Pork on parade; The $65 billion+ F-22 boondoggle

In his State of the Union speech this week, President Bush went after his favorite political whipping post: Congressional earmarks -- "special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate."

Congressional pork does add up -- last year, Congress approved some 11,700 totaling $16.9 billion (more here).

But such pet projects are chump change compared to that great wasteland of taxpayer dollars, the defense budget. The same day as the State of the Union, Bush signed a $696 billion military spending bill -- and while signing, promised to defy key provisions that would heighten oversight of how the money is spent.

And, as usual, the bill is loaded with budget-busting boondoggles.

Consider, for example, the F-22 air fighter. Last Sunday's Dallas Star-Telegram featured a devastating analysis by three military experts, Pierre Sprey, James Stevenson and Winslow Wheeler that shows the futility of this weapons scheme that will cost taxpayers a minimum of $65 billion -- $355 million per aircraft:

On Dec. 12, the Air Force announced with considerable fanfare at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia that its F-22 fighter had reached "full operational capability." Air Combat Command commander Gen. John Corley called it a "key milestone." Brimming with pride, a spokesman for the manufacturer, Lockheed, stated: "The F-22 is ready for world-wide operations"-and then added, "...should it be called upon." His afterthought makes the point: There are, of course, two wars going on, and the F-22 has yet to fly a single sortie over the skies of Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor has the Air Force announced any intention of sending the F-22 to either theater. The Air Force is quite right to keep the F-22 as far as possible from either conflict. The airplane is irrelevant to both, and were it to appear in those skies, it almost certainly would set U.S. and allied forces back.

The piece ends by saying that perhaps "Congress' lust for pork, and the perverted thinking that jobs and profits (not the threat) should drive defense spending, will determine the size of the F-22 fleet."

How come that didn't make it into the State of the Union?

(H/T Ken Silverstein at Harper's)