President Obama on Sequestration Cuts

Republicans continue to put big donors over our economy, national security, and America

This morning President Obama had a few words to say to Members of Congress who are on a week's recess with Sequestration looming that would give us draconian cuts to Government.  In all fairness, let me say that every last Democrat in the House voted to not go on recess in the House in order to keep working to find a solution.  Democrats, as usual, were ignored by Speaker Boehner as they went on vacation (recess) for 10 days after only working 16 days.  Bet a lot of people would like that schedule.  What would your boss say if you were facing a deadline for a major project and said "sorry, have to take next week off" - bet your boss would not be happy.


Congress is supposed to work for the American people -- to say we are not happy with Democrat Majority Leader Reid for caving to McConnell on filibuster reform or Republicans in the House and Senate is an understatement.  Boehner/McConnell can cut the crap blaming Obama for Sequestration cuts because we know who is to blame - GOP Obstructionists in the Congress who put the wealthy over what is best for the majority of the Country.  Their refusal to close loopholes to raise revenue wealthy individuals/big corporations, preferring to put it on the backs of the middle class, shows a total disregard for 99% of their constituents.  Republicans would prefer Sequestration go into effect rather then close a single loophole for the wealthy individuals and big corporations.

This article from Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast nails why the Republicans are going to be blamed not the President.  Democrat Senators have come up with a plan to void Sequestration but last word was the Congressional GOP won't even consider their ideas.  Republicans treat House Democrats like scum as if they didn't exist.  Cannot wait for the Republicans to lose control of the House in spite of their gerrymandering to keep their seats.  Republicans have the most worthless leadership in the House and Senate I have ever witnessed.  The GOP Senators are not far behind and in fact are catching up after their antics against Chuck Hagel recently and on Benghazi.

More Republican Denial
by Michael Tomasky Feb 19, 2013 4:45 AM EST 

Conservatives keep reminding everyone that the sequester was Obama’s idea. But, says Michael Tomasky, that doesn’t mean he’s to blame for the current crisis. 

Whose “idea” was the sequester, and why should it matter? My Twitter feed these last couple of weeks has been overflowing with people going beyond the usual “communist” and “idiot” name-calling that I get every day and throwing the occasional “liar” in there because I “withhold” the information that the sequester was the Obama administration’s idea. Very well, consider that nugget hereby unwithheld. Let’s grant that this is true. But it’s true only because the Republicans were holding a gun to the administration’s head—and besides, the Republicans immediately voted for it. In any case the important thing now is that outside of Fox News land, it’s an unimportant fact whose “idea” it was. The Republicans are partial owners of this idea, and as the party that now wants the cuts to kick in, they deserve to—and will—bear more responsibility for the negative impacts. 

(snip) 

All this time, and right on up to August 1, Republicans were screaming for deep budget cuts, and the administration was saying no. But the Republicans had the leverage because it actually seemed plausible they were crazy enough to push the country into default. And so at that point, at least according to Bob Woodward in his new book, Jack Lew, then the budget director and now Obama’s nominee for Treasury secretary, originally came up with the notion of sequestered cuts. Or maybe it was Gene Sperling. The White House’s idea was based on language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit-reduction act. It was also the White House’s notion that if the “trigger” was hit, what would kick in would be not only automatic budget cuts but also automatic revenue increases (an idea Republicans refused to go along with). 

So fine, the White House proposed it. It did so only after months of Republicans publicly demanding huge spending cuts and refusing to consider any revenues and acting as if they were prepared to send the nation into default over spending. In other words, this was the administration’s idea in much the way that it’s a parent’s “idea” to pay ransom to a person who has taken his child hostage. There was a gun to the White House’s head, which was the possibility of the country going into default. 

Even if administration officials proposed it, it would have remained just a proposal if those 218 Republicans hadn’t supported it. 

And then, when it was all put into legislation, it was the Republicans who passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 in the House, with 218 of them voting yes. So even if administration officials proposed it, it would have remained just a proposal if those 218 Republicans hadn’t supported it (no House Democrats backed it). Most Republicans agreed at the time that the sequestration trigger was a good thing—that it would force everyone to get together and agree to a path forward and a long-term budget deal. 

(snip) 

 The Republicans’ ace card is that they know, or they hope they know, they are not equally affected. Austere cuts will harm the economy, and the blame will fall on the president. 

Normally yes. But the majority of the people are onto them. And it sure isn’t going to be looking very responsible to people, as the March 1 sequestration deadline approaches, for Republicans to be going before the cameras and saying that the cuts are unfortunate but necessary medicine, or whatever formulation they come up with. They’ve wanted these spending reductions for two years. It hardly matters much who invented the mechanism for the cuts. What matters, as the Republicans will find out, is that the people don’t want them. 

Excerpt:  Read More from Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast

Republicans in Congress are going to take the full brunt of anger if they allow Sequestration to go through which will tank our economy and hurt the middle class in order to protect their wealthy donors by not  closing loopholes for the wealthy and big corporations.  This bunch of Republican obstructionists don't work for the American people but work for special interest starting with wealthy donors like Koch Brothers who want to do away with EPA, Lynde and Harry Bradly Foundation out of Milwaukee, and the Foundations of the Scaife Family for starters.  When you add Defense giants like Lockheed, a few major oil companies who want to keep their billions in subsidies while ripping Americans off at the pump, and the Chamber of Commerce who represents big business to the mix, it makes you realize that today's Congressional Republicans are bought for by these people/groups to represent them not the American people.

Republicans may have the money falling out of their pockets from big donors but in 2014, Democrat candidates are going to have the money to compete and an organizing campaign second to none that will be probably the largest volunteer effort ever seen.  People who have never been involved in politics are witnessing the obstructionism/racism in the Republican Party as they obstruct anything Obama suggests.  This is not going to go well for Republicans as these newcomers join the old timers to oust the GOP from leadership in the House and return the House to the People's House not the GOP House of big donors and lobbyists.

One group that Republican leaders are failing to recognize are the same Republicans who voted for Obama many of us who joined Republicans for Obama to defeat Romney.  Those ranks have swelled in recent weeks from many military/veterans and their families who were Republican until they saw the way Senate GOP treated Chuck Hagel for SecDef.  There is NO way they support any Republican in 2014.  Republicans have claimed the mantle for years as the party of national security who support our military.  Their actions say otherwise as they refused to pass a jobs bill for veterans in the GOP House, put our national security at risk with the filibuster of Chuck for Sec Def to settle grudges, and now want to cut national security along with veterans benefits with Sequestration.

Today's Republicans are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites spouting rhetoric thinking the American people are going to get on board with their obstruction because we all hate Obama. Note to Republicans - look at Obama's approval ratings and figure out there are a lot of Republicans who support this President.  Republicans refuse to acknowledge they lost the election and still think they call all the shots.  Big mistake.   If center right and centrist Republicans are thoroughly disgusted with today's hard right Republicans, why do they think that anyone except the hard right would support them?

Vote out the GOP Obstructionists in 2014!

Armed Services Senate GOP put Israel Over US on Hagel Nomination for SecDef

Senate Republicans on Armed Services spouted lies and innuendos during the confirmation hearing to try and impugn Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel 

Senator Graham (R-SC) sunk to a new low on Chuck Hagel on CNN this morning:

Graham went further Sunday and described Hagel on Fox News as a "radical."
"We're doing our job to scrutinize, I think, one of the most unqualified, radical choices for secretary of defense in a very long time," Graham said. 

I cannot believe that Graham called Hagel a radical - even McCain does not come close to going that far.  Graham is an insult to the US Senate along with Senators Inhofe (R-OK) and Cruz (R-TX).  If they think this is going to help GOP win in 2014, it is going to do the opposite.  They still don't get they lost the election and don't have a right to choose the Defense Secretary.

Republican Senators are small minded people who are acting like spoiled brats when someone disagrees with them.  They are an insult to America and reflect poorly on their position as Senators all because they hate a black man being President.  There I said it - this is about Obama being black and white Republican males of the US Senate cannot stand it as many of them come from southern states and seem to be still fighting the Civil War.  Heard it said too many times in my State not to think this is driving the GOP in the Senate/House to be obstructionists and why they refuse to work with Obama.  The Republican Party as a whole needs to grow up and act respectful of others who have different ideas or don't look like them.

Senator Hagel fought in Vietnam as enlisted, was wounded, and has always put our national security first along with the men and women of our Armed Forces. Now this same group of Armed Services Republicans joined by other Republicans are filibustering his nomination putting our national security at risk.  The Hagel nomination obstruction by Senate Republicans is the final straw for me supporting Republicans at any level in the foreseeable future, if ever.

Senate Republicans except for four (Cochran (R-MS), Collins (R-ME), Johanns (R-NE) Murkowski (R-AK)  who voted against the filibuster continuing are a disgrace to the oath they took as Senators since it seems this vote to filibuster is all about revenge against Hagel for daring to speak the truth on Iraq if you take John McCain at his word.  Frankly I think it was because Hagel didn't believe that Sarah Palin was qualified to be President who McCain chose for VP which is driving McCain revenge.  Others are after Hagel for not supporting Israel security over the best interests of the United States.  Neocons think everyone should support Israel at all costs along with perpetual war that rewards the defense industry and cost American lives.  The GOP priorities our out of whack when it comes to national security IMHO.  Must admit that Hagel earned even more of my support when his comments about Palin came out:

"I don't believe she's qualified to be President of the United States," Hagel told me. "The first judgment a potential President makes is who their running mate is--and I don't think John made a very good selection." He scoffed at McCain's attempts to portray her as an experienced politician. "To try to make the excuse that she looks out her window and sees Russia--and that she's commander of the Alaska National Guard." He added, "There is no question that this candidate is arguably the thinnest-résumé candidate for Vice-President in the history of America."

Senate Republicans filibuster of Hagel are putting our national security now at risk since Secretary of Defense Panetta left the position at noon Friday and is now an acting Sec Def until Hagel is confirmed AFTER the recess. The audacity of GOP Senators to put the recess over national security.

With American forces still fighting and dying in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda at large in Pakistan and across the Middle East, nuclear North Korea, a NATO defense ministers’ meeting next week, Republicans are sticking to their obstructionist ways over Israel. Americans have come to learn that Republicans hate this country nearly as much as they hate the President, but it is unimaginable that the party that prides itself in being adamantly pro-defense, is jeopardizing America’s national security and its troops around the globe just to show if you are not with their pro-Israel program, you are with Iran; and will not be Secretary of Defense.

Fortunately for America, the Senate Republicans are not going to defeat this nomination as several Senators have said since going on recess they will vote to allow the nomination to proceed to a 51 vote margin not 60 votes which Inhofe demands.  Maybe they don't like getting clobbered by military and friends of military telling them to allow a vote on Hagel and do it now.  Pretty good job to be a member of Congress - work 16 days and take a 10-day vacation.

While Hagel was serving in the United States Senate, he wasn't afraid to speak out when he thought President Bush was going down the wrong path on the Iraq surge.  Hagel has also called out the Bush Administration on getting us into Iraq under false pretenses.  He was right there were no weapons of mass destruction and the lead-up to Iraq War was filled with lies from the Bush Administration.  As more and more information comes out, more people will be joining Hagel in their disgust at the Bush Administration on Iraq.

If you only read one book, you must read  Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff and David Corn.  Monday night at 9:00 p.m. est, Rachael Maddow, MSNBC, will have an expose on how we got into the Iraq War while also fighting in Afghanistan.

The doc (documentary) is partly based on the book Hubris by David Corn and Michael Isikoff but reportedly goes beyond it. An NBC press release claims the documentary features “new and original interviews with members of the Bush administration, the CIA, members of Congress and other insiders who were part of the internal debate over the ultimately faulty-intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq.

Since the Republicans in the Senate decided to filibuster Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, I have been on Twitter thinking a few friends and I would be pretty much alone in his defense.  Not even close to being true as retired members of the military are furious, many of them Vietnam Vets or their Dad's fought in Vietnam.  A new organizing group on Twitter, @UniteBlue, has given all of us new friends who share a lot of commonality.  People who have been Republicans for years are now saying they will not support one Republican in '14 after this filibuster of Hagel.  GOP misjudged how made Republicans already were at them as they put Party over Country time and time again with their hatred of the President.  Childish actions out of grown men are not attractive and frankly disgusting.

The people on Twitter are livid that for the first time in the history of the Senate, a party has decided to filibuster the DoD nominee until after their 10-day recess.  Note to Israeli lovers in the GOP, we are at war in Afghanistan with men and women in harm's way and you decide Israel is number one over this Country?  President Obama didn't choose a Secretary of Defense for Israel but for the United States which GOP Senators seem to be having a hard time understanding that the US comes first over Israel.

Spying by Israel on the US defense industry has been going on for years and occasionally they get caught like when they sell our defense secrets to China.  This is our ally?  Selling our defense secrets to China along with our weapons we provide Israel doesn't seem like it is much of an ally:

The C.I.A. says China has been acquiring advanced military technology from Israel for more than a decade on programs for jet fighters, air-to-air missiles and tanks. The agency said the sale of Israeli military technology to China "may be several billion dollars."

We give away our technology to Israel and they sell it to China for billions, yet the Israeli lobby puppets in the GOP Senate (Inhofe, Cruz, McCain, Graham plus others) is against Chuck Hagel for pointing out the fact the Israeli lobby has affected our foreign policy and IMHO still does.  Hagel knows first hand as he has been a member of the GOP Caucus in the Senate and is well aware of the Israeli influence.  Thank God Romney was not elected or we would be on the verge of war with Iran the way the Israeli Hawks in the US Senate are acting.  Putting Israel over the United States' national security and our troops in Afghanistan should get the Republicans on Armed Services fired.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) was a total embarrassment at the hearings on Hagel.  Where he got his allegations that he tag teamed with Cruz (R-TX) is anyone's guess because Inhofe was arrogant, condescending and lying about Chuck Hagel based on phony information.  Will never support or vote for the Inhofe again as he crossed the line on the Hagel nomination. Cruz following Inhofe's lead bordered on McCarthyism during the confirmation hearings as he attacked Hagel with lies until even McCain couldn't take it any more and defended Hagel:

The exchange prompted John McCain to jump in and defend his former friend, Hagel: "Senator Hagel is an honorable man. He has served his country and no one on this committee at any time should impugn his character or his integrity." Cruz, on the defensive, replied that he hadn't "impugned [Hagel's] character."

So happy that Sen Claire McCaskell was reelected to the Senate from MO because she took on Inhofe:

The ranking Republican Jim Inhofe repeatedly invoked—as he did when questioning Hagel several weeks ago—a purported endorsement of the appointment by the Iranian government. “He’s endorsed by them,” Inhofe said. “You can’t get any cozier than that.” (As Matt Duss has noted, the attack stems from a statement from Iran's foreign ministry spokesman that the government hoped for "practical changes" in U.S. policy toward Iran.) Later, the Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill warned Inhofe to "be careful": “What if some horrible organization said tomorrow that you were the best guy that they knew?”

The award for honesty and integrity at the Hagel hearing goes to Senator Bill Nelson (R-FL):

The most remarkable exchange came when Texas Republican Ted Cruz, who's led the campaign to expose "foreign funding" Hagel purportedly received, implied that the nominee had not been forthcoming, suggesting that a "conflict of interst" may lurk and even that Hagel even may have taken money from North Korea, an enemy of the U.S. But Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, fired back: “This Senator feels like that Senator Cruz has gone over the line,“ Nelson said. "He basically has impugned the patriotism of the nominee." 

This morning on a segment on Face the Nation about Hagel's nomination not one word was mentioned about the Republican filibuster which shows more and more the inside the beltway media are out of touch with America as they use press releases to report.  As you can see from Politicus the number of times Israel and Iran were mentioned versus little mention on Afghanistan, etc. shows that this group of Republicans on Armed Services do put Israel first along with the defense industry who wants to start a war with Iran so they can make more money.  Despicable actions on the Hagel nomination by GOP Senators who have sworn an oath to the United States not Israel.

The media was remiss to report on the national embarrassment that was the Senate’s armed services committee hearing on Hagel’s nomination last month, or the number of times Israel and Iran came up during questioning. Israel was mentioned 178 times and Iran was next at 169, while the same senators barely mentioned Hagel’s views on Afghanistan where American soldiers are currently fighting, Pakistan that still hides remnants of al-Qaida, or North Korea, a nuclear capable country where more than 30,000 American troops are deployed. However, they thrashed the Israel issue mercilessly and attempted to impugn Hagel’s character by implying he “has ties to the Iran foreign ministry,” courtesy of Jim Inhofe, and questioned if money in his “bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea” from the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy, Ted Cruz. 

Emboldened by Cruz and Inhofe’s conspiracy theories, Republicans blocked a vote on Hagel because they contend more time is needed for him to produce speeches he is alleged to have given, and to provide further documentation on the funding of organizations he’s been affiliated with. Hagel’s detractors represent an array of groups that include neo-conservative warmongers, evangelical groups such as Christians United for Israel, and the hawkish pro-Israel group, the Emergency Committee for Israel, and their goal is to shift the discourse to Israel instead of America’s defense. The Christian Zionist organizations opposing Hagel are part of Republican opposition because he threatens long-held conservative ideas about foreign policy, and at what length America is willing to go to disregard its own security in the defense of Israel. 

Republicans railed against Hagel for suggesting there are options to dealing with Iran besides joining Israel in a major war with the Islamic Republic, and Inhofe’s only concern remains Hagel’s position on Israel. He said, “The anti-Israel history of Chuck Hagel is real. We can’t have someone at the Pentagon who has made these kinds of statements,” because his statements are contrary to the pro-Israel at all costs crowd in Republican ranks. Hagel’s so-called anti-Israel statements are in regard to peace with Palestinians such as, “The Israeli government needs to understand that implementation of the peace agreement is in its own interests,” and “Peace comes through dealing with people. Peace doesn’t come at the end of a bayonet or the end of a gun.” He also is being harshly condemned as anti-Israel for saying, ”I think we should continue to pursue openings with Iran, we need to understand cold, hard realities and be very clear-eyed and clearheaded, but every opening we should take.” 

The idea that there cannot be Middle East peace without all-out war to defend Israel is toxic to neo-conservative ideology, and it informs the primary opposition to Hagel’s nomination as Secretary of Defense; not grudges or Benghazi frenzy. The Israel-first conservatives are staunchly opposed to any peaceful resolution in dealing with Iran, and the idea that Hagel believes it is in Israel, and America’s, best interest to open up a dialogue to address their so-called nuclear ambitions is tantamount to declaring war on god almighty. 

Republicans are wont to obstruct anything the Obama Administration has attempted to accomplish, but their allegiance to Israel is compromising national security as well as violating a long-standing principle that the President picks his own cabinet. Hagel  once had the support of Republicans such as Mitch McConnell who said Hagel was one of the “most respected foreign policy voices in the Senate,” and McCain said he “would make an excellent secretary of state,” but now they are besmirching a fellow Republican over Israel based on conspiracy theories advanced by the likes of Ted Cruz. 

Excerpt:  Read More at Politicususa 

Please call your GOP Senators and demand a vote on the Hagel nomination immediately when they return empty-handed with anything that could derail Hagel's nomination.  McCain said the ten days will answer their questions like I believe anything he has to say today after saying Hagel is unqualified but will be confirmed.  Who is unqualified is John McCain to be a US Senator after his antics since the 2008 election culminating in the Benghazi attacks against the President.  Guess these Republicans forget that unlike them Hagel has to go through a whole vetting process including FBI investigation before he is even nominated.  Wonder how some of these Senators with their statements would fare under the same investigation.

One word to Texans:  You blew it big time with choosing Ted Cruz as your new Senator who is much more like Joe McCarthy then he is like Kay Bailey Hutchison who he replaced.  How McConnell ever assigned Cruz to Armed Services is beyond my imagination.  He should be removed from Armed Services for his antics and not subject to any classified information.  If I was in DoD testifying before Senate Armed Services I would ask that Ted Cruz not be in the same room if I was giving the Senate classified information after what we saw out of him at the Hagel hearing.

Next up will be the Republican antics to delay a vote on the Brennan nomination for CIA Director as they are stuck on stupid about Benghazi ignoring the attacks on our embassies during the Bush years.  They also conveniently forget that the GOP in Congress is who stopped additional funds for security for our embassies - didn't think it was necessary.

Stock Option Tax Deduction Loophole = Paying Zero Corporate Income Taxes For Years

Brought to you by the Republicans who are now serving or served in the Congress since 2001

This should enrage every last middle class taxpayer in America, but if you are a hard right Republican today you will probably see nothing wrong with corporations paying zero taxes.  I swear some of the hard right has been brainwashed to think whatever wealthy donors want is okay because they could be wealthy some day.  Only thing that explains the hard right standing behind their members of Congress who vow not to raise taxes on the wealthy individuals/corporations or close loopholes.  Shaking my head at the abject lack of rational thinking on the part of the hard right.  We are talking loopholes so the wealthy corporations/individuals would have to pay their fair share of taxes not deductions like mortgage interest which they cannot seem to get it through their mind there is a difference.  Sen Levin of Michigan lays it out very succinctly:

“Due to the stock option loophole, Facebook may not pay any corporate income taxes on its profits for a generation,” said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who has proposed changing the policy. “When profitable corporations can use the stock option tax deduction to pay zero corporate income taxes for years on end, average taxpayers are forced to pick up the tax burden,” he said. “It isn’t right, and we can’t afford it.”  

The US Treasury is losing at least $2 billion a years due to lost revenue thanks to loopholes for big corporations which leaves the rest of the 98% to pick up the tab.  This is through loopholes but what about offshore accounts?  How much are we losing in tax revenue there where a person/company puts their assets offshore and still takes expenses off their income tax until the money is brought back on shore which is like years in the future or never.  No wonder the wealthy keep getting more wealthy and everyone else suffers.

Contemplate for a moment that the Citizens United ruling made corporations people so they could put large sums into campaigns or to put it bluntly allowed them to buy off politicians so their low tax rates could be maintained or in some cases paying zero taxes.  Fortunately for all of us Romney did not get elected as he was part of that group who paid low taxes and would bet in some years almost no taxes.  With Romney losing we dodged a bullet, but we are still facing big problems to get tax reform and close loopholes since the GOP gerrymandering made sure Republicans kept the House in 2012.

Closing tax loopholes is probably going to have to wait until after the 2014 elections when a large grassroots effort aimed at defeating House Republicans and some Senators like Mitch McConnell will take place.  At the same time in January 2015, there had better be some changes made to filibuster rules -- would hope that Democrats learned a lesson that you cannot trust Sen McConnell or most Senate Republicans is today's reality.  Took less than three weeks before McConnell went back on his word.  Senator Reid needs to go as Majority Leader since he is in the hip pocket of NRA which some are saying led him to cut a deal on the filibuster.

Facebook has joined a long list of corporations not paying taxes but yet they benefit from our infrastructure and in the case of Facebook they are getting tax dollars back.  If this doesn't lead to revolt against the wealthy avoiding taxes nothing will:

Facebook Paid No Corporate Income Tax Last Year, After Making More Than $1 Billion In Profits 

By Pat Garofalo posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Feb 15, 2013 at 9:00 am 

Between 2008 and 2011, 26 major corporations were able to pay no federal corporate income tax, despite making a combined $205 billion in profits. According to a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice, Facebook joined that illustrious club last year, receiving $429 million in tax rebates despite making more than $1 billion in profits:

Earlier this month, the Facebook Inc. released its first “10-K” annual financial report since going public last year. Hidden in the report’s footnotes is an amazing admission: despite $1.1 billion in U.S. profits in 2012, Facebook did not pay even a dime in federal and state income taxes. 

Instead, Facebook says it will receive net tax refunds totaling $429 million. 

Facebook’s income tax refunds stem from the company’s use of a single tax break, the tax deductibility of executive stock options. That tax break reduced Facebook’s federal and state income taxes by $1,033 million in 2012, including refunds of earlier years’ taxes of $451 million 

Facebook will be able to carry further tax rebates forward, according to CTJ, for a total of $3 billion in tax deductions.

(Snip) 

See Think Progress.org for more on Corporate Taxes

The Corporate Tax Rate the Republicans don't want to raise is a joke as we see below thanks to a report from CTJ researched by Think Progress:

CTJ looked at 280 companies, all of them members of the Fortune 500, and found that “while the federal corporate tax code ostensibly requires big corporations to pay a 35 percent corporate income tax rate, on average, the 280 corporations in our study paid only about half that amount.” And those who paid even half the statutory corporate tax rate paid far more than many of their competitors. 

In fact, in the last three years, 78 corporations had at least one year where they paid no federal income tax at all, while 30 corporations paid not a dime over the entire three years. Those 30 corporations paid nothing, even though they made $160 billion in profits over that period:

– Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010…In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
– Thirty corporations paid less than nothing in aggregate federal income taxes over the entire 2008-10 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $160 billion over the three years, included: Pepco Holdings (–57.6% tax rate), General Electric (–45.3%), DuPont (–3.4%), Verizon (–2.9%), Boeing (–1.8%), Wells Fargo (–1.4%) and Honeywell (–0.7%).

As CTJ’s report put it, “just as workers pay their fair share of taxes on their earnings, so should successful businesses pay their fair share on their success. But today corporate tax loopholes are so out of control that most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’ That’s an unacceptable situation.” And its one that lawmakers could fix, if they were willing to stand up to the nation’s biggest corporations. 

Republicans are pulling a scam on the American people with their reasons not to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy.  Thanks to Twitter, people are starting to wake up and realize that the wealthy are getting wealthier while the middle class is losing ground.

Time to vote out every last Republican in 2014 that subscribes to the theory you cannot raise taxes on the corporations/wealthy or close loopholes.  This has to be an activist movement across the Country to get some common sense returned to the Congress which the Republicans have destroyed with being bought and paid for by wealthy donors and corporations.

Republican Party out of Control on Hagel Nomination

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Inhofe Leads "Filibuster" Against Secretary of Defense Hagel - Cloture Vote on Friday Morning

"It is tragic that they have decided to filibuster this qualified nominee," said Reid. "It is really unfortunate."

There is no better example of Republicans in the Senate putting Party over Country then the fact at noon tomorrow, Secretary of Defense Panetta officially leaves office which means the Department of Defense will not have a permanent Secretary of Defense, but acting.  Republicans should be ashamed with their attacks on Hagel especially on Benghazi which he had nothing to do with but they are trying to score political points against President Obama.  This group of cowards who are afraid of a Tea Party primary challenge don't deserve to be reelected to the Senate ever again if they vote to continue the filibuster when you read the following:

NATO is hosting Defense Minister meetings next week in Brussels where the allies will discuss the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

A meeting of NATO on Afghanistan and we have no permanent Secretary of Defense thanks to the obstructionist Republicans who keep opposing Obama on everything.  This is one more obstruction in a long list that has a lot of Republicans saying they will not support or vote for a Republican in 2014 including this one.

Majority Leader Reid weighs in on the GOP Filibuster of Chuck Hagel showing the hypocrisy of Senate Republicans once again:

Senate Majority Leader Says ‘It’s Tragic’ GOP Is Filibustering Hagel

By Ben Armbruster on Feb 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he has scheduled a cloture vote for Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Defense Secretary for Friday morning. 

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, Reid lambasted Republicans for their “unprecedented” obstruction on Hagel (this is the first time in the history of the United States that a president’s nominee for Defense Secretary has been filibustered). “It’s shocking,” Reid said, “that my Republican colleagues would leave the country without a fully empowered Secretary of Defense during all the things that we have going on in the world including a war”: 

REID: I have heard speeches from the other side a lot saying, “you know the president should have the right to choose whoever he wants.” He has the support of this body, a majority vote in this body in this democracy. We are a nation, Mr. President, at war. We are whether we like it or not the world’s indispensable leader. We’re it. For the sake of our national security it’s time to put aside this political theatre and that’s what it is. 

People are worried about primary elections. We know how the Tea Party goes after Republicans when they aren’t conservative enough. Is that something they need to have on their resume? “I filibustered one of the president’s nominees.” Is that what they want? The filibuster of Senator Hagel’s confirmation is unprecedented. I repeat. Not a single nominee for Secretary of Defense ever in the history of our country has been filibustered. Never, ever!

“We need a Secretary of Defense,” Reid said later. “It’s tragic that they’ve decided to filibuster this qualified nominee. It is really unfortunate.” Watch the clip: 

Senate Democratic aides are reportedly saying they may not have enough votes to break the filibuster while some are reporting that there are enough votes for cloture, but the actual vote on Hagel’s nomination won’t take place until after the recess.

However, NATO is hosting Defense Minister meetings next week in Brussels where the allies will discuss the ongoing war in Afghanistan. “We need our new defense secretary to be there,” a White House spokesperson said today, calling the GOP obstruction “unconscionable” and adding, “It does not send a favorable signal for the Republicans of the U.S. senate to delay a vote. …It’s difficult to explain to our allies why that’s happening.”

Congress is going on a week's recess next week for President's Day which is one day.  They have been back in DC for six weeks and already need a week off?  Sequestration coming up on March 1st and they take next week off?  The 112th Congress was the most do nothing Congress in modern times but the 113th is starting out worse.  The House GOP may be the laziest group of Representatives ever as they were on vacation last year more than they worked.  Guess a week's recess is more important then confirming a Secretary of Defense or working to avoid Sequestration?

Why are GOP Senators filibustering Chuck Hagel when it makes the Republican Party look nastier and spoiled sports after they lost the election.  The way this group of GOP in the Senate is going, they will never win the White House unless they move back to the center right after all of their lies and innuendos against President Obama and now his cabinet picks.  Inhofe has gone so far as to say he doesn't think Obama should be picking the Defense Secretary.  Talk about stupid - it sounded like he was inferring that Obama was not smart enough to pick his own cabinet.  Obama won the Presidency by 5 million votes but Republicans refuse to acknowledge with winning elections comes being able to choose your own people which Inhofe and other Republicans refuse to acknowledge.

Majority Leader Reid weighs in on the GOP Filibuster of Chuck Hagel showing the hypocrisy of Republicans once again:

Senate Majority Leader Says ‘It’s Tragic’ GOP Is Filibustering Hagel

By Ben Armbruster on Feb 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he has scheduled a cloture vote for Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Defense Secretary for Friday morning. 

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, Reid lambasted Republicans for their “unprecedented” obstruction on Hagel (this is the first time in the history of the United States that a president’s nominee for Defense Secretary has been filibustered). “It’s shocking,” Reid said, “that my Republican colleagues would leave the country without a fully empowered Secretary of Defense during all the things that we have going on in the world including a war”: 

REID: I have heard speeches from the other side a lot saying, “you know the president should have the right to choose whoever he wants.” He has the support of this body, a majority vote in this body in this democracy. We are a nation, Mr. President, at war. We are whether we like it or not the world’s indispensable leader. We’re it. For the sake of our national security it’s time to put aside this political theatre and that’s what it is. 

People are worried about primary elections. We know how the Tea Party goes after Republicans when they aren’t conservative enough. Is that something they need to have on their resume? “I filibustered one of the president’s nominees.” Is that what they want? The filibuster of Senator Hagel’s confirmation is unprecedented. I repeat. Not a single nominee for Secretary of Defense ever in the history of our country has been filibustered. Never, ever!

“We need a Secretary of Defense,” Reid said later. “It’s tragic that they’ve decided to filibuster this qualified nominee. It is really unfortunate.” Watch the clip: 

Senate Democratic aides are reportedly saying they may not have enough votes to break the filibuster while some are reporting that there are enough votes for cloture, but the actual vote on Hagel’s nomination won’t take place until after the recess.

However, NATO is hosting Defense Minister meetings next week in Brussels where the allies will discuss the ongoing war in Afghanistan. “We need our new defense secretary to be there,” a White House spokesperson said today, calling the GOP obstruction “unconscionable” and adding, “It does not send a favorable signal for the Republicans of the U.S. senate to delay a vote. …It’s difficult to explain to our allies why that’s happening.”

From James Fallows at The Atlantic comes more information about the filibuster of Chuck Hagel:

As has been evident for some time, Hagel has majority support in the Senate for his confirmation as secretary of defense. As has become increasingly evident these past few days, much of the opposition to Hagel has become a parody of itself. Former Republican Senator and foreign-policy grandee Richard Lugar, himself the victim of a Tea Party challenge, said yesterday that the attack on Hagel was "unfortunate and unfair." Meanwhile the publisher of the Omaha World Herald answered allegations that Hagel (who represented Nebraska) was anti-Semitic with an article headlined, "Impressive Omaha Jewish Support for Chuck Hagel," and Aryeh Azriel, the rabbi at Temple Israel in Omaha, said that accusations that Hagel was anti-Israel were "extremely stupid." 

The new development is reported by Josh Rogin on Foreign Policy's The Cable blog, which says that several Republicans intend to filibuster Hagel's nomination -- but are looking for some way to weasel around the word "filibuster." They don't like that word (a) because they have tried to normalize the idea that a 60-vote super-majority threshold, which is the margin required to break a filibuster, should be seen as the routine requirement for Senate action of any sort; (b) because several prominent Republicans, including John McCain, have already said that they don't want to filibuster Hagel; and (c) because in the long history of Cabinet-level nominations, outright filibusters are either unknown or exceedingly rare. You can get all the details on their extreme rarity from the Congressional Research Service.

Rogin points out the machinations through which the Republican opponents of Hagel (a Republican) are trying to insist on a 60-vote threshold without calling it a filibuster. For instance, he quotes our old friend Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, plus Sen. John Cornyn of Texas:

Inhofe's demand for 60 votes is related to his overall objection to Hagel becoming defense secretary, which is based on Hagel's past record on issues ranging from Iran, Israel, Hamas, and cuts to the defense budget. Inhofe also wants Hagel to further disclose financial records related to his past speeches.

"We're going to require a 60-vote threshold," Inhofe told The Cable. 

Cornyn told The Cable, "There is a 60-vote threshold for every nomination." 

Cornyn may think that, but it is not so. As a matter of history, it has obviously not been the case for Cabinet nominations; and as a matter of legality, it is true only if the opposition is willing to transform the balance of American politics by filibustering every nominee. 

Turn to Rogin for more, including curlicues like this (emphasis added):

Inhofe insisted that his demand for a 60-vote threshold is not a "filibuster." Inhofe said he will object to unanimous consent for a simple majority vote, which will prevent Reid from bringing the Hagel nomination to the floor without first filing for cloture, which requires 60 votes to proceed to a final vote.

"It's not a filibuster. I don't want to use that word," Inhofe said. 

(snip)

But I am anything but agnostic about the tactics being used against Hagel. They started with personal smears, and they've led to this new version of Congressional obstructionism. It will be a shame all around if these tactics "work." This is a fight the administration should take on, and be sure it wins.

Read More at The Atlantic

Now Inhofe doesn't want to use the word filibuster but wants to require sixty votes when only 51 votes are required?

This is it for me when it comes to the Republican Party unless there is a huge change in the future.  For 2014 and 2016, I wouldn't vote for any Republican for Congress or President after what we have been witnessing.  These Senators are so afraid of being primaried they won't stand up to the Tea Party or should we say Koch Brothers?  How about grow a spine and do what is best for the Country and not worry if you are going to be primaried.  Selling out the Country to keep a job as a member of Congress shows a great lack of integrity and a willingness to see the Country go down because some Republican doesn't want to be tea partied in the primary.  Vote 'em out in '14!

Time for term limits?

F-35 NOT Subject to DoD Sequestration; Specifications Lowered so F-35 can Meet Them

Lockheed pulled two fasts ones -- one to protect the F-35 from Sequestration and the other to get the Dod to lower specifications so the F-35 could meet them

When I was researching this article, I stumbled across something I had not heard.  Because of a new contract negotiated late last fall, the F-35 is protected from sequestering according to DoD Buzz:

Pentagon and Lockheed Martin negotiators have negotiated the contract for the past year leading to frustration on both sides. However, Defense Under Secretary Frank Kendall said Wednesday a contract was imminent. 

“It was a tough negotiation and we are pleased that we’ve reached an agreement. It ends the year on a positive note and sets the program to move forward,” said George Little, the top Pentagon spokesman.

The break down for the fifth production lot will see the Air Force receive 22 fighters, the Navy will receive aircraft carrier versions and the Marine Corps will receive three short takeoff-vertical landing models.

Future Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson indicated a contract for the sixth production lot, which includes another 32 aircraft, is not far off. She said Thursday she expects the framework of the deal to be done by the end of the month.

Pentagon and Lockheed leaders rushed to complete these contracts in order to protect them from sequestration cuts should the Congress fail to reach a deficit reduction deal. The sequestration law stipulates that the cuts can’t touch previously obligated funds. 

Settling on this contract means the F-35s funds for the fifth, and possibly sixth, production lots will be insulated from the $500 billion in defense cuts stipulated in the Budget Control Act.

Lockheed pulled a coup on the F-35 and the Pentagon went right along.  No wonder Chuck Hagel is not wanted at DoD by Lockheed and their donor recipients on Senate Armed Services.  Where is the Defense media on this one?  Too busy covering drones, Benghazi, gun control, and Dorner?  

Yesterday when the F-22 was covered on here, the question was asked if the F-35 also had similar problems.  With the articles that I have found this morning, believe the F-35 could be worse.  F-35 is approaching boondoggle proportions with waste to the taxpayers for a plane that in order to meet the required specifications, they have had to reduce the required specs.  What is with defense contractors believing they can waste our tax dollars at will and then try to buy off Senators in order to defeat Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense? Sounds like they are scared to death of someone like Hagel that knows the ins and outs of DoD who might put an end to their sketchy practices in order to fleece the taxpayers of more money.  He knows first hand by being in the Senate  how some people at DoD, Defense Contractors, and in Congress like to get us into wartime situations so they can try out their shiny new weapons.

When I read this article that was sent to me this morning, I had to reread portions because it was hard to fathom that in order to reduce weight some idiot came up with this idea:

Several years ago, to save around 50 pounds, the F-35′s designers removed some fuel safety valves. As a result, the JSF is now 25 percent more likely to burn if struck by enemy weapons, making it “overall more vulnerable [to fire] than most” older warplanes

How would you like to be a potential F-35 pilot and read that statement that your plane is more likely to burn because Lockheed needed to save 50 pounds?  

I stand by my premise that Lockheed is planning on doing maintenance on this plane to increase their bottom line when I read this:

The military is also desperately trying to figure out how to reduce the long-term costs of operating the planes, now projected at $1.1 trillion.

Cost of operating the F-35 which has been redesigned to lower weight which, in turn,  has made the plane less maneuverable stands at a projected cost for operation at $1.1 trillion?  If that doesn't make you cringe as a taxpayer, nothing will.  Anyone who has been around the Defense Department knows that estimates by anyone in the chain at DoD are usually low balled.  The DoD wants to order 2,445 of the F-35's for Air Force, Navy, and Marines when the Navy version is too heavy to land on a carrier and the Marine STOVAL version is too hot to land on a carrier deck according to sources.

Have to give credit where credit is due to the designers from Lockheed who came up with this F-35 plane to serve all three services and actually sold it to DoD.  Obviously, their team didn't have someone with Naval experience of landing planes on a carrier, or they never would have made the Navy version so heavy which has been a problem from the beginning.

F-35 is way over budget and way behind schedule and the answer is to lower the specs so the plane can meet them?  How much money has Lockheed paid these members of Congress not to look into what is actually going on with the F-22 and F-35?  If you want a good lobbyist, look no further then Lockheed as they have managed to keep money flowing into the F-35 and before that the F-22 when the warning signs were there that these two fighters have major problems.

Is there NO oversight left at DoD because they have been concentrating on fighting Afghanistan and then Iraq?  Has that allowed Lockheed to skate on the F-22 and F-35 as facts have been covered up?  The Defense inside the beltway media seems to have missed all of this as they report the press releases instead of investigative journalism.  As an example of bad journalism, the Washington Post is now reporting satire for news when they reported Sarah Palin was joining to Al Jazeera to work when it was a satire article.  That shows how little research is done in the media today before running out to report a story first without fact checking.

Why is the defense media covering for Lockheed on the F-35?  Are they afraid if they print the facts, it will kill the plane?  With little to no oversight and a willing DoD to change the specs the plane must meet, Lockheed is getting a free pass and taxpayers are getting hosed by the same members of Congress who are against the Chuck Hagel nomination for Secretary of Defense. Doesn't take a genius to connect those dots.

As you read this article, ask yourself as a taxpayer why the DoD is allowing this to happen with the F-35 and then vow to vote out Senate Members up for reelection who have supported this boondoggle to get shiny,  new planes.  Will be bringing you those names in weeks to come but today I will put Senator Inhofe (R-OK) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) right at the top of the list.

Thanks to The Next Big Future Blog for this story on the F-35 exceeding required specs that have been reduced so they could meet them:

February 12, 2013
New F35 exceeds every required spec - By repeatedly reducing every required spec
The F35 was initially developed based on extending US air superiority for decades. If the F35 is no longer superior what is the justification for the $1.1 trillion program ? 

America’s latest stealth fighter just got heavier, slower and more sluggish. For the second time in a year, the Pentagon has eased the performance requirements of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The reduced specs — including a slower acceleration and turning rate — lower the bar for the troubled trillion-dollar JSF program, allowing it to proceed toward full-rate production despite ongoing problems with the plane’s complex design. Under the old specs, the stealth fighter, due to enter service in 2018 or 2019, probably wouldn’t pass its Pentagon-mandated final exams. 

At the same time, newly identified safety problems could force F-35-smith Lockheed Martin to add fire-suppression gear that will only increase the plane’s weight and further decrease its maneuverability. The JSF is meant to be a jack of all trades, equally capable of dropping bombs and fighting other aircraft — the latter requiring extreme nimbleness in the air. 

For the pilots who will eventually take the F-35 into combat, the JSF’s reduced performance means they might not be able to outfly and outfight the latest Russian- and Chinese-made fighters. Even before the downgrades, some analysts questioned the F-35′s ability to defeat newer Sukhoi and Shenyang jets. Despite the JSF’s lower specs, Lockheed bizarrely claims its new plane is now more maneuverable than every other fighters in the world except the company’s own F-22.  (my bold)

Reduced F35 Specs 

The latest bad news came in mid-January the form of the annual weapons-testing report (.pdf) overseen by J. Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. The report revealed that the government’s F-35 program office had changed performance specs for all three JSF variants: the Air Force’s F-35A; the vertical-landing Marine Corps F-35B; and the carrier-launched F-35C flown mainly by the Navy. 

* reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s
* extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by eight seconds
* F-35B and F-35C also had their turn rates and acceleration time eased. The B-model jet’s max turn went from 5.0 to 4.5 g’s and its acceleration time to Mach 1.2 was extended by 16 seconds. The F-35C lost 0.1 g off its turn spec and added a whopping 43 seconds to its acceleration.

The F-35 is likely to get even less maneuverable as development continues. Gilmore’s report warned that the F-35A’s tightly-packed airframe has essentially zero room for weight growth without losing nimbleness. “The program will need to continue rigorous weight management through the end of [development] to avoid performance degradation and operational impacts.” 

But in the same report, the Pentagon admitted to a chain of safety problems that could force Lockheed to add weight to the radar-evading plane. Extra mass doesn’t necessarily affect the JSF’s ability to avoid detection, but it does impact maneuverability. Several years ago, to save around 50 pounds, the F-35′s designers removed some fuel safety valves. As a result, the JSF is now 25 percent more likely to burn if struck by enemy weapons, making it “overall more vulnerable [to fire] than most” older warplanes, Jennifer Elzea, a DOT&E spokesperson, told Bloomberg. 

The Pentagon should tell Lockheed to “immediately reinstall” the valves, Rep. James Moran, a Virginia Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, wrote in a letter to the Defense Department dated Feb. 5. 

If and when that happens, expect yet another downward revision of the F-35′s performance specs, as America’s future jet fighter grows steadily more disappointing. 

$396 Billion to build and $1.1 Trillion to Operate 

The F35 jets would cost taxpayers $396 billion, including research and development, if the Pentagon sticks to its plan to build 2,443 by the late 2030s. That would be nearly four times as much as any other weapons system and two-thirds of the $589 billion the United States has spent on the war in Afghanistan. The military is also desperately trying to figure out how to reduce the long-term costs of operating the planes, now projected at $1.1 trillion.

SOURCE - Wired Danger Zone, NY Times

Even Lockheed now admits (see my bold above) that the F-22 is not very maneuverable which brings into question why we bought the plane.

Then there is the problem with security of the computer systems which Reuters covered late last year.  It also explains why all of a sudden the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), being used for the F-35 logistics system is being looked at once again to prove to DoD it will work.  Lockheed will play up how much ALIS works until DoD backs off and then ALIS goes on the back burner again would be my guess because AERO took the money from ALIS some time ago to put on the F-35 development:

Insight: Lockheed's F-35 logistics system revolutionary but risky 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When computer "hackers" working for the U.S. Navy succeeded in breaking into the computer logistics system that controls the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter earlier this year, they did the company a favor: allowing it to fix a critical vulnerability in the $396 billion program. 

Now, as the Marine Corps prepares to set up its first operational squadron of F-35s next week, some experts say other security risks may lurk within such a large and highly networked weapons support system.

One concern: Lockheed shored up political backing for the F-35 by choosing suppliers in nearly every U.S. state. But having such a large and widely dispersed group increases exposure to cyber attacks, said Ben Freeman, national security investigator with the non-profit Project on Government Oversight. 

"Even if Lockheed has top-notch cyber security, it's still vulnerable if its subcontractors are vulnerable," he said. 

The military's move toward greater use of so-called autonomic weapons systems, which rely heavily on computers, promises to revolutionize the way weapons are maintained and operated, but also carries a new level of cyber risk. 

And the weapons designers are having difficulty keeping up with the hackers. While it often takes years to field new weapons systems, cyber threats are evolving and changing on a daily basis, said Raphael Mudge, a former Air Force engineer and independent cyber expert.
"You have to be continually assessing the risk," he said. 

The heightened concern comes as computer attacks are on the rise. Lockheed cyber experts said Monday that the company had seen a large increase in the number and sophistication of attacks on its networks. It accused governments that it did not name of targeting and breaking into the networks of its suppliers. 

Lockheed officials said millions of suspicious emails were directed at the company each day, including a handful that were considered advanced persistent threats from foreign nations.
But Lockheed's complex maintenance and support system for the F-35, known as ALIS, or Autonomic Logistics Information System, is under attack on another front, too. 

The Pentagon is talking to Lockheed competitors this week about running that system and others needed to operate and maintain the new plane, in an effort to rein in F-35 maintenance costs estimated at up to $1.1 trillion over the next 50 years. 

If the Pentagon ousted Lockheed from running the system it built, the defense giant could lose billions in anticipated revenue. With a price tag in the billions of dollars, ALIS is large enough to be considered a major weapons program on its own.

How did the F-35 get from the drawing computer screen to production?  The New York Times has the details on how this all happened and should make everyone cringe that the DoD relied on computer modeling instead of "fly before you buy" on the F-35:

“The plane is unaffordable,” said Winslow T. Wheeler, an analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group in Washington. 

Todd Harrison, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a research group in Washington, said Pentagon officials had little choice but to push ahead, especially after already spending $65 billion on the fighter. “It is simultaneously too big to fail and too big to succeed,” he said. “The bottom line here is that they’ve crammed too much into the program. They were asking one fighter to do three different jobs, and they basically ended up with three different fighters.” 

While weapons cost overruns have long been a problem, the F-35 is also running into the changing budget realities, and a new focus on rivalry with China, that will probably require shifting money to a broader mix of planes. 

Yet, for years, the problems with the F-35 raised few red flags, as money flowed freely after the 2001 terror attacks and enthusiasm for a three-in-one jet blinded officials in the Clinton and Bush administrations and in Congress to its overly ambitious design. Now, unless the Pentagon can substantially reduce the price of each plane, analysts say, it may be lucky to buy 1,200 to 1,800. 

Robert J. Stevens, the chief executive of Lockheed Martin, said company officials were “working as aggressively as we can” to fix the problems and cut costs. Vice Adm. David Venlet, who now runs the program at the Pentagon, said he was confident that “good old-fashioned engineering is going to lick” the flaws. But he declined to predict how many planes would be bought. 

“It’s a very fair conversation that ought to be had for the country,” he said. 

‘Acquisition Malpractice’ 

Right from the start, Pentagon officials were warned of the dangers of beginning to produce an aircraft before it was tested. And right from the start, Pentagon officials did not listen.
The roots of the problems go back to the mid-1990s, when military officials pitched the F-35 as simple and affordable, like a Chevrolet of the skies, with the three versions sharing 70 to 80 percent of their parts. The planes would also be versatile, capable of fighting other planes but focused mainly on attacking ground targets. 

Pentagon officials thought advances in computer modeling would simulate so precisely the way the F-35 would fly that only minor problems would be discovered in the flight tests. 

And given a ban on exporting the F-22, the top stealth fighter, moving quickly on the F-35 would lock up foreign buyers and keep Europe from creating its own stealth planes.
“There was this big desire to kill the competition,” said Richard L. Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va.
Lockheed beat out Boeing for the F-35 contract in October 2001. 

Pentagon testing experts and Congressional auditors warned as the program got under way that it would be wiser to “fly before you buy.” They cautioned that some of the new technologies were not ready and that years of flight tests would find flaws that the simulations had not anticipated. 

Lockheed and the joint Air Force and Navy office that runs the program countered that the sooner they started building a sizable number of planes, the sooner they could realize economies of scale that would lower the price of each plane, even if some needed updating. 

But almost immediately, the project proved to be incredibly complicated. Lockheed’s initial designs were late and had to be redone, delaying the manufacture of parts for the test models. While most military programs start building before all the testing is done, the Pentagon took that to an extreme, starting production of the F-35s in 2007, before flight tests had even begun.
Mr. Kendall, who became the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer in May, has said that diving into production so soon amounted to “acquisition malpractice.” 

Mr. Harrison, the analyst at the budget center, said the willingness to “roll the dice” reflected the peculiar incentives at the Pentagon, where rushing into production creates jobs and locks in political support, even if it allows programs to drift into trouble. Lockheed and its suppliers on the F-35 employ 35,000 workers, with some in nearly every Congressional district. 

 “The military services want to get the planes as quickly as possible,” Mr. Harrison said. “The defense industry wants to start producing as quickly as possible. But it’s not in the best interest of taxpayers, and it ends up catching up with you.” 

 Asked who protects the taxpayer, he said, “That’s what the Pentagon’s civilian leadership is supposed to bring.” 

Bottom line is the American taxpayers are on the hook for a plane that couldn't meet the original specifications so they were lowered for the F-35.  Lockheed/DoD also pulled a fast one to make sure they had a contract for building more F-35's to protect the plane from sequestering.

Convinced more than ever the attacks on Chuck Hagel as the next Secretary of Defense who I believe will be confirmed was to protect Lockheed with the F-22 and F-35 so Lockheed management can continue their lifestyle without interruption and money flows into Senate campaign accounts.

FL Sen. Nelson Slams Cruz: "Senator Cruz has gone over the line" - Hagel for Sec Def Clear Committee

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) schools Senator Ted Cruz on decorum and the fact that Cruz was not honest in the hearings on Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. Texans should be ashamed to have Cruz represent them in the Senate. If McConnell had a backbone, he would removed Cruz from Armed Services. Cruz's attacks on Hagel were way over the top along with his LIES!  Frankly Senator Nelson could have been even stronger with the allegations made by first term Senator Ted Cruz who has been there little over a month.  Whoever put Cruz on Armed Services should be ashamed!

FL Sen. Nelson Slams Cruz: "Senator Cruz has gone over the line" 
Mark Corcoran - February 12, 2013  

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) slammed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) during an Senate Armed Services Committee meeting today saying he had "gone over the line." During a hearing on Chuck Hagel’s Defense Secretary nomination, Cruz objected to moving forward on the nomination and made wild and strange accusations that Hagel might have received money directly from countries like North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Of course, Cruz provided no evidence for his wild claims.

Senator Nelson:   

"I want to put on the record that this senator feels like Senator Cruz has gone over the line," Nelson said. "He basically has impugned the patriotism of the nomniee. 

And your conclusions, which you are entitled to come to, in essence about him being cozy with Iran."

"You have also stated your opinion that you don't think he's been truthful with this committee, and those are two fairly strong statements," Nelson said. 

"There's a certain degree of comity and civility that this committee has always been known for," Nelson said. "Clearly in the sharpness of difference of opinion — to question in essence whether somebody is a fellow traveler with another country, I think is taking it too far."

Chuck Hagel's nomination was voted out of Committee today along party line votes and is expected to be confirmed after Senator Reid said he will accept no holds on the nomination that Senator Inhofe (R-OK) wanted to put on the nomination.

Looking forward to seeing Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense even if major aerospace contractors are not!