And John Kline ? ? ?

Instead of Mr. Earmark proclaiming a “pork-free diet” why doesn't he scrutinize the Bush budget and comment on the “necessity” of Bush's earmarks.  How hard can that be in a $3 trillion spending plan? For example, Aircraft and weapons: $45.6 billion, a $4.9 billion increase, that would include purchases of fighter planes such as the F-22A.  The F-22 was originally designed as an air superiority fighter for use against the Soviet Air Force. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) sent a 13-page letter on June 20, 2006 to then-House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman C.W. (Bill) Young urging Congress to stop funding this program due to its high cost and the fact that the aircraft is out of date. The GAO said, “DOD has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program.” The GAO also noted that the F-22s “are not sufficient to be effective in the current and future national security environment.” There are 22 test F-35 aircrafts that are more modern, effective, and cheaper. In 2003, Popular Science reported the F-22 had a price tag of $120 million each while the F-35 cost $35 million. In June 2006, the GAO report raised the F-22's numbers, concluding that the multi-year contract would drive per-plane costs up to $183 million from $166 million.

All earmarks are not created equal … Bush says “Do what I say and not what I do”.

Instead of Mr. Earmark proclaiming a “pork-free diet” why doesn’t he scrutinize the Bush budget and comment on the “necessity” of Bush’s earmarks.  How hard can that be in a $3 trillion spending plan? For example, Aircraft and weapons: $45.6 billion, a $4.9 billion increase, that would include purchases of fighter planes such as the F-22A.  The F-22 was originally designed as an air superiority fighter for use against the Soviet Air Force. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) sent a 13-page letter on June 20, 2006 to then-House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman C.W. (Bill) Young urging Congress to stop funding this program due to its high cost and the fact that the aircraft is out of date. The GAO said, “DOD has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program.” The GAO also noted that the F-22s “are not sufficient to be effective in the current and future national security environment.” There are 22 test F-35 aircrafts that are more modern, effective, and cheaper. In 2003, Popular Science reported the F-22 had a price tag of $120 million each while the F-35 cost $35 million. In June 2006, the GAO report raised the F-22′s numbers, concluding that the multi-year contract would drive per-plane costs up to $183 million from $166 million.

All earmarks are not created equal … Bush says “Do what I say and not what I do”.