For what it's worth, I would rather see us remain focused on religious and spiritual issues which were the original intent of this discussion group. Ralph+ "Charles Scott" <crscott@...> wrote: > >Brothers: > >I have snipped the bottom 2/3's of this article from the Sunday New York >Times which examines company by company, the unnecessary pork barrel >spending of the current congress and the Pentagon in regard to weapons >systems. Only the lead paragraphs remain, which summarize how the >administration's efforts of restraining wasteful military spending has been >thwarted. > >Money that could have been used to provide aid for seniors in regard to >prescription drugs is being wasted on weapons systems that are obsolescent, >won't be used, and in some cases, won't be built. > >The only system, out of dozens, that was cut out was the Crusader Cannon, >too heavy to move to a battlefield. Even that company will receive $475 >million for future development of a system that will (hopefully), not be >built. > >In this era of one-party government, the only restraint on the raid on the >treasury is the Executive Branch of Government. > >The real test of President Bush in the next two years will be the management >of the economy. HOw frugal will the adminstration be? How often will the >veto be used to stop the waste of resources? The president has done some >reshuffling of people who deal with the economy. Lets hope that more will >be done in this regard than the symbolic "turning out the White house >lights" that occured in a previous administration. These folks need to be >burning the midnight oil in search of a way out of the economic quagmire. >Our President will ultimatly have to face down his friends in Congress as he >has Sadam. > > >Charles+ > >---------------------------------------- >December 22, 2002 >So Much for the Plan to Scrap Old Weapons >By LESLIE WAYNE > > >OVER the past year, even as he hunted down terrorists, oversaw lingering >operations in Afghanistan and made plans for a possible invasion of Iraq, >Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was also waging a battle much closer >to home. On that front, pitted against American military contractors, he has >more than met his match. > >This week, Mr. Rumsfeld will deliver to President Bush a $378 billion >military budget that had been trumpeted as a new strategic vision — one that >was to have shaken the relics of cold-war weapons systems >from the national arsenal and replaced them with new, lighter and more >lethal fighting forces. > >Yet it now appears that the military contractors, united with allies in the >Pentagon and Congress in a group known around Washington as the Iron >Triangle, stood up to Mr. Rumsfeld — and won. Weapons systems >that had been on the chopping block have been saved, and others that many >critics say should be consigned to the dustbin of history are about to >receive millions, and in some cases billions, of taxpayers' >dollars. > >"As far as the sweeping, let's-turn-the-place-inside-out changes that were >being proposed, that's just not going to happen," said Byron K. Callan, a >military industry analyst at Merrill Lynch. "The most interesting thing >about this administration and Pentagon is that there has been a lot of talk, >but action only at the margin." > >For two years now, the administration has wanted to make good on Mr. Bush's >campaign promise to modernize the military, even if it meant skipping a >generation of weapons in the works. Despite the attention >the military receives for its high-technology weaponry, billions of dollars >still flow into weapons systems designed to fight the battles of yesterday — >fighter jets built for aerial battles with the Soviets, warships designed >for battles in the open seas. > >For companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General >Dynamics and dozens of others, hundreds of millions of dollars were on the >line every time Mr. Bush talked about modernization. He gave >two major speeches on the subject at the Citadel, one as a candidate and one >last year. His pronouncements were repeated even more forcefully by Mr. >Rumsfeld, who, known for tough decisions, looked as if he could turn the >tough talk into action. > >But it hasn't turned out that way. After canceling one weapons system last >year and saying that six other major ones were on the block, Mr. Rumsfeld is >expected to put forward a budget that is said, by those who >have seen it, to keep the funds flowing to nearly every weapons system that >was up for review. > >The Pentagon will not comment on the budget until its official release. But >barring a last-minute change of heart in the White House, the scope of >military spending appears to be set for the next several years. > ><SNIP> > >_________________________________________________________________ >MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 3 months FREE*. >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= >http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_virusprotection_3mf > > >-- >To unsubscribe, send ANY message to <faithandlife-unsubscribe@...> > > __________________________________________________________________ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/