses … that’s fine
… if the Congressman wants to pay an “executive assistant” more than his Chief of Staff … that’s fine
… if the Congressman wants to spend it on furniture or salary, it doesn’t matter as long as it doesn’t exceed the MRA maximum.
(Oh, and don’t forget the Franked Mail privilege that members of Congress have.)

So, let’s look at Mr. Kline’s staff.
For perspective, in 2007, his total staff salary was $ 813,195; in 2008, it was $880,628; and in 2009 it was $ 943,552.
What was that about “It is time for Washington to get its priorities straight, put our fiscal house in order … ” ?

The guy you want to be is Paul Teller … who Mr. Kline paid $10,000 to be his Executive Director for one month in April of 2009. Mr. Teller was previously employed by Mr. Kline in August 2008 for $8,000 … WOW … that’s fiscal management !

The most high profile position that many Minnesotans may actually deal with is Mr. Kline’s District Director. In 2007, he was paid $105,575.04. Fast forward to 2009, $116,151.55 … that’s over $10,000 and 10% salary increase.

In fact, reviewing the payroll data, it appears that it is not uncommon for Mr. Kline’s staff to receive “year end pay adjustments” to the tune of $2,000 to $3,000 each year … some as much as 30%.

Why Mr. Kline is accepting applications for this Scheduler/Executive Assistant is not stated in his advertisement. One would hope that this would not be a new creation … or a temporary replacement while a member of his current staff has been moved to his campaign re-election committee.
For example, using Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) as an example … her Chief of Staff Julie Quist temporarily left her Congressional assignment to work on Ms. Bachmann’s re-election campaign late in 2008 … but returned afterward … during the time that she was not on the Congressional Staff, Ms. Quist was paid as a campaign consultant by the Bachmann campaign committee. However when she returned to the Congressional staff, Ms. Quist received a one-time payroll adjustment of $6,250 … in essence, it would appear that the taxpayers paid for her lost wages. Under the MRA rules, Ms. Bachmann controls how and who she pays.

It’s funny that the winner in the second week of the Republican YouCut program was to eliminate federal pay raises. Just makes you wonder what good it would do to eliminate pay raises, when members of Congress seem to spend our monies with so much freedom.

MN-02 : Does Harvard Study Prove Kline Right About Earmarks ?

A case study in logic, goes something like this :

John Kline is a human being.
Women are human beings.
Therefore, John Kline is a woman.

If you accept that logic, then consider this ...

John Kline opposes earmarks since they “are based on a member's seniority, committee assignment or party affiliation.”
A Harvard study states that obtaining a chairmanship on a “powerful congressional committee” actually damages corporations within the states that receive these federal dollars.
Therefore, John Kline’s opposition to earmarks benefits Minnesota.

In both examples, the logic is faulty.

Yet, that is the assessment suggested in a recent Letter to the Editor proclaiming that “A new Harvard Business School study shows how John Kline’s “no earmark” policy benefits Minnesota.”

I am not sure if the writer read the Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?
report, but its basic question was “Does public sector spending complement or crowd out private sector economic activity?”
John Kline is not mentioned ... nor is his "no earmark" policy ... in fact Minnesota is barely a sidenote.

The report analyzed over 42 years of earmarks and various changes of committee chairman and determined that corporations in those states invested less in their business than they may have otherwise.
But what does that mean ?
Well, the report states … “a key feature of our data is that firm-level figures reflect capex, R&D, payout, employment, and sales growth aggregated across all operations of the firm, including divisions located in other states. … To the extent that portfolio capital has greater mobility across states than across countries, the impact of fiscal stimulus may be weaker at the state level than the national level.”
Further, the report states : “This suggests the crowding out of private investment is particularly pronounced in industries operating at a high level of capacity where competition for additional factors of production including facilities and specialized capital is expected to be strong.”
My interpretation : if labor and resources are constrained in one state, a company may increase in another state … thus the corporation may grow in total, but not necessarily in the state that received federal funds. Hence one of the reasons why the military industrial complex has operations in virtually every state … when “labor gets tight”, they can re-align.

The report concludes : “Our results demonstrate that the average firm retrenches in the face of government spending shocks, but it is certainly possible (and perhaps likely) that some individual firms do in fact benefit from these spending shocks.”

The report uses as an example that Alabama had not had a chairman of a powerful committee until Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) came into power. For example, Shelby’s $15 million earmarks went specifically to the construction of housing and facilities for lower income families … the result was that another Alabama company that produced prefabricated homes saw a decline in activity.
Now, is that bad ?
Do you want mobile homes in your community or brick and mortar homes … plus the mobile home business has had significant changes in profitability and demand caused by a number of other factors (most notably interest rates), so it is difficult to know what the demand in Alabama would have been without Shelby’s earmark.

What the report really confirmed is something that has been widely reported – the largest of recipients of earmarks are Hawaii, Alaska, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Alabama: All states which had powerful congressional chairmen over the sample period.

Thus the problem is not earmarks, but that certain individuals look first and foremost to their state and not to the overall country.

It’s the people that are the problem … not necessarily the earmark process. Yes, so Richard Shelby (R-AL) is a problem … there are many examples that taxpayers should be concerned. Senate appropriator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). then-Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), and Robert Byrd (D-WV) have created imbalances.
But if I think of long-serving Senators that could impact this situation, I think of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, Democrats representing Massachusetts and John McCain and John Kyl, Republicans representing Arizona. In terms of earmark dollars, Massachusetts comes in at 27 yet based on population it should be 13 ( in effect a negative 14) while Arizona is #25 in terms of earmark dollars and #21 in population (a negative 4) … so there are examples of Senators that are not abusing the system. FYI : Minnesota is #37 in earmark dollars while #20 in terms of population ( and coming in second to Indiana as having the worst relationship.)

Returning back to the LTE writer’s assessment, NO, Mr. Kline’s “no earmark” policy DOES NOT benefit Minnesota … if Alabama is not building mobile homes, that does not mean that Minnesota is.
What it does mean is that certain states are getting more federal investment than we are.

The real question is : Is there a better way to ensure that the dollars are invested for the greatest need and purpose ?

John Kline’s “no earmark” policy does not address that … in some ways, the analogy would be that Honor Students are punished when other students abuse the system … the report clearly shows that Minnesota is not abusing the system, yet our dollars are helping other states.

There are some better approaches.
When will the Republicans put some serious fiscal conservatives like Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on the Appropriations Committee ? He has been repeatedly rejected by GOP leadership yet that would be the first step in stopping wasteful government spending.
How about rotating committee assignments, so that no one holds a committee chairmanship for longer than two years ?
How about a maximum amount that any Senator or Representative can request ?
How about getting Senate Republicans to reach agreement with House Republicans on what their earmark policy will be ? Who will control Senators Shelby, Cochran, et al ?
How about Enhanced Rescission Authority legislation ?

Or, something that Mr. Kline could do without the Republican Party approval … following the Tim Walz Transparency process … request input from constituents … give a hard review … and then report back what you will recommend.

But doing nothing, is just that … Mr. Kline your “no earmark” policy does nothing.

All that said, Mr. Kline has opposed earmarks that benefit Minnesota, yet he has been a strong supporter of earmarks that the Pentagon does not want … C-17 cargo plane, F-22 fighter, F-18 fighter, or even alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

In the end, let’s ask Mr. Kline : How will your crusade change the process ?

MN-02 : Kline Fighting Yesterday’s War with Borrowed Dollars

One of the most challenging questions for Congressional candidates to answer is :
With the U.S. facing a staggering national debt while still feeling the effects of a slow global economic recovery and an aging population that is dependent upon entitlement programs, how should the military budget be spent ? Or, a better question, what’s the best investment to protect the country from a stateless enemy ?

To put that question in proper perspective, the answer should be based on what’s working today and what will work in the future … not what has been our past experience.

Yesterday’s headline was that Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, who has been described as Al-Qaeda’s #3 and believed to be the head of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, has been killed in a drone strike in Pakistan’s tribal area. A website linked to al-Qaida also acknowledged his death.

Predator drones have been used extensively by the CIA to assassinate alleged al-Qaeda and Taliban militants in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan. The CIA does not comment on its top-secret program, though the New York Times reported this month that the intelligence agency believes it has killed more than 500 militants in the past two years. Last year the CIA’s director, Leon Panetta, called the Predator drone program “the only game in town”.
Each army Predator costs $6 million “without payload”. Col Gregory Gonzalez, project manager for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, says drones are equivalent to the use of radar in the second World War, or helicopters in Korea and Vietnam : “They’ve been funding us really well, because they know there’s a bang for the buck.” Col Gonzalez says.
The technology is becoming more accessible. Forty-three nations are building military robots, as are some non-state actors, such as the Lebanese Hizbullah.

Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley reports the transfer of personnel, weapons acquisition dollars, training assets and other resources from conventional to unmanned aircraft is “being institutionalized and will stay with us for years to come.”
Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli said that unmanned aircraft are not just a fad, “They have forever changed the way the Army operates.” The “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap” outlines the Army’s plan to develop its own fleet of UAVs over the next 25 years, when all aviation missions are slated to transition to predominantly unmanned. Some missions, such as cargo resupply, will be performed mostly autonomously, while others, like attack, will be performed mostly by remote operators.

So, to the military, drones are the future … so why are House Republicans still fighting for yesterday's weapons … building up the military for the last war ?

Case in point : the Air Force's most advanced and most expensive fighter, the F-22 has never been flown in combat. Yet, John Kline (R-MN-02) supported an “earmark” offered by Rob Bishop (R-UT) for eight additional F-22 … the cost to produce these would be $2.8 Billion . Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put a 187-plane cap on the program and does not think we need anymore. Mr. Kline defended his support as this was a “good jobs bill” (at least for Lockheed Martin).

Another example is Boeing’s C-17 … Gates said the 205 C-17s that are already in the fleet or under construction are enough, and he included no money in the 2010 defense budget for additional C-17s. But the House and Senate added $2.7 billion to a war-funding bill to buy eight C-17s and seven smaller C-130J cargo planes.

Or the FY2011 Navy budget that was altered by Todd Akin (R-MO), whose district is near Boeing’s defense headquarters in St. Louis, to approve 30 F/A-18 E and F Super Hornet strike fighters which is eight more than requested.

Or, the change to Defense Budget for an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter which both Presidents Bush and Obama Administrations do not want.

Mr. Kline is clear … spending on military programs gets a blank check … even if it spent to fight the last war. Mr. Kline is planning a war against the past adversaries; today’s enemies are not nation states but stateless terrorists. When Boeing, General Electric and Lockheed Martin win, the taxpayers’ do not … even if it means monies for Mr. Kline’s re-election (i.e. Boeing gave $7,500 for his campaign and $5000 to his Security and Freedom PAC.)

Conversely, DFL-endorsed candidate Dan Powers offers a more reasoned approach, “we can’t afford to do that. If we can retool the way we use our military, we can put a lot of money towards infrastructure needs, towards becoming energy independent. There are so many other things we can do to invest in our own country".

Mr. Kline borrowing will grow the national debt needlessly and not help us defend against the enemy that is waging war against us.

MN-02 : John Kline’s (and Minnesota’s) Missed Opportunity

The explosion that killed eleven workers at the British Petroleum-leased Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana has opened our eyes … to missed opportunities.

“Drill here, Drill now” may be part of the solution to America’s energy needs, but risks are now more clearly seen. That said, it is estimated that by the time that the well is capped, America will have lost the equivalent of what it consumes in 3 hours.

Our future is still the same as it was in 2005, when John Kline (R-MN-02) so proudly suggested that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was the solution … as it will take “unprecedented steps to promote greater energy conservation and efficiency and help lower energy prices for consumers.” Specifically, he mentioned it will “Provide incentives for clean coal technology and renewable energies such as biomass, wind, solar, and hydroelectricity.”

Those were the days, when Mr. Kline actually worked to address the needs of the Second District … as illustrated by his other press releases in the 30-day time period highlighted by :
Kline Announces $1,782,330 for Dakota County Hydroelectric Facility,
Kline Announces $45,600 for New Prague water system predevelopment activities.,
Kline announced a federal grant of $70,821 for the Dakota County Drug Task Force,
Kline Announces a federal grant of $222,941 for the Lakeville Fire Department,
and Kline Announces a federal grant of $11,160 for the Cottage Grove Fire Department.
Of course, today, Mr. Kline speaks of the evil of “earmarks” as they were only available based on a member's seniority, committee assignment or party affiliation yet, somehow a newcomer like Mr. Kline was able to get a return on some of the Second District taxpayer’s monies.

Mr. Kline was right in 2005 when he acknowledged the need for greater energy conservation and efficiency and help lower energy prices for consumers but like his walking away from “earmarks”, Mr. Kline seems to have walked away from helping Minnesota developing jobs in “green industries.”

The Bush Administration set goals based on the 2005 legislation, including investing to
make solar power cost-competitive with conventional sources of electricity by 2015.

And to make that happen, the Bush Administration awarded $168 Million in grants through the Solar America Initiative Funding … but Minnesota-based companies are lacking from the list.

Since then, Mr. Kline seems to have rejected solar and wind as he voted against various bills that would have helped Minnesota and the nation create jobs.

But that doesn’t mean that some of those Bush investments won’t start coming to the market. This year, solar shingles should available for new home construction. These are shingles – not the big solar panels of yesterday – and 250 shingles covering a 1,000 square feet of roof will generate 3.5 kilowatts of energy. That's renewable energy ... that's efficiency ... that's lower cost ... that's a step toward energy independence.

The concern is that even as these new products come on line, Minnesota will be left out in the cold with Mr. Kline standing in Washington.

The Second District needs someone with passion for the potential of renewable energy. Mr. Kline gave it lip service and has walked away.

Conversely, DFL-endorsed candidate, Dan Powers speaks of “energy independence” as “a goal that everyone can see. They can grab hold of it and work on it. ” Powers is an advocate for energy independence for both environmental and economic reasons. Part of the reason Powers says "we can't wait" to implement technologies which will lead towards energy independence, is that "we have so little control over our own economy... [and] our economy cannot increase without reliable and cheap energy. "

Being a contractor, Dan Powers understands that “solar shingles” maybe part of our homes futures, but that for older homes energy efficiencies can be obtained with more insulation and better windows … these types of programs were key components of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka the Obama stimulus) … which Mr. Kline opposed.
The cost for solar shingles may be an increase of $5,000 on a typical home … and some tax incentives may be necessary … but will Mr. Kline once again oppose it just as he did with the Obama stimulus ?

Mr. Kline has had too many missed opportunities … it’s time to give Dan Powers an opportunity.

Kline or Walz : Who Sides with the Pentagon and Taxpayers ?

Based on the years in the military, one would think that John Kline (R-MN-02) and Tim Walz (D-MN-01) would support the Pentagon requests … but do they ?

NO.

And what about protecting the taxpayers from unnecessary government spending ?

NO.

Actually, one does support the Pentagon and the taxpayer while one does not.

Actually, it is striking how different they are.
One is very public about professing the evils of wasteful government spending as a political election tool … only to vote (repeatedly) for “earmark” spending requested by members of his political party.
While the other promotes transparency and seeks input from his constituents for how federal dollars should be invested.

Both make monthly appearances on former First District Congressman Tim Penny’s radio program.
Being that Congressman Penny is currently Co-chair of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Robert, so naturally the discussion focuses on government spending.

Friday it was Tim Walz turn on the air and the subject matter was the previous day’s vote on an amendment offered by Congresswoman Chellie M. Pingree (D-ME-01) to prohibit any further funding for the alternate F-35 engine.
Congresswoman Pingree stated : “ In 2001, Pratt & Whitney won the award for the primary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter through a competitive bidding process. This process was set up to save millions in taxpayer dollars. Since then, Congress has authorized an astonishing $1.3 billion of unrequested funds for the development of this extra unnecessary engine. The Bush administration opposed this program. The Obama administration opposes this program. And yet if this amendment fails today, we will continue to fund a defense program that is a complete waste of money.
I could not put it any better than the Secretary of Defense put it himself: Given the many pressing needs facing our military and the fiscal challenges facing our country, we cannot afford a ``business as usual'' approach to the defense budget. Tough choices must be made by both the Department and Congress to ensure that current and future military capabilities can be sustained over time. This means programs and initiatives of marginal or no benefit, like the F136 engine, are unaffordable luxuries.”

This amendment forces a vote on whether to support an “earmark” or as the Republicans have redefined it as a “ Programmatic Request ” since for political re-election purposes, the Republicans have announced a moratorium on “earmarks”.

At stake : $485 million dollars in the FY 2011 Department of Defense budget (or to put it in prospective, 53 jets can be built for the cost of the "extra" engine.)

The argument :
On one side is the DOD and the Bush and Obama Administration (The Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force have all said they don't want it) and the performance of the current engine (394 F-35 aircraft test flights planned in the schedule to occur during 2010 have been completed with sufficient results).
On the other side is the “loser” of the original award or as one Congressman said ”let me say how proud I am of the more than 4,000 Hoosier employees of Rolls Royce who worked to develop this engine.”

The result : Congressman Walz voted with the Pentagon’s and taxpayer’s interests while Mr. Kline voted with the special interests. Overall, the Democrats wanted to eliminate this unnecessary expenditure, but because of the strong support from the Republicans, the funding stayed in the bill.

Mr. Kline has a penchant for denouncing domestic spending via the “earmark” process yet fails to acknowledge unnecessary spending authorized through his House Armed Services Committee … be it comic books or seventeen F/A-18 E and F Super Hornet strike fighters, Mr. Kline has proven to be a strong representative for the military industrial complex but not for the taxpayers. On a previous Tim Penny broadcast, Mr. Kline defended his support for Mr. Bishop's (R-UT) "earmark" for F-22 planes as a "good jobs program".

For Minnesotans this is especially hard to see Mr. Kline "waste" our taxdollars. We are struggling ... our communities are delaying replacing police cars, yet Mr. Kline fully supports building unnecessary jets.

MN-02 : Kline Opposes Earmarks But What About Programmatic Requests ?

Today’s Fuzzy Math Problem :
How does President Obama’s $548.9 billion Department of Defense FY2011 Budget become approved as a marked-up budget of $726 billion without “Earmarks” ?

Answer : “Programmatic Requests”

John Kline (R-MN-02) of the House Armed Services Committee HASC proudly issued a press release announcing “ the committee’s unanimous approval of H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY-2011”. The word “earmark was never mentioned … although Mr. Kline did congratulate himself for changes in the “the Yellow Ribbon reintegration law I championed three years ago” … a program that was funded via an “earmark”.

Ignoring “earmarks” is easy … even during a moratorium … just follow the instructions in this GOP memo that redefines what used to be called “earmarks” as Programmatic Requests : “For HASC GOP Member purposes the term “programmatic requests” has no current definition.”

The memo goes on to give a specific example : "the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, which the committee believes is a national security imperative to reduce the risk inherent in requiring the Air Force, Navy and Marines to fly a common aircraft. This broadly supported action has been included as a matter of policy, and not at the request of a single Member."

Are you familiar with the Joint Strike Fighter second engine ?
It was highlighted on ABC News last week as a $3 Billion Boondoggle and one that was mentioned in the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Pork Book earning it last year’s The Little Engine That Couldn’t Award.
CAGW writes about the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter as having “received $1.2 billion in pork since 2004. The Senate did not include any funds for the alternate engine in its version of the appropriations bill, but the House version prevailed in conference.
On February 1, 2010 at his briefing on the fiscal year 2011 DOD budget, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, “I’m fully aware of the political pressure to continue building the C-17 and to proceed with an alternate engine for the F-35, so let me be clear. I will strongly recommend that the president veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation of these two programs.”
On February 25, 2010, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell reiterated DOD’s position on the alternate engine, stating, “this money can clearly be better spent buying capabilities that our warfighters do need. This is a luxury we cannot afford.”

For someone that promotes himself as having the goal of “reducing wasteful pork-barrel spending and restoring order to America’s fractured fiscal house.”, why does Mr. Kline continue to fund a program that even President Bush gave up on ?

If only, the alternate engine was the single “Programmatic Requests” but it’s not.
As CAGW reports for last year’s DOD budget, there were “$6,056,565,000 for 35 anonymous projects. This accounted for only 2 percent of the 1,752 earmarks, but 59 percent of the $10.3 billion cost of the bill, which is more than last year’s 57 percent.”

And the C-17 that Secretary Gates referred to was also reviewed by CAWG to the tune of $2.5 Billion for the procurement of ten C–17 aircraft. “In a floor statement on September 30, 2009, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voiced his opposition to the C-17 funding: “That’s why the Administration ‘strongly objects’ to the addition of $2.5 billion in funding for these ten unrequested C-17 aircraft. The Department of Defense’s (DoD) own analyses shows that the 205 C-17s that the Air Force has or which are on order, together with the existing fleet of C-5 aircraft, are sufficient to meet the Department’s future airlift needs – even under the most stressing situations. So, I am absolutely convinced that we should not be having taxpayers put up $2.5 billion for these aircraft. Doing so not only misallocates procurement funds this year to buy expensive airplanes that are not needed, but it also imposes a continuing sustainment cost of $100 million dollars per year for every year thereafter for their operation.”

Mr. Kline is quite vocal about his opposition to “earmarks but he commonly refers to small-dollar domestic programs … and although we can all agree that “wasteful” spending must be eliminated, yet Mr. Kline fails to highlight the area that he has direct input … Congress’ appetite for military spending … just ask about the $69,880,000 for 22 projects “earmarked”by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) … and when Mr. Kline was asked about his support for Mr. Bishop’s F-22 “earmark”, Mr. Kline said it was good for jobs.

I hope that Dan Powers, the DFL endorsed candidate, takes a hard look at Defense spending. Mr. Kline will no doubt claim his military experience provides him with greater insight, yet Mr. Kline is addicted to military spending … while America is fighting ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kline’s HASC wants to raise the 286-ship fleet to 313 ships including funding for two SSN 774 Virginia-class submarines — the first time the committee has authorized two ships in one year – and $3 billion to fully fund two DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and support the restart of construction of the class.
With al Qaeda and the Taliban seeming to be headquartered in caves, why does Mr. Kline want to spend so much on ships ?