'The Bush family prefers to see the carrier named after the 41st president in Florida where Jeb Bush, the president’s son, was the governor'

Virginia, Florida spar over carrier money

By Roxana Tiron
15 Mar 2009

Lawmakers and companies typically make the case that their interests deserve a slice of defense funding months before the Pentagon's budget comes out.

But this year, Virginian politicians are keeping their fingers crossed that the Pentagon won't ask for money that would be spent on moving a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from Norfolk to Florida.

Virginia politicians, led by Gov. Tim Kaine (D), have been pressing the Obama administration not to include funds necessary to get the Mayport Naval Station in Jacksonville ready to house a nuclear carrier.

The release of the detailed budget in April will show whether the intense lobbying campaign of recent months has paid off. Virginians are trying to convince President Obama that the Navy's decision, in early January, to move a carrier to Florida was politically driven due to influence from President Bush.

The likely candidate for the move is the recently-commissioned U.S.S. George H.W. Bush, a carrier that the Navy will keep in Norfolk for the time being.

The entire Bush family was present at the ship's commissioning in Norfolk just days before President Bush stepped down. It is no secret that the Bush family prefers to see the carrier named after the 41st president in Florida where Jeb Bush, the president's son, was the governor.

Mayport is not currently equipped to house the carrier. It likely will not be ready until 2014.

Florida's delegation has been dogged in trying to get a carrier moved to the Jacksonville area. The move could generate billions of dollars for the local economy.

At the same time, Virginia is trying to hold on to as many carriers as possible.

Virginians are pressing the Obama administration and the new leaders at the Pentagon to use an upcoming, sweeping review of defense strategy, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review, to conduct an assessment of the need to move a carrier to Florida...



Streamlined US military spending is now a necessity

20 Mar 2009

...Gates, the lone Cabinet holdover from the Bush administration, is expected to target several weapons systems for elimination. Among them: The F-22 fighter jet and a new class of destroyer for the Navy.

He'll undoubtedly run into well-coordinated PR pushbacks from military contractors, not to mention members of Congress in districts where jobs could be lost.

But this is a push that is long overdue. U.S. military spending amounts to about half the total worldwide. It's roughly equal to the military spending of the next largest 45 countries combined.

You could put together the next 13 largest navies, and ours would still be larger. (And we'd note that 11 of those 13 navies belong to our allies).

So, no pun intended, we've gotten some bang for our buck. However, we've also spent much more than necessary.

A 2008 report from the Government Accountability Office showed that from 2000-2007 the cost of major new defense programs had grown some $300 billion over original estimates. ArmyTimes.com. noted the typical defense system as of 2007 was 26 percent over budget and 21 months behind schedule.

The per-vessel cost of the new destroyer that Gates has in his sights could possibly reach $5 billion. By comparison, the newly-launched aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush cost $6.2 billion.

Lavish new weapons systems aren't needed to fight a foe that has relied on boxcutters for its most devastating attack. And we simply can't afford them...

[ via 'Impeach Bush' Yahoo! Group ]