Citizens Against Government Waste continues to list CAP as a porkbarrel project that is a waste of government money in their 2009 "Pig Book". They include CAP operational and maintenance money, aircraft procurement money, as well as 800K for the Alaska Wing that for "Strategic Upgrades and Training" which was an earmark from former Senator Stevens.
This was all in the budget for the fiscal year we're already in, so they were apparently approved.
Here are their 7 criteria for "pork" (only one of which must be met for inclusion):
Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President's budget request or the previous year's funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.
Since it is quite common for CAP to have to go to Congress to get budget money restored that has been cut by the President, I suspect that is the primary reason we keep showing up, though it could also be seen as a "special interest" or as "not competitively awarded".
I am real curious about this 800K AK Wing apparently got. Anyone have any idea about this or what its being used for?
http://www.cagw.org
Quote from: RiverAux on July 16, 2009, 10:50:32 PM
I am real curious about this 800K AK Wing apparently got. Anyone have any idea about this or what its being used for?
It is my understanding, the Alaska Wing lobbied for the money from Sen. Stevens, who is a supporter of CAP. It was a supplimental appropriation added to the FY 09 budget for AKWG's "upgrades and training". To date, about $600k has been obligated.
Isn't it ironic that we save the government a vast sum of money each year, but are still classified as wasteful pork because we, like all organizations, still require money to function.
Quote from: FW on July 16, 2009, 11:18:32 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 16, 2009, 10:50:32 PM
I am real curious about this 800K AK Wing apparently got. Anyone have any idea about this or what its being used for?
It is my understanding, the Alaska Wing lobbied for the money from Sen. Stevens, who is a supporter of CAP. It was a supplimental appropriation added to the FY 09 budget for AKWG's "upgrades and training". To date, about $600k has been obligated.
Well, you basically re-stated the information from my original post. Do we know what these upgrades and training consists of? I don't think my Wing could spend 100K a year on training if we tried -- even with a fully funded senior member donut budget for the SAREXs.
Quote from: RiverAux on July 17, 2009, 02:39:19 AM
Quote from: FW on July 16, 2009, 11:18:32 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 16, 2009, 10:50:32 PM
I am real curious about this 800K AK Wing apparently got. Anyone have any idea about this or what its being used for?
It is my understanding, the Alaska Wing lobbied for the money from Sen. Stevens, who is a supporter of CAP. It was a supplimental appropriation added to the FY 09 budget for AKWG's "upgrades and training". To date, about $600k has been obligated.
Well, you basically re-stated the information from my original post. Do we know what these upgrades and training consists of? I don't think my Wing could spend 100K a year on training if we tried -- even with a fully funded senior member donut budget for the SAREXs.
mmmm... donuts... mmmmm......
Quote from: RiverAux on July 17, 2009, 02:39:19 AM
Quote from: FW on July 16, 2009, 11:18:32 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on July 16, 2009, 10:50:32 PM
I am real curious about this 800K AK Wing apparently got. Anyone have any idea about this or what its being used for?
It is my understanding, the Alaska Wing lobbied for the money from Sen. Stevens, who is a supporter of CAP. It was a supplimental appropriation added to the FY 09 budget for AKWG's "upgrades and training". To date, about $600k has been obligated.
Well, you basically re-stated the information from my original post. Do we know what these upgrades and training consists of? I don't think my Wing could spend 100K a year on training if we tried -- even with a fully funded senior member donut budget for the SAREXs.
The money was supposed to keep the entire wing in donuts for the year. Unfortunately, their Beaver was totaled this year and will cost about $600,000 to replace; hence, the "obligation". The other $200k will probably be used for donuts however, we're still trying to get a budget from the wing/cc :-* :D
They have donuts in Alaska?
Fried in whale fat?
How many times do I have to tell you.....
they are not donuts...they are power rings. ;D
Who do I have to lobby to get us a Beaver here in Texas? Thats a form 5 ride I'd love to take. :o
Quote from: MooneyMeyer on July 19, 2009, 05:40:29 AM
Who do I have to lobby to get us a Beaver here in Texas? Thats a form 5 ride I'd love to take. :o
We used to have Beavers and a few Otters in a number of wings, many years ago.
When the prohibition on tail-draggers went into effect, they all went away.
Along with the O-1 Birddogs.
Alaska got an exemption due to local conditions. Many of their Beavers are on wheel/skis in the winter and floats in the summer.
Wanna Form 5 in an Beaver or an Otter, move to Alaska.
Quote from: PHall on July 19, 2009, 05:46:54 AM
Quote from: MooneyMeyer on July 19, 2009, 05:40:29 AM
Who do I have to lobby to get us a Beaver here in Texas? Thats a form 5 ride I'd love to take. :o
We used to have Beavers and a few Otters in a number of wings, many years ago.
When the prohibition on tail-draggers went into effect, they all went away.
Along with the O-1 Birddogs.
Alaska got an exemption due to local conditions. Many of their Beavers are on wheel/skis in the winter and floats in the summer.
Wanna Form 5 in an Beaver or an Otter, move to Alaska.
And plan to have 25 hours in type before you can Form 5.
And a SES rating.
Texas Wing needs a Beaver like Florida wing needs a turbocharged 182.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 19, 2009, 03:23:04 AM
They have donuts in Alaska?
Fried in whale fat?
:::Ahem:::
We call that muktuk.
;D
Quote from: Gunner C on July 19, 2009, 11:29:33 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 19, 2009, 03:23:04 AM
They have donuts in Alaska?
Fried in whale fat?
:::Ahem:::
We call that muktuk.
;D
Isn't that Arabic for "Giddyap?" Said to a camel instead of a horse?
Not if you're cutting it off of a whale and you're wearing and Eskimo parka. ;D
Quote from: DC on July 17, 2009, 02:20:31 AM
Isn't it ironic that we save the government a vast sum of money each year, but are still classified as wasteful pork because we, like all organizations, still require money to function.
Well I'm still confused about the calculation of the total cost per hour of our flying program ??? In the AF flying hours are not only computed on on direct fuel & aircraft maintenance cost (including supplies & personnel), but also an allocation of other support costs. So technically many of the salaries in the Mission Directorate, Logistics & Mission Resources, as well as some allocations for other CAP National Headquarters costs, as well as CAP-USAF Liasion Costs (salaries & supplies), probably also needed to be added to our flying hour costs calculations. When I use to attend AF wing staff meetings, flying hour costs varied weekly, because there's a fixed component of cost, as well as a variable component of cost. I never recall seeing a slide presentation at any national board meeting that shows flying hours budget total versus flying hours achieved, and the budget difference both in dollars & cost per hour. >:(
I agree that we do save money overall, HOWEVER, the actual amount of savings publically presented may be less, depending on how flying hour costs are computed.
RM
When we compare aircraft O&M costs with AF/ANG or other aviation organizations, we compare like expenses. Strictly fuel/maint cost per hour plus cost for pilot and crew.
Other "indirect" costs are not considered on either side however, our "support" costs are below that of the milatary or other LEAs.
IMHO, no matter how we compare costs, we are the best value for what we do.