Kerry's Senate Record Mixed on Spending(Wash Times/AP dump on Kerry)

[papau]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/sns-ap-kerry-defense,1,2704710.story?coll=chi-electionstop-hed

Kerry's Senate Record Mixed on Spending

By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer
Published February 24, 2004, 12:41 AM CST

WASHINGTON -- <SNIp>While the four-term Massachusetts senator has voted for nearly all of the Defense Department's spending and authorization bills since 1990 -- as the overall total has crept closer to $400 billion -- he has a long record of backing cuts to a number of military aircraft and missile-defense programs, an Associated Press analysis shows.
<snip>


"They're somehow stronger on defense because they embrace every (weapons) system that was ever proposed," Kerry said. "That's not the measure of whether you're strong on defense."


...voted to limit funding for the B-2 stealth bomber, which for years was plagued by cost overruns and had an eye-popping pricetag of $2 billion per plane. Under the direction of then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, the Pentagon decided to buy fewer planes... voted to trim $3 billion to $4 billion from the defense bill in 1991-92. And in 1995 and 1996, he voted against both major defense spending and authorization bills...at times argued for spending restraint... pushed for cuts in an anti-satellite weapons system... but that any savings should go to other defense programs.

In other instances, Kerry:

* Voted to eliminate the B-2 bomber program in 1992.

* Voted on several occasions to reduce funding for long-range missile defense programs. Derisively referred to as President Reagan's "Star Wars" program by some in Congress, missile defense was a constant source of controversy in the 1990s as lawmakers questioned the feasibility of a missile shield, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

...voted against spending on weapons systems that have proven valuable in the Persian Gulf, including the F-16 and F-15 fighter aircraft...


AND IT SEEMS THE WASHINGTON TIMES IS ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE AP
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040223-115221-2572r.htm

Kerry opposed key weapons


By Charles Hurt THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has opposed some of the most effective — and publicly popular — military weapons in the U.S. arsenal during the past 15 years.

The Massachusetts senator voted against defense appropriations bills that included money for weapons such as the Patriot missile, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the B-2 stealth bomber — all of which military leaders say have become integral to the U.S. force and were crucial to winning the 1991 Gulf war and last year's war in Iraq.

According to voting records, Mr. Kerry also favored cutting or canceling spending on the Apache helicopter, the M-1 Abrams tank and a wide range of fighter jets. <SNIP>

Mr. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who became a war protester, did defend some of his record yesterday, saying he had voted for the biggest Pentagon and intelligence budgets in U.S. history but had also challenged President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense as well as some weapons systems such as the MX missile. <SNIP>

[bluestateguy]

1. A mousy little reporter with nothing better to do

Some little twit sitting in the basement of the Associated Press with nothing better to do than bean-count. BO-RING!

[sadiesworld]

2. The AP story is somewhat nuanced. The Washington Times

is a reliable shill for the pugs.

[sandnsea]

3. The B-2 bomber

Thank god he voted to hold the costs on that.

"It can hit 80 targets with precision," Dicks said. "Four or eight B-2s could devastate a country the size of Iraq, Iran or North Korea in a matter of hours. And the new planes would be even more stealth."
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2001/0401/story5.html

In the 1994 Defense Authorization Act, Congress capped the B-2 bomber program at 20 planes, down from the 132 stealthy bombers that the Air Force initially wanted to attack the Soviet Union.

132 of these things, one hundred thirty two!!!!

The 20 cost $44.65 Billion. Now the reasoning to go with more of them was because the cost per plane would be cheaper, somewhere around $650,000 per plane. (if you believe that). But that's over $80 billion, even if the $650,000 were accurate. so we're talking about an extra $40 billion to build a whole bunch of planes when 20 planes could devastate 3-5 countries in a matter of hours. :crazy:

No wonder we're broke when Republicans are in office. They budget money like my mother. You know, I bought 5 dresses instead of 1 because they were on sale. Look how much I saved!

[Nicholas_J]

4. Dont forget

That little fratricidal Patriot missile which shot down friendly aircraft at ten times the rate it shot down whatever it was supposed to be eliminating. They had to make up figures for it in the Gulf War, because not one patriot acctually ever got near one os Saddams Scud's which were simply unguided missiles lobbed at the correct angle to get near hitting whatever place you are trying to hit.

The patriot was one of the most useless weapons systems developed, and billions were wasted on the damned things. Thowing rocks at incoming missiles would have been more effective.

There is not system that Kerry didnt vote down that wasnt designed as pork for some Congressman's district with cost over-runs planned ahead.

Irt works this way throughout govenment. Low bidder gets coutract, and then gets to pump up prices and congress then approves cost over-runs and does not demand that the company meet the bid requirements.

It takes someone with guts to vote down a defense system that has been designed to rob the treasury.

Kerry will have all of the details and correct answers about those votes, particularly on the patriot, which was more likely to kill the Americans pilots than bring down an incoming missile.