Now we'll see some pork barrel politics

[BarryBobPosthole]

And both parties will do it.....the military is getting ready for some big time cost reductions, mainly from the drawdown of forces. Now's when we see the folks with bases or contractors in their states start screaming about security and so on and so forth. And its election year. what a perfect storm for bullshit.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Oh, amen. Everyone wants to cut...........in another state.

[LJ3]

Now is when we see the true nature of who owns a signifiacnt part of this country. Big defense bidness. The entire washington dc metropolitan area is built on it. Politicians live in it, beltway bandits thrive in it, no political force is strong enough to change the dollars flowing thru it.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Its also the time when politicians do the unthinkable, and that is to play on the fears of the voters that some boogeyman is gonna come and get us if we don't let them continue to build whatever armaments in whatever state or keep that base active. They do it every time and to me its unconscionable.
BKB

[Buckrub]

Our military runs the show. We fight wars, and get entire Administrations defeated, because they can't go more than 5 years without testing their new stuff that we paid a hundred times what it's worth.

[Penguin]

Any of you guys think this might actually be the time they really do some cutting? It almost seems like they may be serious this time.

As a personal aside, I think hearing the supposed small government conservatives howl when military cuts are mentioned is almost as fun as listening to the politicos rationalize their hypocrisy.

Will

[BarryBobPosthole]

Seeing as how this is coming from the Pentagon, I figure its either an attempt at an end run to get try to get ahead of much bigger cuts than they actually want to see. Or its an election year gambit to draw out the other side to see if they'll make some sort of big political boo boo.

Or it could be complete horse shit.

Probably the latter.

BKB

[Penguin]

Hahaha, well it could be. Lord know it wouldn't surprise me too much.

I hope we do some cutting actually. We need to tone down our profile a bit. Seems like the nation has lost the ability to make friends and influence enemies unless we do it at the end of a gun. We have a pretty damned impressive military. But by now we should have learned (but haven't) that there are a lot of things the military can't do.... like make things turn out for the better long term in Ukraine for instance.

Will

[Chicken Dinner]

Sounds like they're proposing to cut force size. I wonder what kind of cuts they're proposing for contractors and weapons systems...

[Buckrub]

A negative cut on those...........

[Buckrub]

OK, here's a great example. Never mind the efficiency, never mind obsolescence, just note who is married to whom..........

The entire fleet of A-10 “warthogs” would be eliminated and replaced by the F-35. The so-called tank-killer, designed in the 1970s to go after ground targets, is not nimble enough and too expensive to maintain because of its age, Hagel said.

Cutting it would save $3.5 billion over five years. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., whose husband was an A-10 pilot, has already vowed to fight plans to ditch the fleet.

[LJ3]

It will be interesting to see. From being in the military I can tell you from when I was in, there are tons of meaningless military jobs that could easily be eliminated. Real soldiers positions can be eliminated as we pull back but can the Dems really afford to flood the ranks of the unemployed with jobless soldiers? Sorry I just don't see that happening.

Contractors are going to be more difficult because they bring expertise that does not exist inside the military so you can only cut so much. Weapons and their cost can certainly be cut significantly but we'll have to weigh and acknowledge the risk that comes with that decision.

If only we had an intelligent military leader at the helm.

Seems to me the military is our government in a terrarium. It's grown so damn big that to prune it back would have significant consequences to local, state and national economies. Did we let the beast get too big?

[Penguin]

A negative cut on those...........

~snort~

The ironic thing to me is that although Eisenhower noticed and warned us of the "military industrial complex" he didn't see the real danger: that other industries would recognize the genius of this business model and adopt it as their own. Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Medicine, Education.... you name it and the most successful and parasitic industries in the US have adopted the "Industrial Complex" model as their own. And it has bankrupted us.

Will

[Buckrub]

I think America is so scared of "serious consequences" that they can't stop making terrible decisions.

Gag.

Serious Consequences, if not the name of a new Band, should be the result of the next 32,088 decisions this government makes. THEN we might start on a decent road to somewhere.

[Penguin]

I think America is so scared of "serious consequences" that they can't stop making terrible decisions.

Gag.


I was chatting with an old timer born in the Great Depression time period a while back on another site. He mentioned this. Asked me when the hell did America become so afraid of everything? I don't have the answer.

Will

[LJ3]

Ever since we started enacting laws that gave us the pacification of feeling like we were somehow safer, thanks to the government.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Look at how the Patriot Act worked out for us.

BKB

[LJ3]

The list is endless.

[Buckrub]

:iagree

[Buckrub]

And here we go. Note the sentence that says ".........whose husband is a reservist........."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/gov-haley-national-guard-cuts-slap-face-n37536

What I'd be opposed to, if'n I were a Congresscritter, is if this is the ONLY cuts. I'd say "OK, I'm wid ya. I'll match dollar for dollar every cut in defense with a cut in welfare".

Heck, I might go two for one, just to get the ball rolling.

Hard decisions, indeed.

[Penguin]

~snort~

Amazing how all of these folks are worried about "hollowing out" the military. WTH? They've been on board lock, stock, and barrel with the hollowing out of the entire US industrial tax base. And that is where the real power lies long term. I suppose that is what happens when you have a large portion of the electorate who believe Chile is the preferred economic model we need to emulate.

Point is whether we like it or not, whether it happens now or later on, it WILL happen. Just like I told you we would reform our health care industries. And our education system. And our socialized housing industry. And none of it will be done out of ethical or moral considerations.

We'll do it because we have to. We cannot afford them any longer.

Will

[BarryBobPosthole]

Dick Cheney is blasting loud and long on this issue this morning. Now THAT'S irony.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/25/former-vice-president-cheney-calls-hagel-proposed-army-cuts-absolutely/?intcmp=latestnews

BKB

[Penguin]

Yep, that not unexpected though is it?

Stand back a pace or two, squint your eyes a bit, and it gets a little more clear. Fact is that a small military, and the inability to impose our will on multiple countries is more than just a difference of opinion. Goes all the way to the marrow: your worldview.

Without this kind of military you cannot have a lot of what passes for this version of globalization. This effed up version of globalization depends on capital and investment being safe and sound in some very unsafe and unsound areas. A whole lot of the world has only been kept out of chaos by US military. And that military ceases to function without the dollar as the world reserve currency. Save that we'd only be able to spend on the military what we could afford based on internal budget and trade surplus. The fact that the reserve currency status of the dollar is one of the prime reasons we no longer have a viable industrial base is one of history's larger ironies.

In the long run I have to think it is much better for us to downsize now while it is still our choice to make.

Will

[BarryBobPosthole]

It never ceases to amaze me though, that America has never learned the lessons from one of it's first wars: the Tripolitan War. If you think about it, we're still using the same approach and still getting the same unsatisfying results.

BKB

[BarryBobPosthole]

And while we're at it, don't think for a minute that the plan to get these cuts in place ahead of elections this fall aren't part of Obama's strategy either because they are. There's no altruism in this deal from any side.

BKB

[Penguin]

... There's no altruism in this deal from any side. BKB

No doubt about that. Never has been. All of this goes back to the original sequestration deal and that was nothing more than a way for each side to inflict the greatest amount of pain onto their political foes. I never thought they would get to this point in all honesty. Not that I mind it at all.

But I still say do it now. The pain will be much less if we can take our time and figure out how to do it right.

I do feel sorry for a lot of the military guys that are going to be tossed into this economy. Those poor bastards have no idea how rough the job market really is. The same thing could be said of everyone in DC though couldn't it?

Will

[BarryBobPosthole]

I'm not sure what component national guard and reservists are of the current troop deployment but most of those guys have jobs. And given how much money we are cutting from the military budget, there needs to be a significant part of that set aside for jobs programs for veterans. I know people don't like programs but there has to be some safety net. Almost anyone that gets laid off in business gets some sort of severance package. If we go above and beyond normal attrition to cut our military forces down, then there needs to be a severance of some sort paid to them too.

BKB

[Penguin]

I remember back in the midst of the financial crash that several friends of mine served a tour over there and returned stateside hoping to get a job and move on. Every single one of them went back. Again and again. Contractors for the most part at the end. Couldn't find a job and most still can't.

They'll need a safety net and everything else they can lay hold of. I wish them well.

Will

[BarryBobPosthole]

Much of that financial burden, you know, is going to fall on the states. The feds have a nice way of shedding their debt and flicking those boogers off on the states. the Republican hero Ronald Reagan was most adept at that.

BKB

[Thumper]

Normally when there's a draw down like this, I believe troops with more than 6 years (or it might be 4, can't remember) service gets a package. (If I remember correctly it called "involuntary separation pay") I don't remember the details and things may have changed. I think it falls under the title of "transition benefits".

Not sure what's available (if anything) for "NUG's".

[Penguin]

I agree with that Barry. He was a master at it. Shame he didn't live long enough to see the fruits of his policies in all their glory.

Good to hear Jim. But even so that's not going to go very far. I'm telling you that this job market is tough. Mucho hombre tough. I could go into a 30 minute rant on why I think it is like this but in the end does it matter to these guys? Not even a little bit.

In the end though the system (at 30,000 feet) has reacted to every financial crisis since the 70's in exactly the same manner: We cut off another slice of the middle class and move it lower on the ladder. And the system takes the difference and sputters to life for a short time until the next crisis comes along. We did it to the coal miners, we did it to the steelworkers, we did it to the shipwrights and auto workers, we did it to the the textile workers, and on and on until a few years ago when we did it to a large segment of middle class home owners.

A lot of these guys will just be the next group to get it.

Will

[Thumper]

Trust me Willy, I know what you mean. How do you think I ended up driving a dang truck for a living a few years back? My age and the job market were both working against me and I was literally screwed.

You know (not that it means much), but I would assume if you were washed out of the military due to downsizing, wouldn't you also be eligible for unemployment benefits? Anything helps.

[Penguin]

I know you do Jim. That was a rough time and there were a lot of folks in the exact same boat. A bunch of them still are.

I'm not sure if they can get unemployment benefits or not. By any measure of fairness you'd have to think they would. But then again the way government workers are required to interact with that sort of thing can be very Byzantine. Some very odd laws on the books regarding that kind of thing.

Will

[Buckrub]

We cut off another slice of the middle class and move it lower on the ladder. And the system takes the difference and sputters to life for a short time until the next crisis comes along. We did it to the coal miners, we did it to the steelworkers, we did it to the shipwrights and auto workers, we did it to the the textile workers, and on and on until a few years ago when we did it to a large segment of middle class home owners.

A lot of these guys will just be the next group to get it.

Will

Will, who is 'we'? And how did 'we' do that to those folks?????

[Penguin]

Simple: We never stood up and stopped our leaders from throwing the next group out of the middle class. And that "we" means us. All of us.

Believing superstition and calling it economics. Walking into a store and never once checking to see if a US made product was available or even if the source country was an allie or an enemy. Accepting economic fairy tales that hurt our neighbors because it benefits us individually. Allowing trade policy to be used as a weapon of class warfare. And on and on and on...

The middle class died a death of a thousand cuts. But we did it. We chose to trade it in for a few decades of cheap trinkets and debt servitude.

Will

[Buckrub]

Was I middle class at that point?

[BarryBobPosthole]

From today's stories.....the rhetoric heats up. fueled off course by the folks over on Bullshit Mountain (Fox News).

BKB

As the Obama administration announces proposed sweeping defense cuts, a Congressional Budget Office report documents how increases in other areas of domestic spending may be forcing the White House to reduce money for the military.

The CBO report finds that mandatory spending, which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is projected to rise $85 billion, or 4 percent, to $2.1 trillion this year.

Interest on the debt is worse. It is projected to increase 14 percent per year, almost quadrupling in dollar terms between 2014 and 2024. "We are going to be spending more in interest in a couple of years then we do on national defense," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., told Fox News.

The Obama administration acknowledges the defense cuts are controversial but maintains they are being done with a specific intention:"...in order to sustain our readiness and technological superiority and to protect critical capabilities like special operations forces and cyber resources," Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told reporters Monday.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen , D-Md., told Fox News the draw down from two wars is a logical time to save defense money. "We do not need for the defense of our country to be able to have a defense doctrine that calls for fighting two land wars at the same time," he said.

But history is filled with hard lessons in disarmament. Churchill warned a pacifist Britain, worn out from massive loss of life in World War I, of its unpreparedness for war with Germany as early as 1934. In 1936, he said in a speech to a disinterested Parliament, "A lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes... until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong... these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."

McKeon offers a contemporary reprise of Churchill’s words. "The price is going to be paid for this whether it's in the Middle East, whether it's in the Pacific, whether it's in Europe," he said. "I don't know where. I don't know when. I don't know how, but some bad actor is going to challenge us."

House Republicans may have some leverage over the cuts and they can appropriate money for defense programs at higher amounts than the Pentagon calls for. And while Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told the Washington Examiner late Tuesday the defense cuts are "dead on arrival," the Senate Majority leader deferred judgment.

"I'm running the Senate...we'll weigh it when it gets here,"Harry Reid told reporters.

It’s not just Republicans who have concerns about the defense cuts. When and if military assembly lines slow and bases potentially close in Democratic districts, the cuts may find greater bi-partisan opposition

[LJ3]

I am so screwed... I'm going to be eating dog food when I'm 65. Hopefully I can still find a way to fish.

[Penguin]

McKeon offers a contemporary reprise of Churchill’s words. "The price is going to be paid for this whether it's in the Middle East, whether it's in the Pacific, whether it's in Europe," he said. "I don't know where. I don't know when. I don't know how, but some bad actor is going to challenge us."

That's a golden quote right there.

But there is another way of looking at things. Any of you dufes ever read "World War Z"? Very good book btw. Anyhow they talk about how the US was slow to engage at all and unwilling to engage completely against the zombie hordes because of a war weariness. There came a time when they were just emotionally exhausted from all the minor wars and conflicts that the nation had been in for decades.

But the kicker was that this wasn't a muster to arms or a call to stay on a war footing perpetually. The real message was that in a democracy the willingness to engage in war is limited and therefore must be protected for when it is truly called for. Squandering this on inconsequential wars of convenience and other types of waste is the sin, not the natural tiring of war itself. Something to ponder.

Anyway it looks like the southern states are squaring off on this one. No surprises so far.

Will

[BarryBobPosthole]

McKeon has like five military bases in his district. He's never met a military nickel he didn't like. He's also never met a Countrywide loan he didn't like either but a conversation for another political atrocity.

BKB

[BarryBobPosthole]

This Buck McKeon fellow is a piece of work. He represents (to me) all of the really stupid, bad things that are wrong with our Congress on BOTH sides of the aisle. these people are for fucking sale, plain and simple.
BKB

This from a 2012 article.
The political future of Howard “Buck” McKeon, a Southern California congressman who routinely wins re-election by a wide margin, is suddenly in doubt.



McKeon, who chairs the powerful House Armed Services Committee, has left a big mark in the policy arena. From his support for the proliferation of domestic drones to his maneuvering to exclude the Pentagon and major military contractors from automatic across-the-board budget cuts next year, McKeon has been a loyal servant of the defense industry.

His corporate-friendly approach to lawmaking has also favored profit-seeking online colleges, which won access to virtually unlimited federal assistance on his watch. Almost all of McKeon’s significant legislative accomplishments involve the transfer of huge amounts of taxpayer money to quasi-private entities that are then liberated from government oversight.

Along the way, special interests have lavished the congressman with favors and gifts. What distinguishes McKeon is not just the way pay-to-play legislating has filled his campaign coffers.

Also remarkable is how he has milked his political connections for personal financial gain. This legacy is coming back to haunt him as he fends of a strong challenge from Democrat Lee Rogers this November.

McKeon’s troubles date back to the late nineties, when, as Newt Gingrich’s star faded, McKeon weighed a bid for Majority Leader, but gave up that idea to make room for Representative Dick Armey (R-TX).

Shortly thereafter, the family cowboy fashion store, which had made McKeon a millionaire when he was first sworn into office, would file for bankruptcy and liquidate every ostrich skin boot and ten-gallon hat. The Los Angeles Times reported that in 1996, Howard & Phil Enterprises Inc. had “assets of $10.2 million and debts of $16.7 million.” Ethics disclosures forms filed with the House Clerk show that McKeon stopped earning an outside salary from the store by 1998; by 1999, his store was forced to sell off all assets.

Ironically for the congressman who worked to outlaw bankruptcy protection for millions of students (a law he helped pass in 1998 made it nearly impossible to discharge student loan debt), Chapter 11 helped keep hundreds of creditors at bay for the cowboy store.

In recent years McKeon has faced more personal financial troubles. In March and April of 2008, McKeon sold off almost every asset he owned, from index funds and other financial investments. His latest financial disclosure states that his personal debt is between $1,010,003 and $2,015,000 (ethics disclosure forms show a range, rather than a specific number). It’s a mystery why McKeon, who earns a $174,000 a year salary as a member of Congress, incurred so much debt.

Whatever the explanation for McKeon’s debt, it was long before his recent struggles that he began to use his political position for personal financial benefit.

Mortgaging his Influence

In January of this year, The Wall Street Journal revealed that McKeon was among the group of politicians and congressional staff to receive “VIP” mortgages from Countrywide, the troubled subprime lender now owned by Bank of America, as part of an effort to curry favor over housing policy.

E-mails from Countrywide from September 1998 indicate that a Mortgage Bankers Association lobbyist named Mike Ferrell recommended that McKeon receive a VIP mortgage. “Per [Countrywide CEO] Angelo [Mozilo]—take off 1 point, no garbage fees, approve the loan and make it a no doc,” read the message within Countrywide.

A call sheet recovered from a Countrywide employee summarizes some of the contact between McKeon and the mortgage company, which at the time was working Congress to increase the maximum amount for government-backed single-family home loans—a legislative change that Congressman McKeon supported. “You may call the borrower at his Washington office [number redacted] and get the Sons phone number for the appraiser contact,” it noted. “The borrower is a bit difficult to deal with. He seems on the edgy side.”

When the revelation was made earlier this year that McKeon—a “Friend of Angelo” like Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND), who were identified back in 2008—was a recipient of VIP Countrywide loan that saved him thousands of dollars, he vigorously denied it. A spokesperson for McKeon’s office told the press that the congressman was “shocked and angry to hear this, as he had no knowledge of the Friends of Angelo designation.”

A letter revealed in a report published in July paints a different story. A little more than a week after mortgage industry lobbyists conspired to offer McKeon a discounted mortgage for his home, an overnight letter arrived at the McKeon household that opened, “Thank you for allowing Countrywide’s VIP team to assist you with your financing needs.” At the bottom of the page, bold lettering indicated that the mortgage document came from the company’s “VIP TEAM.” A Countrywide VIP loan underwriter confirmed to government investigators that all of the deals were made with explicit communication to the recipients about the special nature of the VIP mortgage unit.

The Countrywide VIP refinance deal helped McKeon pay down a loan on a ranch he owned, while providing him with $46,894 in cash. The lowered interest rate saved McKeon about $3,000, and he was able to avoid an undisclosed amount of “garbage fees” associated with the loan.

Why the Countrywide loan scandal still has not resulted in any federal indictments is a mystery. A recent report from the House Oversight Committee found that the special mortgages were designed to influence policy and were personally tailored to suit McKeon, but so far the mounting evidence has not led to any conviction for wrongdoing.

In any case, McKeon is the last incumbent lawmaker seeking re-election with a clear paper trail showing that he received special favors from the company best known for inflating the housing bubble and crashing the financial system.

The McKeon family must have needed cash, because it wasn’t just Countrywide that came knocking. The year after McKeon accepted the discounted mortgage, his wife Patricia began working as a lobbyist.

Disclosures show that Patricia, employed by a firm called Tongour & Scott, worked on a 1999 contract for CSX Corp., the railroad company. Records indicate that the lobbyists were hired primarily to influence CSX’s proposed buyout of the Consolidated Rail Corporation, a government-backed network of aging Northeastern railways. That year, the firm also counted among its clients the city of Lancaster, California, the US Telecom Association, an electronics company called Trimble Navigation, and twelve other clients.

Although she lacked any experience in policy, Patricia’s connections to her husband appeared to be a boon to her company. A year after her firm was hired to lobby on federal appropriations for the city of Lancaster, Patricia’s husband helped secure over $102 million for highway funds, part of which was used to connect Antelope Valley, where Lancaster is located, to Santa Clarita.

The Nation reviewed ethics disclosures from the time period, and McKeon failed to disclose that his wife earned income as a lobbyist in 1999.

Two years after her stint as a federal lobbyist, McKeon began paying Patricia handsomely as his campaign treasurer. A review of records shows that Patricia McKeon has received $588,284 since 2002 from her husband’s campaign committee.

“My wife, Patricia, has been an essential component of my campaign,” said McKeon in a statement this year defending the practice of paying his wife with his campaign funds.

Enabling Profiteers, for a Price

McKeon has been almost as cozy with the for-profit college industry as he has with the weapons industry—and it turned out he had a personal financial interest in the very education companies his policymaking affected.

In 2006, McKeon and Boehner slipped only eight lines of legislation into a budget bill that helped create a new industry of predatory school companies. The pair helped eliminate the so-called 50 Percent Rule, which limited federal assistance to students enrolling in for-profit online universities. The law instantly propelled companies like the University of Phoenix into Wall Street cash cows. Once they qualified for virtually unlimited taxpayer assistance, many universities in the for-profit industry set tuition at exactly the amount a student could expect in federal aid, using programs like Pell Grants and Stafford loans.

In less than four years after the 50 Percent Rule was abolished, enrollment for online for profits grew from 1.2 million students to nearly 2.5 million students in fall 2010, according to Eduventures, a research and consulting firm. The school companies, which spend far more in marketing than on education services, are plagued by allegations of fraud.

While enabling their skyrocketing growth through legislation, McKeon speculated in the industry. As the Huffington Post’s Chris Kirkham reported, McKeon “held and sold stock for Corinthian Colleges Inc., a for-profit college corporation, during the time he was crafting policies for the industry on the House Education committee.”

McKeon’s latest policy crusade has nothing to do with education, but fits his pattern of funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to unworthy private interests.

In 2011, McKeon ascended to the rank of chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. In that role, protecting military contractors from budget cuts, McKeon has violated nearly every principle supposedly held by the modern GOP. Only months after his party set up rules banning the practice of earmarks last year, McKeon established a $1 billion fund for member-directed pet projects—a clear violation of the Republican Party’s celebrated rules. Notwithstanding his party’s mantra that government spending doesn’t create jobs, McKeon argued last November that any cuts to the military budget would increase the unemployment rate.

Name a weapons program the Pentagon doesn’t want, and its likely McKeon has gone to bat for it. Earlier this year, McKeon produced language in the defense budget that included a new missile defense shield for the east coast—a multi-million dollar program derided by General Martin Dempsey as unnecessary. McKeon led a campaign to demand that the government fund a second engine program for the F-35—at a cost of $450 million a year—over protests from the Pentagon that the program had no use it all. McKeon is also pressing for additional purchases of F-35’s, against the wishes of the Obama administration, despite the fact that the fighter jet is shaping up to be the most expensive weapon in human history, with a lifetime cost of $1.45 trillion.

His other military lobbyist-backed ventures have riled those concerned with civil liberties. In 2009, McKeon helped establish the Unmanned Systems Caucus in Congress, better known simply as the “Drone Caucus.” A trade association that largely represents lobbyists for military drone manufacturers later confirmed that it helped set up and direct the activities of the caucus.

In February, Congress adopted language from drone lobbyists “word-for-word” to allow domestic drones in the United States for law enforcement and commercial use. An FAA official estimates that the change could mean 30,000 drones flying through the sky over the next eight years. McKeon’s hand could be seen in the shift. As chair of the drone caucus, he was there for a celebratory event with drone lobbyists shortly after the bill passed. “I want to thank you all for what you’re doing,” McKeon told the attendees.

While many Republicans have voiced concerns about the potential for domestic drone spying, McKeon has continued to champion the industry with little regard for civil liberties. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) grumbled that lobbyists who are “making money selling this drone technology” are seducing his pro-drone colleagues.

Now McKeon is leading the effort to stave off $492 billion in automatic cuts to the Defense Department as part of the sequestration planned over the next decade. The cuts are part of the debt limit deal negotiated by House Republicans last year. Budget chairman and Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan has reneged on the deal, and worked alongside McKeon to take the Defense cuts off the table.

As McKeon has promoted Pentagon pork, he has been rewarded with enormous amounts of campaign cash. He is now the top recipient in Congress in funds from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, General Atomics and Boeing.

But the defense contractors’ and drone-makers’s largesse doesn’t even stop there. Earlier this year, Patricia McKeon made an ill-fated bid for California State Assembly. She ran on two issues: repealing the ten-cent bag tax in Los Angeles County and fighting “special interests” in Sacramento. But a review of campaign finance records reveals that much of her money came from defense contractors and lobbyists with ties to her husband.

Lockheed Martin provided Patricia with a $3,000 check, Raytheon’s PAC provided $2,000, a Wisconsin-based military truck manufacturing executive pitched in $500. Beau Boutler LLC, a DC lobbying firm that represents a drone company, gave as well. General Dynamics, a company that has worked with McKeon to block the Pentagon’s request to end a $3 billion effort to refurbish tanks the military does not need, gave her $3,900. Even the congressman’s legacy connections were there to help fund his wife. Bruce Leftwich, a lobbyist who represents online for-profit universities, was one of the first to donate to Patricia’s campaign.

Patricia ultimately lost her campaign for state office, but earned a raise in her job on husband’s campaign. Records show that—despite being fined in March for missing an FEC deadline—Patricia went from making $5,081 a month to $5,331.

Though McKeon maintains the swagger of a comfortable incumbent, new district lines implemented this year make his position slightly more competitive.

Few Democrats have run an anti-corruption platform this cycle, preferring instead to focus on core issues like Medicare and creating jobs. Lee Rogers, McKeon’s opponent, has attempted to chart his own path, making McKeon’s ethical troubles front in center as he explains why he Washington is broken.

He says in his first 100 days, he will introduce ethics reform legislation to improve transparency and curb nepotism. Though the law could have wide-ranging effects on Washington, Rogers conceded to The Nation that it helped to have the “poster boy for pay-to-play politics” as his opponent this year.

[Penguin]

Amazing piece of work.

Good example of what happens when a nation let's its own courts equate corporations with citizens and money with speech. In a more ethical society he would be behind bars already. Him and a couple hundred more just like him.

Will