Which candidate is friendliest toward CAP?

[ELTHunter]

With an election year coming up, which presidential candidate do you think would be in CAP's best interest?  There are, of course, a lot of different reasons to vote for, or against, a particular candidate.  I'm not saying I'd vote for or against one just because of his/her position on CAP, but if other things were equal, is one better than the other for us?

Let's not allow this thread to get into an argument for or against any particular party or candidate, or a candidates position on anything that's not related to CAP interests...please.

[JC004]

Hmmm...good question.  I don't know that it's easy to tell because CAP is not exactly an election-winning thing to push, and frankly most of them couldn't care less at the moment. 

[RiverAux]

I doubt any Presidential candidate since FDR has ever given one thought to CAP specifically. The only way to judge their potential effect on CAP is to assume that if they push more money at the AF that either we will get some of it, or at the very least, not get any more cuts.  And probably not since the "missle gap" has the AF itself received much attention during a Presidential campaign.  So, now you're reduced to ASSuming that if a candidate pledges to push more money towards the military that the AF will get some of that and the benefits will trickle down into CAP.  

Given the way things are going, I don't see that as likely.  The Army, Marines, and Coast Guard have been increasing manpower while the AF has been making massive cuts.  Not sure what the Navy has been doing, but I suspect decreasing.  

So, really I don't see any way to judge on this.  

Let me ask you this... Are any of the currently announced candidates former CAP members (even if only in a Legislative squadron)?

[JC004]

...
Let me ask you this... Are any of the currently announced candidates former CAP members (even if only in a Legislative squadron)?

Legislative critters:
Joe Biden
Duncan Hunter

[capchiro]

Although I don't think either party is aware of CAP or for or against us, I do think the Republican party is much more military friendly than the Democratic party in general.

[ELTHunter]

I seem to remember something about John McCain criticizing CAP funding, or something like that.  Am I dreaming that or does anybody else remember anything like that happening?

[ZigZag911]

I seem to remember something about John McCain criticizing CAP funding, or something like that.  Am I dreaming that or does anybody else remember anything like that happening?

Yeah, I recall something like that too.

[Major Carrales]

I have been a Republican for a while now but...if John McCain took a wack at CAP...and I do remember this...he has lost my vote.

We don't ask for much...plus, we don't get paid.  Give us money to fly cadets and perform our missions and that is all we will need.

[Mustang]

Please don't vote based on which candidate is best for a particular special interest group, please vote for which candidate is best for the country.

[ColonelJack]

During the 1990s, Senator John McCain floated a proposal to remove CAP from the Air Force entirely and place it under the auspices of the Department of Transportation ... and remove its auxiliary status from AF.  I don't know the whys and wherefores of the plan, but it would have also removed all uniform/grade from CAP and made it a forerunner of the Department of Homeland Security.  (Or something like that.)

He lost any and all support he might've had from me back then.

Jack

[ColonelJack]

Please don't vote based on which candidate is best for a particular special interest group, please vote for which candidate is best for the country.

If that's how we're supposed to do it, how did we get the current guy, then?

Jack

[arajca]

Please don't vote based on which candidate is best for a particular special interest group, please vote for which candidate is best for the country.

If that's how we're supposed to do it, how did we get the current guy, then?

Jack

Lesser of two evils?

More and more I see the election process as not selecting the best candidate for the job, but more as selecting the least bad one, because there are usually very few who I consider good for the job.

[ELTHunter]

Or the one with the best PR and advertising campaign.  If a candidate can't package himself into 30 second sound bites today, there are a lot of people who will never know what they stand on issues.

I was really high on McCain back in 2000 when I thought GWB did a hatchet job on him in the media and advertising in South Carolina.  It is scary to think that more and more, our countries leaders are chosen by people that think The Daily Show is real news and get their information from campaign ads.

[JohnKachenmeister]

C'mon, guys, this is a no-brainer.

Duncan Hunter!

He's the only guy in Washington who remembers we exist when there isn't any scandal brewing!

[mikeylikey]

Wow.....I see no candidate that is worthy of being President.  Is it me or has this Presidential election started way early?  Also......why is MSNBC not showing news, but only debating on candidates?  The election process has become so scewed, it is such a shame.  I think I remember reading that no President since W Wilson has not been worth less than 5 Million.  Do they really represent the common person?  No!  I say save your votes for Senators and Representatives, as they are the ones who can benefit CAP more!

[Grumpy]

I seem to remember something about John McCain criticizing CAP funding, or something like that.  Am I dreaming that or does anybody else remember anything like that happening?

A few years back I seem to remember McCain talking about disbanding CAP.  Haven't cared for him since.

Brian Billing, Maj. CAP
Dep. Cmdr for Seniors
Sq 47, Oceanside, CA

[Major Carrales]

Please don't vote based on which candidate is best for a particular special interest group, please vote for which candidate is best for the country.

Well, that disqualifies all the Democrats and Republicans. 

[flyguy06]

So I take it John McCain is not a friend to CAP

[Major Carrales]

So I take it John McCain is not a friend to CAP

July 27, 2000

MCCAIN OPPOSES OVER $7 BILLION IN DEFENSE PORK
http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=867

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today continued his fight to save taxpayer dollars and to reform the Pentagon's budget by opposing over $7 billion in unrequested items in the Defense Appropriations Conference Report. McCain's floor statement and list of projects follows:

"Mr. President, I rise once again to address the issue of pork-barrel spending in an appropriations bill, in this case the defense appropriations conference report. This bill will pass by an overwhelming margin and with minimal debate. It will occasion the release of innumerable press statements attesting to our individual successes in bringing home the bacon--to demonstrate, if you will, our impressive achievements in funneling tax dollars back home. It will make us look good to our constituents, and hopefully help to ensure our reelection to office. It is a time for celebration.

"When the Military Construction and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill recently passed in the Senate on its way to the White House, it was filled with budgeting gimmicks with a total value of some $6 billion. The senator from Texas and I strongly objected to the employment of such nefarious and deceptive budgeting practices and were assured they would be reversed in the next appropriations bill to come to the floor. Regrettably, that was not the case. It is a sad commentary on Congress that we continue to use discredited budgeting practices three decades after Robert McNamara employed them in his role as secretary of Defense. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. Until we progress beyond the capacity to use such duplicitous tactics, we should not expect the public to place its trust and confidence in us. They are not fools, and do not like to be treated as such.

"As we worship at the altar of pork-barrel spending, let's reflect a bit on the merits of our activities with respect to the practice of adding unrequested programs to the defense budget for parochial reasons. When the defense appropriations bill first emerged from committee, some of us found interesting the inclusion of language urging the Secretary of Defense to "take steps to increase the Department's use of cranberry products...." What I referred to at the time as "the cranberry incident," Mr. President, in retrospect represented the high point of the process by which this conference report was assembled.

"There are over $7 billion in unrequested member-adds in this bill--over $7 billion. That does not just represent a continuation of business as usual pork-barrel spending; it represents an egregious expansion of a practice that drains vital resources from a military that has witnessed a multitude of readiness problems while deploying at record-high levels. As we struggle with answers to such problems as how to modernize tactical aviation, maintain a fleet of sufficient size and capability to execute its mission, and fund ongoing and unforeseen contingencies, it is less than reassuring to read through the defense spending bill and see $1.8 million earmarked for development of a handheld holographic radar gun, although Trekkies across the nation will no doubt be pleased by this project.

"It is tiresome to scan these bills every year and see the annual member-adds of millions of dollars for spectral hole burning applications and for free electron lasers. And it is particularly tiresome, right after passing an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that included an executive jet for the commandant of the Coast Guard, to see in this bill a $60 million earmark for a new 737 for CINCPAC--an important command but $60 million for an aircraft that was neither requested nor required constitutes just one of many questionable additions to this bill.

"We have finally reversed 15 years in declines in defense spending, but for what purpose. To transfer $10 million to the Department of Transportation to realign railroad tracks in Alaska? To transfer $5 million to the National Park Service for repair improvements at Fort Baker in northern California? To transfer another $5 million to the Chicago Public Schools to convert a former National Guard Armory? Was our objective in increasing defense spending to allow us to more freely earmark funding for such endeavors as the $500,000 for Florida Memorial College for funding minority aviation training; $21 million for the Civil Air Patrol; to continue to fund a weather reconnaissance squadron in Mississippi that the Air Force has been trying to get rid off for more years than I can remember? There is over $4 million in this bill for the Angel Gate Academy. There is the now annual allocation to preserve Civil War-era vessels at the bottom of Lake Champlaign, this year in the amount of $15 million. There is $2 million for the Bosque Redondo Memorial in New Mexico and the usual $3 million for hyperspectral research.


"If a project is so worthy of Defense Department support, why doesn't it ever show up in a budget request? Why do we need to add money every single year for the National Automotive Center and its prize off-shoot, the Smart Truck Initiative. With another $3.5 million in the fiscal year 2001 defense bill for Smart Truck, I'm beginning to wonder if the intellect of this truck will be such that it will not only be capable of heating up a burrito, but will also perform advanced calculus while quoting Kierkegaard. When I look through this bill, I begin to lose sight of its fundamental purpose. The distinction between the defense bill and the Health and Human Services bill gets lost when you see $8.5 million for the Gallo Center for Alcoholism Research, $4 million for the Gallo Cancer Center--see a pattern emerging?--another $1.5 million for nutrition research, $1.5 million for chronic fatigue syndrome research, and, of course, $1 million for the Cancer Center of Excellence--this latter add a reminder that if you call something a "center of excellence" you are assured of being a beneficiary of Congress's largess.

"Mr. President, I do not take issue with research into important health problems affecting millions of Americans. But the abuse of the defense budget grows every year. It has long been used as a cash-cow for pet projects, but did that have to extend to the allocation of millions of dollars for programs of such exceedingly low priority that they don't even show up on already politicized unfunded priority lists?"

Astronomical Active Optics, Mr. President, were deemed worthy of over $3 million in defense funds, as was coal based advanced thermally stable jet fuel. Fifteen million dollars for the Maui Space Surveillance System, another annual add, $5 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network, $8 million for the Pacific Island Health Care Referral Program, $1 million for the Alaska Federal Health Care Network, $1.5 million for AlaskAlert, $7 million for MILES 2000 equipment at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, $7.5 million for a C-130 simulator for the Alaska National Guard, the annual $10 million for utilidor repairs at Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright, Alaska, and $21 million for an unmanned threat emitter system for Eielson, and $7 million to sustain operations at Adak Naval Air Station, an installation of apparently marginal utility or the Navy would include it in its funding request. Reuse of Fort Greely, Alaska, receives $7 million for airfield improvement. One of my favorites, $300,000 for the Circum-Pacific Council for the Crowding the Rim Summit Initiative, represents a new addition to this list.

"The inclusion of so-called "Buy American" provisions continue to waste billions of dollars every year. These out-dated protectionist policies serve neither U.S. nor allied interests. It goes against the basic logical policy of getting the best product for the best price for the men and women who wear our nation's uniform. Additionally, these provisions, for example, the requirement to purchase only propellers manufactured in the United States, were added in conference--a practice with I take strong exception and will discuss further in a minute.

"I have repeatedly addressed the growing perversion of the process by which budget requests and service Unfunded Priority Lists are put together. It has been clear for several years now that the services are under considerable political pressure from Capitol Hill to include in their budget requests or, at a minimum, on the Unfunded Priority Lists, unnecessary and unwanted items. Funding for the ubiquitous LHD amphibious assault ship for Mississippi is the classic example of this phenomenon. Indeed, the Defense Department and the Navy's rejection in the past of proposals to incrementally fund ships has given way to unrelenting pressure from members of Congress to so fund the LHD. Similarly, C-1 30s and passenger jets are routinely added to the UFR lists solely as a result of political pressure. In effect, then, my efforts at highlighting pork-barrel spending have resulted to some degree in the problem being pushed underground. That's called progress in Congress. It's called deception everywhere else.

"The fiscal year 2001 defense appropriations conference report takes the problem a major step further. The integrity of the budget process is under a new and devastating assault by the Appropriations Committee. There is in this conference report language specifying the very weapon systems the committee expects to seeincluded in future budget submissions. It is a long list prefaced with the warning that "the conferees expect the component commanders to give priority consideration to the following items...," which it then goes on to detail.

"Finally, I would like to address the equally fascinating tendency of the Appropriations Committees to arrive at final budget numbers that exceed what was in either House or Senate bill. It is my understanding that conference is a process whereby differences between respective bills are the subject of negotiations resulting in agreements that either match one of the two numbers in question or find a compromise in between. I find it interesting, therefore, that this conference report has 166 instances of final numbers exceeding those that were in either bill. In many instances, funding was added in conference for which none was included in either chamber's bill.

"For example, $17 million was added in conference for a capital purchase plan for Pearl Harbor, and $10 million materialized for modifications to M113 armored personnel carriers. There is $10 million in the conference report which was in neither bill to continue the artificial issue of test firing Starstreak missiles, and $1 million for natural gas microturbines. In this bill vital for our national defense is $1.7 million for the South Florida Ocean management Center and $1 million for Community Hospital Telehealth Competition. And, of course, the $60 million for CINCPAC's new 737 was added in conference. For none of these programs, totaling over $200 million, was funding included in either the House or the Senate bill.

"The total dollar amount for the entire category of conference items for which no funding was included in either chambers' bill or for which the final number exceeds what was in either bill is over $2 billion. Two billion dollars, Mr. President, in unrequested, unnecessary items that emerged miraculously in conference. I've heard of the fog of war resulting in horrendous casualties, but I'm perplexed by this fog of negotiating that results in horrendous budgets.

"Sadly, Mr. President, I could go on for another hour. I think, however, that I have made my point. The $7 million in the defense bill for the Magdalena Ridge Observatory in New Mexico, combined with the aforementioned adds for Astronomical Active Optics and the Maui Space Surveillance System leads me to ponder the universe of pork-barrel spending at a higher philosophical plane than in the past. We are adding millions of dollars every year to the defense bill so that we may better scan the heavens, perhaps as part of an ultimately futile effort to better understand our place in the cosmos. Only by applying such logic to the process of reviewing spending bills upon which we vote, however, can I hope to understand the phenomenon by which we regularly send billions of dollars down a black hole. At the end of the day, I guess Einstein's theory of relativity, as well as Newtonian laws of gravity, are at the center of the budget process. The practice of pork-barrel spending has been out of control for years; only now can we take it to a cosmic level never before contemplated."

[Major Carrales]

December 20, 2001

MCCAIN RAILS AGAINST $3.6 BILLION IN DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR FY'02
http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=586
 

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator John McCain today made the following statement regarding the conference report to the Defense Appropriations bill for FY'02:

"Mr. President, I rise once again to address the issue of wasteful spending in appropriations measures, in this case the bill funding the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002. In provisions too numerous to mention in detail, this bill, time and again, chooses to fund pork barrel projects with little if any relationship to national defense at a time of scarce resources, budget deficits, and underfunded, urgent defense priorities.

"As I pointed out previously to this body on December 7th, the massive Department of Defense Appropriations Bill Conference Report, totaling $343 billion, would be the last business in the Senate - and so it is. Not because of its level of difficulty, but because it is so easy to hide the mother of all pork projects in a large massive bill - or maybe it wasn't because we found it as well as many other groups. For example, let me read a few comments ....................

"Our nation is at war, a war that has united Americans behind a common goal -- to find the enemies who terrorized the United States on September 11th and bring them to justice. In pursuit of this goal, our servicemen and women are serving long hours, under extremely difficult conditions, far away from their families. Many other Americans also have been affected by this war and its economic impact, whether they have lost their jobs, their homes, or have had to drastically cut expenses this holiday season. The weapons we have given them, for all their impressive effects, are, in many cases, neither in quantity nor quality, the best that our government can provide.

"For instance, stockpiles of the precision guided munitions that we have relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear so effectively on difficult, often moving targets, with the least collateral damage possible, are dangerously depleted after only ten weeks of war in Afghanistan. This is just one area of critical importance to our success in this war that underscores just how carefully we should be allocating scarce resources to our national defense.

"Yet, despite the realities of war, and the responsibilities they impose on Congress as much the President, the Senate Appropriations Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its usual blatant use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve some worthy purpose, but that certainly impair our national defense by depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding.

"Even in the middle of a war, a war of monumental consequences, the Appropriations Committee, Mr. President, is intent on using the Department of Defense as an agency for dispensing corporate welfare. It is a terrible shame that in a time of maximum emergency, the United States Senate would persist in spending money requested and authorized only for our Armed Forces to satisfy the needs or the desires of interests that are unrelated to defense needs.

"The Investor's Business Daily, on December 18, 2001, had this to say in an article titled At the Trough: Welfare Checks To Big Business Make No Sense, "Among the least justified outlays is corporate welfare. Budget analyst Stephen Slivinski estimates that business subsidies will run $87 billion this year, up a third since 1997, Although President Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to corporate welfare this year, Congress has proved resistant. Indeed, many post-September 11 bailouts have gone to big business. Boeing is one of the biggest beneficiaries. Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat from Washington, is pushing a substantial increase in research and development support for Boeing and other defense contractors, the purchase of several retrofitted Boeing 767s and the leasing of as many as 100 767s for purposes ranging from surveillance to refueling. Boeing has been hurt by the storm that hit airlines, since many companies have slashed orders. Yet China recently agreed to buy 30 of the company's planes, and Boeing's problems predate the September 11 attack. It is one thing to compensate the airlines for forcibly shutting them down; it is quite another to toss money at big companies caught in a down demand cycle. Boeing, along with many other major exporters, enjoys its own federal lending facility, the Export-Import Bank. ExIm uses cheap loans, loan guarantees and loan insurance to subsidize purchases of U.S. products. The bulk of the money goes to big business that sell airplanes, machinery, nuclear power plants and the like. Last year alone, Boeing benefitted from $3.3 billion in credit subsidies. While corporate America gets the profits, taxpayers get the losses....The Constitution authorizes a Congress to promote the general welfare, not enrich Boeing and other corporate behemoths. There is no warrant to take from Peter so Paul can pay higher corporate dividends. In the aftermath of September 11, the American people can ill afford budget profligacy in Washington. If Congress is not willing to cut corporate welfare at a time of national crisis, what is it willing to cut?"

"As I mentioned last week when the Senate version of the Defense Appropriations bill was being debated - and now carried through the Conference Committee - there is a sweet deal for the Boeing Company that I'm sure is the envy of corporate lobbyists from one end of K Street to the other. Attached is a legislative provision to the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations bill that would require the Air Force to lease one hundred 767 aircraft for use as tankers for $26 million apiece each year for the next 10 years. Moreover, in Conference Committee the appropriators added four 737 aircraft for executive travel - mostly benefitting Members of Congress. We have been told that these aircraft will be assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base. Since the 10-year leases have yet to be signed, the cost of the planes cannot be calculated, but it costs roughly $85 million to buy one 737, and a lease costs significantly more over the long term.

"The cost to taxpayers? $2.6 billion per year for the aircraft plus another $1.2 billion in military construction funds to modify KC-135 hangars to accommodate their larger replacements, with a total price tag of more than $30 billion over 10 years when the costs of the 737 leases are also included. This leasing plan is five times more expensive to the taxpayer than an outright purchase, and it represents 30% of the Air Force's annual cost of its top 60 priorities. But the most amazing fact is that this program is not actually among the Air Force's top 60 priorities nor do new tankers appear in the 6-year defense procurement plan for the Service!

"That's right, when the Air Force told Congress in clear terms what its top priorities were tankers and medical lift capability aircraft weren't included as critical programs. In fact, within its top 30 programs, the Air Force has asked for several essential items that would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, jet fighter engine replacement parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and rescue helicopters for downed pilots.

"Let me say that again, within its top 30 programs, the Air Force has asked for several essential items that would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, jet fighter engine replacement parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and rescue helicopters for downed pilots.

"This leasing program also will require $1.2 billion in military construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are too small for the new 767 aircraft. The taxpayers also will be on the hook for another $30 million per aircraft on the front end to convert these aircraft from commercial configurations to military; and at the end of the lease, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for $30 million more, to convert the aircraft back -- pushing the total cost of the Boeing sweetheart deal to $30 billion over the ten-year lease. Mr. President, that is waste that borders on gross negligence.

"But this is just another example of Congress' political meddling and of how outside special interest groups have obstructed the military's ability to channel resources where they are most needed. I will repeat what I've said many, many times before - the military needs less money spent on pork and more spent to redress the serious problems caused by a decade of declining defense budgets.

"This bill includes many more examples where congressional appropriators show that they have no sense of priority when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money. The insatiable appetite in Congress for wasteful spending grows more and more as the total amount of pork added to appropriations bills this year -- an amount totaling over $15 billion.

"This defense appropriations bill also includes provisions to mandate domestic source restrictions; these "Buy America" provisions directly harm the United States and our allies. "Buy America" protectionist procurement policies, enacted by Congress to protect pork barrel projects in each Member's State or District, hurt military readiness, personnel funding, modernization of military equipment, and cost the taxpayer $5.5 billion annually. In many instances, we are driving the military to buy higher-priced, inferior products when we do not allow foreign competition. "Buy America" restrictions undermine DoD's ability to procure the best systems at the least cost and impede greater interoperability and armaments cooperation with our allies. They are not only less cost-effective, they also constitute bad policy, particularly at a time when our allies' support in the war on terrorism is so important.

"Secretary Rumsfeld and his predecessor, Bill Cohen, oppose this protectionist and costly appropriation's policy. However, the appropriations' staff ignores this expert advice when preparing the legislative draft of the appropriations bills each year. In the defense appropriations bill are several examples of "Buy America" pork -- prohibitions on procuring anchor and mooring chain components for Navy warships; main propulsion diesel engines and propellers for a new class of Navy dry-stores and ammunition supply ships; supercomputers; carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate; ball and roller bearings; construction or conversion of any naval vessel; and, other naval auxiliary equipment, including pumps for all shipboard services, propulsion system components such as engines, reduction gears, and propellers, shipboard cranes, and spreaders for shipboard cranes.

"Also buried in the smoke and mirrors of the appropriations markup is what appears to be a small provision that has large implications on our warfighting ability in Afghanistan and around the world. Without debate or advice and counsel from the Committee on Armed Services, the appropriators changed the policy on military construction which would prohibit previous authority given to the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Service Secretaries to shift military construction money within the MILCON account to more critical military construction projects in time of war or national emergency. The reason for this seemingly small change is to protect added pork in the form of military construction projects in key states, especially as such projects have historically been added by those Members who sit on the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, at the expense, Mr. President, of projects the Commander-in-Chief believes are most needed to support our military overseas.

"Does the appropriations committee have any respect for the authorizing committees in the Senate?

"Mr. President, I look forward to the day when my appearances on the Senate floor for this purpose are no longer necessary. There is nearly $2.5 billion in unrequested defense programs in the defense appropriations bill and another $1.1 billion for additional supplemental appropriations not directly related to defense that have been added by the Chairman of the Committee. Consider what $3.6 billion when added to the savings gained through additional base closings and more cost-effective business practices could be used for. The problems of our armed forces, whether in terms of force structure or modernization, could be more assuredly addressed and our warfighting ability greatly enhanced. The public expects more of us.

"But for now, unfortunately, they must witness us, blind to our responsibilities in war, going about our business as usual.

"Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full statement and the list of earmarks from the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill Conference Report be placed in the Record following my statement.

"Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor."




FY 2002 Defense Appropriations
PORK ($ in millions)


DIVISION A

Operation and Maintenance, Army
Fort Knox Distance Learning Program $ 2.1
Army Conservation and Ecosystem Management 4.3
Fort Richardson, Camp Denali Water Systems 0.6
Rock Island Bridge Repairs 2.0
Memorial Tunnel, Consequence Management 16.5
FIRES Programs Data 6.8
Skid Steer Loaders 7.5
USARPAC Transformation Planning 8.5
USARPAC Command, Control, and Communications Upgrades 3.2
Hunter UAV 2.5
Field Pack-up Systems 2.5
Unutilized Plant Capacity 17.5
SROTC - Air Battle Captain 1.0
Joint Assessment Neurological Examination Equipment 2.6
Repairs Ft. Baker 1.0
Fires Program Data Capt. 6.8
Mobility Enhancement Study 0.5
Classified Programs, Undistributed 0.35

Operation and Maintenance, Navy
Naval Sea Cadet Corps 1.0
Shipyard Apprentice Program 7.8
PHNSY SRM 12.8
Warfare Tactics PMRF 20.4
Hydrographic Center of Excellence 2.5
UNOLS 1.5
Center of Excellence for Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance 4.3
Biometrics Support 2.5

Operation and Maintenace, Air Force
Pacific Server Consolidation 8.5
Grand Forks AFB ramp refurbishment 5.0
Wind Energy Fund 0.5
University Partnership for Operational Support 3.4
Hickam AFB Alternate Fuel Program 1.0
SRM Eielson Utilidors 8.5
Civil Air Patrol Corporation 3.2
PACAF Strategic Airlift planning 1.7
Elmendorf AFB transportation infrastructure 10.2
MTAPP 2.8

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
Civil Military programs, Innovative Readiness Training 8.5
DoDEA, Math Teacher Leadership 1.0
DoDEA, Galena IDEA 3.4
DoDEA, SRM 5.0
OEA, Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor 4.0
OEA, Fitzsimmons Army Hospital 3.8
OEA Barrow landfill relocation 3.4
OEA, Broadneck peninsula NIKE site 1.0
OSD, Clara Barton Center 1.0
OSD, Pacific Command Regional initiative 6.0
OEA, Adak airfield operations 1.0
OSD, Intelligence fusion study 5.0
Free Markets 1.4
Trustfund for demining and mine eviction 14.0
Impact aid 30.0
Legacy 12.9

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
Distributed Learning Project 25.5
ECWCS 2.5
Camp McCain Simulator Center, trainer upgrades 3.2
Fort Harrison Communications Infrastructure 1.0
Communications Network Equipment 0.209
Multimedia classroom 0.85
Camp McCain Training Site, roads 2.2
Full Time Support, 487 additional technicians 11.2
Emergency Spill Response and Preparedness Program 0.79
Distance Learning 30.0
SRM reallocation 25.0
Army Guard Education Program at NPS 2.0

Operation and Maintenace, Air National Guard
Extended Cold Weather Clothing System 2.5
Defense Systems Evaluation 1.7
Eagle Vision (Air Guard) 8.5
Bangor International Airport repairs 5.0
Military Techniques Costing Model 6.3
Angel Gate Academy 1.5
GSA Leased Vehicle Program 1.75
Camp Gruber Regional Trade Center 2.4
Information Technology Management Training 1.0
Rural Access to Broadband Technology 3.4
National Guard State Partnership Program 1.0

Aircraft Procurment, Army
Oil debris detection and burn-off system 3.5
ATIRCM LRIP 7.0
Guardrail Mods 5.0

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles 20.0

Other Procurement, Army
Automated Data Processing Equipment 14.0
Camouflage: ULCANS 4.0
Aluminum Mesh Tank Liner 3.5
AN/TTC Single Shelter Switches w/ Associated Support 26.5
Blackjack Secure Facsimile 7.0
Trunked Radio System 1.4
Modular Command Post 2.5
Laundry Advance Systems (LADS) 3.0
Abrams & Bradley Interactive Skills Trainer 6.3
SIMNET 10.5
AFIST 8.3
Ft. Wainwright MOUT Instrumentation 6.5
Target Receiver Injection Module Threat Simulator 4.0
Tactical Fire Trucks 4.0
IFTE 15.0
Maintenance Automatic Identification Technology 3.0
National Guard Distance Learning Courseware 8.0
Smart Truck 3.4
ULCANS 4.0
Floating Crane 7.0
2KW Military Tactical Generator 2.5
Firefighting Training System 1.2
Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure 1.2
GUARDFIST 3.0
Army Live Fire Ranges 3.5
USARPAC C-4 Suites 7.2

Aircraft Procurements, Navy
JPATS (16 aircraft) 44.6
ECP-583 24.0
PACT Trainer 6.0
Direct Support Squadron Readiness Training 4.5
UC-45 7.5

Other Procurement, Navy
JEDMICS 11.5
Pacific Missile Range Equipment 6.0
IPDE Enhancement 4.2
Pearl Harbor Pilot 4.3
AN/BPS-15H Navigation System 6.3
Tactical Communication On-Board Training 4.5
Air Traffic Control On-Board Trainer 2.8
WSN-7B 7.0
Naval Shore Communications 48.7

Missle Procurment, Air Force
NUDET Detection System 19.066

Other Procurement, Air Force
CAP COM and ELECT 7.0
Pacific AK Range Complex Mount Fairplay 6.3
UHF/VHF Radios for Mont Fairplay, Sustina 3.0

National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Navy Reserve Misc. Equipment 15.0
Marine Corps Misc. Equipment 10.0
Air Force Reserve Misc. Equipment 10.0
Army National Guard Misc. Equipment 10.0
Air Guard C-130 219.7
Lasermarksmenship Training Center 8.5
UH-60 Blackhawk 8.7
Engage Skills Training 4.2
Multirole Bridging Compound 15.7
Braley ODS 51.0
Heavy Equipment Training System 2.5
Reserve Composition System 15.5
P19 Truck Crash 3.5

Weapons Procurement, Navy
Drones and Decoys 14.9

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Minehunter Swath 1.0
Yard Boilers 3.0

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army
Environmental Quality Technology Dem/Val 10.36
End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities 20.6
Defense Research Sciences Cold Weather Sensor Performance 1.0
Advanced Materials Processing 3.0
FCS Composites Research 2.5
AAN Multifunctional Materials 1.5
HELSTF Solid State Heat Capacity 3.5
Photonics 2.5
Army COE Acoustics 3.5
Cooperative Energetics Initiatives 3.5
TOW ITAS Cylindrical Battery Replacement 1.5
Cylindrical Zinc Air Battery for LWS 1.8
Heat Actuated Coolers 1.0
Improved High Rate Alkaline Cells 1.0
Low Cost Reusable Alkaline (Manganese-Zinc) Cells 0.6
Rechargeable Cylindrical Cell System 1.5
Waste Minimization and Pollution Research 2.0
Molecular and Computational Risk Assessment (MACERAC) 1.4
Center for Geosciences 1.5
Cold Regions Military Engineering 1.0
University Partnership for Operational Support (UPOS) 3.4
Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System (PEPS) 3.0
DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility 15.0
Starstreak 16.0
Center for International Rehabilitation 1.4
Dermal Phase Meter 0.6
Minimally Invasive Surgery Simulator 1.4
Minimally Invasive Therapy 5.0
Anthropod-Borne Infectious Disease Control 2.5
VCT Lung Scan 3.2
Tissue Engineering Research 4.7
Monocional Anti-body based technology (Heteropolymer System) 3.0
Dye Targeted Laser Fusion 3.4
Joint Diabetes Program 5.0
Center for Prostate Disease Research 6.4
Spine Research 2.1
Brain Biology and Machine Initiative 1.8
Medical Simulation training initiative 0.75
TACOM Hybrid Vehicle 1.0
N-STEP 2.5
IMPACT 3.5
Composite Body Parts 1.4
Corrosion Prevention and Control Program 1.4
Mobile Parts Hospital 5.6
Vehicle Body Armor Support System 3.3
Casting Emission Reduction Program 5.8
Managing Army Tech. Environmental Enhancement 1.0
Visual Cockpit Optimization 4.2
JCALS 10.2
Electronics Commodity Pilot Program 1.0
Battle Lab at Ft. Knox 3.5
TIME 10.0
Force Provider Microwave Treatment 1.4
Mantech Program for Cylindrical Zinc Batteries 1.8
Continuous Manufacturing Process for Mental Matrix Composites 2.6
Modular Extendable Rigid Wall Shelter 2.6
Combat Vehicle and Automotive technology 14.0
Auto research center 2.0
Hydrogen DEM fuel cell vehicle demonstration 5.0
Electronic Display Research 9.0
Fuel Cell Power Systems 2.5
Polymer Extrusion/Multilaminate 2.6
DoD Fuel Cell Test and Evaluation Center 5.1
Ft. Meade Fuel Cell Demo 2.5
Biometrics 5.1
Diabetes Project, Pittsburgh 5.1
Osteoporosis Research 2.8
Aluminum Reinforced Metal Matrix Composition 2.5
Comabt Vehicle Res Weight Reduction 6.0
Ft. Ord Celanup Demonstration Project 2.0
Vanadium Tech Program 1.3
ERADS 2.0
Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutic Digital Tech 1.3
Artificial Hip 3.5
Biosensor Research 2.5
Brain Biology and Machine Initiative 1.8
Cancer Center of Excellence (Notre Dame) 2.1
Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology 8.5
Center for Untethered Healthcare at Worcester Polytechnic Institute 1.0
Continuous Expert Care Network Telemedicine Program 1.5
Disaster Relief and Emergency Medical Services (DREAMS) 8.0
Hemoglobin Based Oxygen Carrier 1.0
Hepatitas C 3.4
Joslin Diabetes Research-eye Care 4.2
LSTAT 2.5
Secure Telemedicine Technology Program 2.0
Memorial Hermann Telemedicine Network 9.0
Monoclonal Antibodies 1.0
Emergency Telemedicine Response and Advanced Technology Program 1.5
National Medical Testbed 7.7
Neurofibromatosis Research Program 21.0
Neurology Gallo Center-alcoholism research 5.6
Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research Program 17.0
Polynitroxylated Hemogolbin 1.0
SEAtreat cervical cancer visualization and treatment 1.7
Smart Aortic Arch Catheter 1.0
National Tissue Engineering Center 2.0
Center for Prostate Disease Research at WRAMC 6.4

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy
Southeast Atlantic Coastal Observing System (SEA-COOS) 4.0
Marine Mammal Low Frequency Sound Research 1.0
Maritime Fire Training/Barbers Point 2.6
3-D Printing Metalworking Project 2.5
Nanoscale Science and Technology Program 1.5
Nanoscale devices 1.0
Advanced waterjet-21 project 3.5
DDG-51 Composite twisted rudder 1.0
High Resolution Digital mammography 1.5
Military Dental Research 2.8
Vector Thrusted Ducted Propeller 3.4
Ship Service Fuel Cell Technology Verification & Training Program 2.0
Aluminum Mesh Tank Liner 1.5
AEGIS Operational Readiness Training System (ORTS) 4.0
Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology 19.3
Human Systems Technology 2.6
Undersea Warfare Weaponry Technology 1.7
Medical Development 59.0
Manpower, Personell and Training ADV Tech DEV 2.0
Environmental Quality and Logistics ADV Tech 1.4

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Bug to Drug Identification and CM 2.0
American Indian higher education consortium 3.5
Business/Tech manuals R&D 1.5
AGILE Port Demonstrations 8.5

Defense Health Program
Hawaii Federal healthcare network 15.3
Pacific island health care referral program 4.3
Alaska Federal healthcare Network 2.125
Brown Tree Snakes 1.0
Tri-Service Nursing Research Program 6.0
Graduate School of Nursing 2.0
Health Study at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant 1.0
Coastal Cancer Control 5.0

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
Mississippi National Guard Counter Drug Program 1.8
West Virginia Air National Guard Counter Drug Program 3.0
Regional Counter Drug Training Academy, Meridian MS 1.4

Earmarks
Maritime Technology (MARITECH) 5.0
Metals Affordability Initiative 5.0
Magnetic Bearing cooling turbin 5.0
Roadway Simulator 13.5
Aviator's night vision imaging system 2.5
HGU - 56/P Aircrew Integrated System 5.0
Fort Des Moines Memorial Park and Education Center 5.0
National D-Day Museum 5.0
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission 3.0
Clear Radar Upgrade, Clear AFS, Alaska 8.0
Padgett Thomas Barracks, Charleston, SC 15.0
Broadway Armory, Chicago 3.0
Advance Identification, Friend -or-Foe 35.0
Transportation Multi-Platform Gateway Integration for AWACS 20.0
Emergency Traffic Management 20.7
Washington-Metro Area Transit Authority 39.1
Ft. Knox MOUT site upgrades 3.5
Civil Military Programs, Innovative readiness training 10.0
ASE INFRARED CM ATIRCM LRIP 10.0
Tooling and Test Equipment 35.0
Integrated Family of Test Equipment (IFTE) 15.0
T-AKE class ship (Buy America)
Welded shipboard and anchor chain (Buy America)
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial
Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation lands
Air Force's lease of Boeing 767s
Enactment of S. 746
2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah
Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children 39.0
International Sports Competition 15.8
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Survey 105.5
Food and Safety Inspection 15.0
Total Pork in Division A (FY 2002 Defense Approps) =
Total = $2.5 Billion
DIVISION B
Commerce related earmarks:
Port Security 93.3
Airports and Airways Trust Fund, payment to air carriers 50.0
DoT Office of the Inspector General 1.3
FAA Operations (from aviation Trust Fund) 200.0
FAA Facilities and Equipment 108.5
Passenger Bag Match Demonstration at Reagan National Airport 2.0
Federal Highway Administration misc. appropriations ($10 m requested) 100.0
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 100.0
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants 100.0
Restoration of Broadcasting Facilities 8.25
National Institute of Standards and Technology 30.0
Federal Trade Commission 20.0
FAA Grants-in-AID for Airports 175.0
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project 29.542
Provision relating to Alaska in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
US-61 Woodville widening project in Mississippi 0.3
Interstate Maintenance Program for the city of Trenton/Port Quendall, WA 4.0
Interstate Sports Competition Defense 15.8
Utah Olympics Public Safety Command 0.02
FEMA support of the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Games 10.0
Relocation costs and other purposes for 2002 Winter Olympics 15.0
Chemical and Biological Weapons Prepardeness for DC Fire Dept 0.205
Response and Communications Capability for DC Fire Dept 7.76
Search and Rescue and Other Emergency Equip. and Support for DC Fire 0.208
Office of the Chief Technology Officer for the DC Fire Dept 1.0
Training and Planning for the DC Fire Dept 4.4
Protective Clothing and Breathing Apparatus for DC Fire Dept 0.922
Specialized Hazardous Materials Equipment for the DC Fire Dept 1.032
Total Commerece Related Earmarks:
Total = $1.1 Billion


Total Pork in FY 2002 Defense Appropriations Conference Report = $3.6 Billion

[Major Carrales]

So, all the money I pump into CAP is PORK...eh?

McCain is off my list!!!

[flyguy06]

What was up with that tatement before the Civl Air Patrol statement about funding minority aviation training programs at Florida memorial? So, its ok to fund aviation training progrmas at Purdue and UND, but not Florida Memorial specifially because it is a minority institution? Wow.

[ZigZag911]

Flyguy, which candidate made this statement about Florida Memorial?  It's truly shocking.

[stillamarine]

So, all the money I pump into CAP is PORK...eh?

McCain is off my list!!!

Especially seeing I don't eat Port!

[RogueLeader]

So, all the money I pump into CAP is PORK...eh?

McCain is off my list!!!

Especially seeing I don't eat Port!

But I may drink it.

[stillamarine]

I think I must have been drinking something! 

[Major Carrales]

Let's ask the Senator where he stands...

http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/

I sent a message to his campaign, I'll post the results. 

Here is what I sent...

There has been some question as to Senator McCain's stance on the Civil Air Patrol.

I have been a memeber of that organization for 9 years now and it is a large part of my life.

The answer I get to this issue will greatly impact my course of action en re Senator McCain.

It reflects how I feel, I will base my political actions based on the reply.

[Mustang]

McCain is off my list, but only because he's an idiot.  Sorry, but years spent as a POW are not a substitute for intelligence, and calling the pittance CAP receives from the federal budget "pork" is penny-wise but pound-foolish.

[RiverAux]

Since McCain is actually becoming a front-runner... Maj. Carrales, did you ever get a response?

[Major Carrales]

Since McCain is actually becoming a front-runner... Maj. Carrales, did you ever get a response?

No, I never got a response.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I just sent another inquiry.  Maybe everyone should send one??

[JohnKachenmeister]

How can it be "Pork" when we give a helluvalot more than we take?

We're sort of "Adkins Diet Pork?"

[bosshawk]

Folks: the conversation about Duncan Hunter is now moot: he withdrew from the race.

[John Bryan]

Not that I would agree we are "Pork" but to say the CAP could never be moved to another part of the government might be a close minded stand.

At the time the Senator talked about moving us to the DOT, the DOT was the home of one uniformed service/armed force...the US Coast Guard. The USCG and its AUX did not suffer as part of the DOT. CAP is larger then NOAA and the USPHS...why could we have not made it as a stand alone service (even a uniformed one) in the DOT? Interesting side note the USCG was moved from DOT to DHS after 9/11.....before they were part of DOT they were in the Dept of the Treasury. My point is they did not die off because of a change of location within the federal government.

Here is another thought....we do a lot of great things for the country like AE, Cdt Programs and ES (mostly related to aviation).....all with strong links to transportation / aviation. What do we offer the Air Force missions? Do we depend the air , space or cyberspace of our country....NO. Maybe CAP's missions fit better into that department of our federal government. We could keep our uniforms in DOT....just an idea

[jeders]

Not that I would agree we are "Pork" but to say the CAP could never be moved to another part of the government might be a close minded stand.

At the time the Senator talked about moving us to the DOT, the DOT was the home of one uniformed service/armed force...the US Coast Guard. The USCG and its AUX did not suffer as part of the DOT. CAP is larger then NOAA and the USPHS...why could we have not made it as a stand alone service (even a uniformed one) in the DOT? Interesting side note the USCG was moved from DOT to DHS after 9/11.....before they were part of DOT they were in the Dept of the Treasury. My point is they did not die off because of a change of location within the federal government.

Here is another thought....we do a lot of great things for the country like AE, Cdt Programs and ES (mostly related to aviation).....all with strong links to transportation / aviation. What do we offer the Air Force missions? Do we depend the air , space or cyberspace of our country....NO. Maybe CAP's missions fit better into that department of our federal government. We could keep our uniforms in DOT....just an idea

At that time, I'm pretty sure that the Coast Gaurd was part of the Deapartment of Commerce, not transportation. Now it's under the Department of Homeland Security. Also, if we are completely removed from the Air Force, then we lose the cadet program and at least half of our reason for being. From there, it's just a downhill spiral.

[John Bryan]

For the record I am not wanting to see us moved from the AF.....but I also think we should be able to listen to open minded ideas.....we might fit better in some other department.

Why could we not have all 3 missions in DOT......Like I said USCG and USCG Aux were in DOT at the time.....we could still have uniforms, drill ,etc....heck we could even have AF style uniforms....NOAA and PHS are not part of the Navy but wear naval uniforms. There is nothing that could prevent Congress from writing this into a law which would move us.

Just FYI NOAA is the uniformed service in the US Deapartment of Commerce.....USPHS is part of the Dept of Health and Human Services.

In 1790 the US Revenue Cutter Service was formed within the US Dept of the Treasury. The US Coast Guard picked up the US Life Saving Service in 1915. In 1939 it picked up the US Lighthouse Service and the Congress chartered the USCG Aux. In 1967from the US Dept of Treasury to the US DOT. It remained in DOT until 2003 when it was transfered to DHS.

[PhoenixRisen]

[Despite me not being able to vote...] McCain's off my friendly list...

And too bad Duncan Hunter just dropped out of the race last night... He would've been great!  (Not just because he's from San Diego...  )

Whoever mentioned Hunter was in the CAP... do you have a source for that?  I'd love to see that!

[Major Carrales]

The thing is that CAP and USCGAux are volunteer service organizations that, as has been said, provide much more than the meager funding that the Federal Government provides.

Local units expend lots of personal resources and stretch dollars far beyond the point of many other government agencies.

Additionally, what would the cost be if USAF airmen were deployed to accomplish CAP missions?  I can't imagine how USAF airmen from Lackland would deploy to Oilton, Texas at 0100 hrs.

3 million dollars for a Civilian Air Force is a bargain .  

[John Bryan]

The thing is that CAP and USCGAux are volunteer service organizations that, as has been said, provide much more than the meager funding that the Federal Government provides.

Local units expend lots of personal resources and stretch dollars far beyond the point of many other government agencies.

Additionally, what would the cost be in USAF airmen were deployed to accomplish CAP missions?  I can't imagine how USAF airmen from Lackland would deploy to Oilton, Texas at 0100 hrs.

3 million dollars for a Civilian Air Force is a bargan.  

First I think you are 100% right that the CAP and USCG Aux provide more then their moneys worth.....BUT remember Congress could take civil aircraft SAR away from the AF and give it to whoever.....Congress gives and takes away. Second with the new ELT's.....the 0100 mission will be fewer and fewer. The other 2 missions....well we dont do much AE at 1am

Also I think CAP's federal budget is around $24 million not 3....and I think that does not include the CAP-USAF budget.

[Major Carrales]

The thing is that CAP and USCGAux are volunteer service organizations that, as has been said, provide much more than the meager funding that the Federal Government provides.

Local units expend lots of personal resources and stretch dollars far beyond the point of many other government agencies.

Additionally, what would the cost be in USAF airmen were deployed to accomplish CAP missions?  I can't imagine how USAF airmen from Lackland would deploy to Oilton, Texas at 0100 hrs.

3 million dollars for a Civilian Air Force is a bargan.  

First I think you are 100% right that the CAP and USCG Aux provide more then their moneys worth.....BUT remember Congress could take civil aircraft SAR away from the AF and give it to whoever.....Congress gives and takes away. Second with the new ELT's.....the 0100 mission will be fewer and fewer. The other 2 missions....well we dont do much AE at 1am

Also I think CAP's federal budget is around $24 million not 3....and I think that does not include the CAP-USAF budget.

I stand corrected...

The overall FY 2006 budget is up to $31.5 million, as CAP is currently purchasing new equipment – including Garmin G-1000 glass cockpits, radios, digital cameras, laptops, digital satellite phone systems and new aircraft, guided by its all-volunteer Advanced Technologies Group. CAP has tested personal locator beacons, night vision and infrared imaging, and hyperspectral imaging that can discriminate among materials based on physical properties. They are also working on digital satellite communications for transmitting photos and video in real time from search sites back to mission bases.  source... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-national-bargain-the-us-civil-air-patrol-02016/

Still, that is cheap compared to other federal programs.

That having been said.  When the new ELTs are in production and mandated, the only protracted thing that will change is that the chance an ELT missions will be GENUINE will increase.  Many will not update their matierals, some people will be unreachable due to circumstance and, in time, we will be back looking for them at the County Airport.

[SamFranklin]

I met Sen. McCain at an event about ten years ago and asked him one-on-one what his position on CAP was. He said it's an excellent organization, but he wanted to see it placed in DOT (this is before 9-11 and DHS) so as not to compete with DoD resources.

Keep in mind this was 10 years ago, and to my knowledge, he has since halted his effort to move CAP. As president, I'm sure he'd have a zillion other challenges higher up in his priorities.

Regardless, it was my impression that he admires CAP.

[Gunner C]

Since McCain is actually becoming a front-runner... Maj. Carrales, did you ever get a response?

I would actually disagree with that (I'm a news junkie).  The actual front runner at the moment is Romney.  He's won three states (Wyoming, Michigan, and Nevada) and has the highest delegate count.

Nevertheless, I wonder if any of the guys/gals on the board from Massachusetts know what the wing's relationship with the state was when Mitt was the gov.

GC

[Gunner C]

[Despite me not being able to vote...] McCain's off my friendly list...

And too bad Duncan Hunter just dropped out of the race last night... He would've been great!  (Not just because he's from San Diego...  )

Whoever mentioned Hunter was in the CAP... do you have a source for that?  I'd love to see that!

I have a lot of respect for cadets who aren't old enough to vote who follow these things.  It will serve you well later in life.

GC

[tjaxe]

Although I don't think either party is aware of CAP or for or against us, I do think the Republican party is much more military friendly than the Democratic party in general.

As a democrat I readily agree, in general, Republicans are "friendlier" towards the military.    However, CAP is a volunteer organization -- albeit, military-oriented -- and as such I would question not necessarily a candidate's view of military organizations but rather, their view, and understanding of volunteer organizations in general, and the CAP in particular.

[JohnKachenmeister]

We hashed out the possibility of a CAP move to DHS in another thread.  I con't remember which one, but it was back when He Who Shall Not Be Named was still named.

I started out in near-violent opposition to such a plan, since I'm basically a military guy and I like being a part of the Air Force family (even if we are the crazy cousins who live in a trailer at the edge of town).  Since then, however, I have moderated my views considerably.  Dang that pesky open mind of mine!

I think it is ENTIRELY possible to create CAP as the 8th uniformed branch of service.  Whether it would be in our interest, or in the nation's interest, is another question.

A few facts:  DHS is creating and staffing "Air Wings" and posting them at military bases.  Right now, these guys are federal civil servants, but they COULD very quickly be put in uniform and form the CAP's active component.  If that were to happen, the volunteer staff would form the reserve component, and there you are.  Issue 50,000 or so ID cards, and we're in business.  See you at the Class 6 store.

The cadet program, since 1964, has NOT been a strictly-military training program as it was during World War II.  Our stated goal is to provide a military structure to train leaders to serve in both the military and the civilian aviation communities.  I see no reason why the cadet program would need any essential change from its current configuration.  Heck, a few years ago the Air Force was complaining that so many former cadets were joining the Army and Marines.  (Big surprise, after we train them in fieldcraft to serve on Ground Teams)!

We also would no longer be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.  We would be relieved of having to do a balancing act in some of our operations.

The downside:  We would be given a bunch of new missions, including regulation of security at GA airports, that we may not be comfortable with and for which we would need additional training.  Remember the "Drop-in" program?  This would be a committment of time far above that which we already make, and might possibly change the character or our organization significantly.

My mind is still open.  I think I can live with whatever decision is made.

Somebody might want to tell Vanguard to not be too quick to throw out all those "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tapes!

[Gunner C]

Although I don't think either party is aware of CAP or for or against us, I do think the Republican party is much more military friendly than the Democratic party in general.

As a democrat I readily agree, in general, Republicans are "friendlier" towards the military.    However, CAP is a volunteer organization -- albeit, military-oriented -- and as such I would question not necessarily a candidate's view of military organizations but rather, their view, and understanding of volunteer organizations in general, and the CAP in particular.

Actually, I think the question would be closer to a military question than a vanilla volunteer organization question.

With some, we could expect MAJOR deletions of our federal funding.  With other candidates, we could expect our funding to stay level or go up slightly.  We just don't have the connections (gravitas) to affect any major changes to the positive.  If the AF doesn't go to bat for us, which they don't - they have funding problems of their own, nothing will improve.  If the AF budget gets cut, which it already has and will again in a major way if some candidates get their way, we'll drop in funds disproportionately.  Frankly, the left will cut just about anything to by votes from the lazy and those who crank out babies out of wedlock. The least important is the last to get fed.  Remember, we're only about 30,000 votes.  Those who won't help themselves are in the millions. [/rant]

[JohnKachenmeister]

Although I don't think either party is aware of CAP or for or against us, I do think the Republican party is much more military friendly than the Democratic party in general.

As a democrat I readily agree, in general, Republicans are "friendlier" towards the military.    However, CAP is a volunteer organization -- albeit, military-oriented -- and as such I would question not necessarily a candidate's view of military organizations but rather, their view, and understanding of volunteer organizations in general, and the CAP in particular.

And Nancy pelosi has already been extremely critical of our organization, telling a San Francisco antiwar group that we "Indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I don't think that any Democrats can be counted on for support.

[mikeylikey]

^ Wow...

Some nerve she has.  I am glad to see that she entered office on a platform of lies and has carried out NONE of what she said she would. 

Isn't she the one that violated US law and met with middle-eastern countries without letting the State Department know what she was doing??

[RiverAux]

I don't think that any Democrats can be counted on for support.

Such as Sen Tom Harkin, who was featured on the Volunteer cover a while back? 

[John Bryan]

Great point.....Sen Harkin is one of the biggest supporters of CAP in Congress.

I was wondering if there is a speech or documented source of the Speaker of the House saying those things about CAP?

[CASH172]

I would really like someone to show the speaker some statistics about how many cadets actually do join the RM.  Of course she might have just been saying that to please the SF audience. 

[JC004]

And Nancy pelosi has already been extremely critical of our organization, telling a San Francisco antiwar group that we "Indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I don't think that any Democrats can be counted on for support.

I thought San Francisco as a whole was an anti-war group?     You're telling me this is a city?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Great point.....Sen Harkin is one of the biggest supporters of CAP in Congress.

I was wondering if there is a speech or documented source of the Speaker of the House saying those things about CAP?

It was in a Sunday AM talk show, and she was defending the San Francisco decision to ban JROTC from the schools.  She did not name CAP specifically, but said "Both the Army and the Air Force have programs to indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I got the message.

[SJFedor]

Great point.....Sen Harkin is one of the biggest supporters of CAP in Congress.

I was wondering if there is a speech or documented source of the Speaker of the House saying those things about CAP?

It was in a Sunday AM talk show, and she was defending the San Francisco decision to ban JROTC from the schools.  She did not name CAP specifically, but said "Both the Army and the Air Force have programs to indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I got the message.

Eh, she could be just talking about AJROTC and AFJROTC, not CAP in particular. CAP has more scope then just the cadet program, which, at least somewhat, exempts us from that statement.

I'm waiting for the day San Francisco tries to cecede.

[Flying Pig]

I would be surprised if 3/4's of those people have any idea what CAP is.  When CAP did an article on Joe Biden he stated he supports Civil Air Patrol but isnt active because he isn't a pilot.  That right there told me he didnt have the slightest clue what we are about.  I imagine there are a few, but its probably pretty small.

Most politicians, especially at that level, are given honorary memberships to just about any lagit organization out there.

I imagine any candidate is probably pretty indifferent to CAP.

[DNall]

I got a little experience in the field.   What do you wanna know?

I've been out of the loop for a couple years, but to my knowledge none of the current presidential candidates has any kind of current or past position about CAP - ie they don't know much about it & don't care.

I'll explain about McCain... Be advised, I'm working form memory here though so the details might be fuzzy in places, but this is the gist of what happened.

He's obviously a huge supporter of the military. His position was that military resources are scarce & need to be protected. He did & does believe in CAP.

At the time, FAA & USCG were both under DoT. CG of course was recallable to support Navy operations under defined conditions. The Sen's plan was to move ADCON of CAP from AF (AETC) to DoT, with OPCON for AFAM remaining w/ AF. Basically, CAP would always be a govt agency, but would not be the AF Aux except when on AFAMs. We would retain grade/uniforms, govt funding, assistance, supervision, & oversight.

It was all about a shell game. The govt would not have saved a penny, however, those dollars would show up under DoT's budget rather than DoD's. It's easier to get congress to vote for a DoT budget that might mean highways in their district versus the military, be that during the then cold-war/Clinton draw down or now when it's a proxy approval of continuing the war.

There are pros & cons to that proposal. It would have lifted posse commitatus restrictions, theyby allowing CAP to actively participate in direct assistance to law enforcement. When on AFAMs, it would have bound members to UCMJ.

I personally did not support it at the time because I'm a cadet programs officer & part of CAP in order to lend my support to the AF. I did/do ES in order to support the AF, not to save lives or anything like that.

The proposal was not well understood by most members & evoked a lot of fear. AF didn't like it either. CAP leadership asked members to express their opinion to their reps, & that happened enmass. So, it got shot down in cmte before it got very far.

If you look at where we are now, with the altered Aux status, & rise of DHS, are we worse off or not? That's real hard to say regardless of where you think CAP should be going.


AF responded to this. Understand, that proposal getting shot down was congressional guidance to AF clearing them in to reassert control of CAP & integrate into the AF command structure.

A paper came out of AWC written by a former CAP cadet & another officer. It advised AF should use then developing total force concept to integrate the Aux as an equal partner with the other components. That doesn't mean you'd be in the military, or that CAP folks would be deploying. It meant primarily that CAP would become an AF reporting unit & the corporate aspect would fade to the background. CAP leadership was to be appointed or at least approved by AF. We were going to be properly resourced/trained & then expected to perform on par with any other AF unit. In essence, it'd be like serving in the AF w/o pay or benefits.

Gen Fogleman was CoS at the time, and he was a big supporter of that concept, while not exactly the plan as originally written - more that it was the direction that we need to move in, but that it needed more development & a better implementation stratgey. He made many many inclusive comments about CAP at the time.

Congress halted that as well under protest from CAP - AF got warned about interfering too much w/ CAP outside the real needs of the AF. The main deal in Congress was to preserve the volunteer motivations & aspect of CAP. One side in Congress (the side that won the debate), believed CAP needed to be protected from an overly controlling AF that, they believed, would cause members to quit volunteering; and, that as AF leadership & needs changed over time that they might look to cut CAP in favor of funding some new toy & that CAP needed to be preserved for the long term.

That same clique carried the vote that pulled back our aux status, which was about protecting AF & CAP.

I agree with them on that, and I agree with Gen Fogleman's position as well. A balanced approach was & is needed, but fear of going too far has kept the debate at one extreme or the other, and left us in a stagnant indecisive spot during historically changing times.

However, AF was pissed when Congress said they had to take a hands off approach w/CAP. They repsponded by trying to show congress that CAP was in desperate need of greater oversight. Which by the way was & is completely true, moreso then than now, but obviously from current events that's still a huge issue. OSI built a case for AF. The expert on that investigation ain't me & is well known to a lot of people here. GAO responded with another version of the facts. CAP got slapped around a bit for the problem, AF got the limits of their power reasserted by Congress.

CAP members are pretty equally divided if we should be more like the AF or more of a civilian/corp/club/agency/however you want to describe it. There are about 30 people in congress that are strong supporters of CAP, and they are equally divided as well. Those folks are burning some of their political captial (call it roads in their district if you want) to get others to support their position on CAP, and that's what decides everything.

A terrible way to do business right? That's democracy for ya. The worst form of govt except for all the others.

Generally I'll advise you to keep politics far away from CAP. It's good to understand, and I do encourage you to be involved, but don't mix the two.

[♠SARKID♠]

The content of this post does not necessarily reflect views/opinions of the poster, and is the sole property of a different CAP member.
So for the love of God, don't shoot the messenger on this one.

Somebody brought up some interesting points about McCain moving us to the DoD.

1) We'd have our own funding
2) We'd have our own joint chief
3) We'd be in charge of ourselves, and wouldn't have to have everything approved by a restrictive governing body.

[CASH172]

^Considering who our previous national commander just was, would that plan really have had been a good idea?

[♠SARKID♠]

^Considering who our previous national commander just was, would that plan really have had been a good idea?

We could still feasibly have the BoG, just with a changeup of board members and organizations involved.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The content of this post does not necessarily reflect views/opinions of the poster, and is the sole property of a different CAP member.
So for the love of God, don't shoot the messenger on this one.

Somebody brought up some interesting points about McCain moving us to the DoD.

1) We'd have our own funding
2) We'd have our own joint chief
3) We'd be in charge of ourselves, and wouldn't have to have everything approved by a restrictive governing body.

Not shooting at you, SARKID, but...

I guess I don't understand what you're saying.  Could you give me some more detail?

[♠SARKID♠]

The content of this post does not necessarily reflect views/opinions of the poster, and is the sole property of a different CAP member.
So for the love of God, don't shoot the messenger on this one.

Somebody brought up some interesting points about McCain moving us to the DoD.

1) We'd have our own funding
2) We'd have our own joint chief
3) We'd be in charge of ourselves, and wouldn't have to have everything approved by a restrictive governing body.

Not shooting at you, SARKID, but...

I guess I don't understand what you're saying.  Could you give me some more detail?

Okay, I'm going to move this to a new thread on the subject.

[afgeo4]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I feel the issue of Sen. McCain is completely misunderstood. What you're looking at is a document that is quite valid in its points. The military requested funding from the senate. That budget was full of pork barrel stuff. Don't you dare for one second think that the way to figure out if the person is friendly to CAP is by seeing if he'll agree to throw money away in random quantities on random projects. The issue is... is this the right way to spend money at the right time? Look at all the other proposals on that table. Think if they make so much sense... especially in light of what happened the year after that. It is his JOB as a senator to keep expenditures down so they can keep taxes down. He was and is doing that job well.

I believe he is the only friend out of the current candidates that CAP has. He was a Naval Aviator and is still a pilot. He understands the value of cadet programs as he was a midshipman once himself. He understands the value of Aerospace Ed and furthering the US reach of air and space power and knowledge. He also understands the missions we fulfill. Given the situation in 2000, I too may have thought that CAP would be better off under the DOT given its mission. Perhaps it may have a larger reach, a bigger budget, increased autonomy, increased awareness and all the wonderful things that come with that.

[DNall]

All that happened in the late 90s, well before the changes in 2000. Sen McCain is not hostile toward CAP.

CAP is expensive to operate & administer. A whole lot of that cost is born by the AF outside CAP's budget. What Sen McCain sought to do was make the mil more efficient by moving that administrative cost from DoD to DoT, but not giving DoT any extra money to deal with it or taking any money away from the AF because of it. The motivation of that proposal had nothing to do with CAP itself.

However, you can look at the details of that proposal & clearly see that a lot of thought went into it. That seems to indicate someone that does understand the value of CAP. Moving the org over to put it on par w/ USCG (albeit with no additional funding) would be a significant thing.

I personally did not at the time support that proposal, and I still don't, but it'd gone through, CAP would be a whole heck of a lot stronger & more significant than it is right now. I do want to see CAP reach those heights, but I'd like to see that happen through our association with the AF by moving more fully into their total force concept of operations.

[Dragoon]

That was my read on it as well.  Sen McCain's job was to take care of DoD - which was short of funds.  Even if you assume every CAP-USAF dollar is spent on SAR or recruiting new airmen (and they ain't), you have to weigh that against paying airmen and building planes.  Tough calls. 

I think he saw CAP as an ES organization and (rightly) asked "why is USAF looking for cessnas?  Shouldn't that be a DOT function?"

I may (or may not) agree with every decision, but I sleep better at night when I know folks are trying to get the maximum deterrence "bang" for my tax "buck." 

[afgeo4]

All that happened in the late 90s, well before the changes in 2000. Sen McCain is not hostile toward CAP.

CAP is expensive to operate & administer. A whole lot of that cost is born by the AF outside CAP's budget. What Sen McCain sought to do was make the mil more efficient by moving that administrative cost from DoD to DoT, but not giving DoT any extra money to deal with it or taking any money away from the AF because of it. The motivation of that proposal had nothing to do with CAP itself.

However, you can look at the details of that proposal & clearly see that a lot of thought went into it. That seems to indicate someone that does understand the value of CAP. Moving the org over to put it on par w/ USCG (albeit with no additional funding) would be a significant thing.

I personally did not at the time support that proposal, and I still don't, but it'd gone through, CAP would be a whole heck of a lot stronger & more significant than it is right now. I do want to see CAP reach those heights, but I'd like to see that happen through our association with the AF by moving more fully into their total force concept of operations.

If Russia has its way we'll be back in a cold war soon enough and then the USAF will have the gigantic budget it once had and maybe CAP will come along with it.

[Cecil DP]

If Russia has its way we'll be back in a cold war soon enough and then the USAF will have the gigantic budget it once had and maybe CAP will come along with it.

If there is another cold war, we'll still be the red headed stepchild.  We're be told that the money, facilities, or whatever is being used for USAF missions. In peacetime, it's because there was a cutback of funds. 

Tags - MIKE

[DNall]

CAP will always be funded according to its real world importance. If you want more money, you apply exceptional ldrshp, and exceptional reorg & mgmt to do more with what you have. Then it'll move forward incrementally.

[Johnny Yuma]

Great point.....Sen Harkin is one of the biggest supporters of CAP in Congress.

I was wondering if there is a speech or documented source of the Speaker of the House saying those things about CAP?

It was in a Sunday AM talk show, and she was defending the San Francisco decision to ban JROTC from the schools.  She did not name CAP specifically, but said "Both the Army and the Air Force have programs to indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I got the message.

Eh, she could be just talking about AJROTC and AFJROTC, not CAP in particular. CAP has more scope then just the cadet program, which, at least somewhat, exempts us from that statement.

I'm waiting for the day San Francisco tries to cecede.

Trust me, the antiwar movement hates anything in a uniform. After having to work with a bunch of them when i lived near the University of Kansas I learned the following from them.

In their warped logic:

The military is there to kill innocent civilians.

The police is there to violate our civil rights and put everyone in prison.

Firefighters are there to suppress freedom of expression when they and minorities decide to express themselves by burning buildings to the ground when they riot.

Any program that supports youth must involve giving away money or stuff.

Any program that involves uniforms and structure is repressive.


Right now, the way it's lining out, I don't see it any difference in any of the candidates except Romney and he's starting to trail off.

[flyguy06]

Great point.....Sen Harkin is one of the biggest supporters of CAP in Congress.

I was wondering if there is a speech or documented source of the Speaker of the House saying those things about CAP?

It was in a Sunday AM talk show, and she was defending the San Francisco decision to ban JROTC from the schools.  She did not name CAP specifically, but said "Both the Army and the Air Force have programs to indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I got the message.

Eh, she could be just talking about AJROTC and AFJROTC, not CAP in particular. CAP has more scope then just the cadet program, which, at least somewhat, exempts us from that statement.

I'm waiting for the day San Francisco tries to cecede.

Trust me, the antiwar movement hates anything in a uniform. After having to work with a bunch of them when i lived near the University of Kansas I learned the following from them.

In their warped logic:

The military is there to kill innocent civilians.

The police is there to violate our civil rights and put everyone in prison.

Firefighters are there to suppress freedom of expression when they and minorities decide to express themselves by burning buildings to the ground when they riot.

Any program that supports youth must involve giving away money or stuff.

Any program that involves uniforms and structure is repressive.


Right now, the way it's lining out, I don't see it any difference in any of the candidates except Romney and he's starting to trail off.

This is NOT a true statement, and I dont mean to get political but.........

I am anti war and I love the military. I hate it when people say things like that. "Antiwar people hate the military" First of all, who is prowar?  Why would you not be antiwar? I have been to war. I have seen my friends die. I didnt like it, so yes, I am anti war. But that doesnt mean I hate the military. I love serving my country. I dont want to see my soldiers or anyone wearing a green uniform get killed. So, yes, I am antiwar. I am antiwar because I love my fellow soldier, and marine.

I think its irrisponsible to make such a statement and group people that are opposed to war. If you have ever been to war, you'd be opposed to it as well. Its easy to watch war on TV and make judgements of what YOU think is right or wrong. But try being overthere and going out the wire daily, not knowing if you're comming back or not. Thats not a good feeling and when you have have it for 365 days, it doesnt make you really be prowar.

I have been serving my country proudly for 19 years. I enjoy it. I enjoy the challenege. I enjoy mentoring young people. Thank you.

[Johnny Yuma]

flyguy,

There is a huge, huge difference in being antiwar and the Antiwar movement. There is an even bigger difference between being anti Iraq war and the Antiwar movement.

I know folks who are liberals who opposes invading Iraq, I know Conservatives who were, too. I've yet to meet a vet, specifically a combat vet, who was blindly pro-war.

The Antiwar movement has been here long before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The Antiwar movement is firmly entrenched in the Peace and Social Justice movement which is a nice, flowery way of say radical far left.

In their warped logic of the antiwar/ social justice movement, no war is worth fighting. Hitler could have been taken down through peaceable protest. Spending money on defense takes food from the poor. The military does nothing but teach people to kill. Any group that put kids in uniforms and gives them any military training is indoctrinating them to kill. If some country or group attacks us as either a country or even on the street it's because we must have wrongly offended them. Crime and criminal acts are cries for help, criminals are to be treated as tortured souls in need of mental help and social change.

The beliefs of these folks are WAAY OUT on the outer fringe of mainstream society.

Unfortunately, the San Fran area is full of these types and Nancy Pelosi supports their Moonbat ideals.

[mikeylikey]

 Most everyone in uniform (to include me) is ANTI-WAR.  War is (and should be) the last resort of any civilization.  I may wear a uniform, and I may train to go to war, but that is the very last thing I or anyone else in the military ever want to do.  And those that join the military "because they love war, and can't wait to see combat", in my opinion, should never ever have been let in.  

QUESTION......why does everything on this forum seem to turn into a NAZI/HITLER reference?  I can accept everything turning into uniform threads, but seriously, why bring the other things into a perfectly good debate here?

Back to topic, I feel that none of the candidates will be strong supporters of CAP.

[flyguy06]

flyguy,

There is a huge, huge difference in being antiwar and the Antiwar movement. There is an even bigger difference between being anti Iraq war and the Antiwar movement.

I know folks who are liberals who opposes invading Iraq, I know Conservatives who were, too. I've yet to meet a vet, specifically a combat vet, who was blindly pro-war.

The Antiwar movement has been here long before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The Antiwar movement is firmly entrenched in the Peace and Social Justice movement which is a nice, flowery way of say radical far left.

In their warped logic of the antiwar/ social justice movement, no war is worth fighting. Hitler could have been taken down through peaceable protest. Spending money on defense takes food from the poor. The military does nothing but teach people to kill. Any group that put kids in uniforms and gives them any military training is indoctrinating them to kill. If some country or group attacks us as either a country or even on the street it's because we must have wrongly offended them. Crime and criminal acts are cries for help, criminals are to be treated as tortured souls in need of mental help and social change.

The beliefs of these folks are WAAY OUT on the outer fringe of mainstream society.

Unfortunately, the San Fran area is full of these types and Nancy Pelosi supports their Moonbat ideals.

So, wanting social justice and peace is a radical thought?

[flyguy06]

 Most everyone in uniform (to include me) is ANTI-WAR.  War is (and should be) the last resort of any civilization.  I may wear a uniform, and I may train to go to war, but that is the very last thing I or anyone else in the military ever want to do.  And those that join the military "because they love war, and can't wait to see combat", in my opinion, should never ever have been let in.  

Well said Mikey

[Johnny Yuma]

So, wanting social justice and peace is a radical thought?

No, but their logic and methods they want to achieve it is.

[JohnKachenmeister]

flyguy,

There is a huge, huge difference in being antiwar and the Antiwar movement. There is an even bigger difference between being anti Iraq war and the Antiwar movement.

I know folks who are liberals who opposes invading Iraq, I know Conservatives who were, too. I've yet to meet a vet, specifically a combat vet, who was blindly pro-war.

The Antiwar movement has been here long before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The Antiwar movement is firmly entrenched in the Peace and Social Justice movement which is a nice, flowery way of say radical far left.

In their warped logic of the antiwar/ social justice movement, no war is worth fighting. Hitler could have been taken down through peaceable protest. Spending money on defense takes food from the poor. The military does nothing but teach people to kill. Any group that put kids in uniforms and gives them any military training is indoctrinating them to kill. If some country or group attacks us as either a country or even on the street it's because we must have wrongly offended them. Crime and criminal acts are cries for help, criminals are to be treated as tortured souls in need of mental help and social change.

The beliefs of these folks are WAAY OUT on the outer fringe of mainstream society.

Unfortunately, the San Fran area is full of these types and Nancy Pelosi supports their Moonbat ideals.

Gotta go with Johnny on this one.

The rat bastards in the radical left were the ones who spit at me (not on me, but the hocker hit the bus window when we drove through a protest outside Travis AFB in 1970) when I came back from Vietnam.  Peace and justice are great ideas, but they can only be secured when good men are ready and able to use force to protect them.  That's why we have cops and soldiers.

(The following is an obligatory comment about Hitler and Nazis to satisfy Mikey):

They adopt the same propaganda tactics, the so-called "Big Lie Technique" to convert people to their cause... tell a big enough lie often enough it becomes accepted as the truth.  

(This concludes the obligatory comment about Hitler and Nazis.  Thank you for your time and attention.)

[Johnny Yuma]

Most everyone in uniform (to include me) is ANTI-WAR.  War is (and should be) the last resort of any civilization.  I may wear a uniform, and I may train to go to war, but that is the very last thing I or anyone else in the military ever want to do.  And those that join the military "because they love war, and can't wait to see combat", in my opinion, should never ever have been let in. 

QUESTION......why does everything on this forum seem to turn into a NAZI/HITLER reference?  I can accept everything turning into uniform threads, but seriously, why bring the other things into a perfectly good debate here?

Back to topic, I feel that none of the candidates will be strong supporters of CAP.

Re-read my last post. I believe I made your first point. War in every instance is the final option and anyone who thinks it should be the first is off their rocker.

Your second point: HUH???

The Hitler reference was made as an example of a war that history has justified. He was a government head who had to be taken out by force to stop entire races of people from slaughter.

My comments were about a fringe section of society that is pretending to represent everyone who opposes the Iraq war. This fringe section hates anything related to the military, JROTC, Boy Scouts AND CAP. Take a trip over to ANSWER's website, or read objector.org's newsletter and see if you think these folks would support CAP or represent your view of the military, the war or life in general!

Who's friendliest to CAP? McCain's proven not to be and the Democrat party is catering to the far left radical fringe of its party right now. Not a bright picture.

[pixelwonk]

too little too late.