The Hill
Thursday, November 20, 2008
SEARCH
Home
HillTube
Mobile
White Papers Portal
New Member Guide
BLOGS
Pundits Blog
Congress Blog
Blog Briefing Room
NEWS
Leading The News
Business & Lobbying
K Street Insiders
John Breaux
John Engler
Vin Weber
Dave Wenhold
The Executive
Campaign 2008
Endorsements '08
COLUMNISTS
Dick Morris
A.B. Stoddard
Brent Budowsky
Ben Goddard
David Hill
David Keene
Josh Marshall
Mark Mellman
Jim Mills
Markos Moulitsas (Kos)
Byron York
COMMENT
Editorial
Letters
Op-eds
Weyant's World
CAPITAL LIVING
Today's Stories
50 Most Beautiful 2008
Other Features
In The Know
Bookshelf
Food & Drink
Onward and Upward
Hillscape
RESOURCES
Classifieds
Subscribe
Order Reprints
Last Six Issues
Useful Links
RSS


Home arrow Editorial arrow Big green letter
Editorial PDF Print E-mail
Big green letter
Posted: 03/13/08 06:37 PM [ET]

Newspapers sometimes fail their readers by using $10 words. The Air Force has a bigger problem: It is poised to fail taxpayers by using a $16 million letter. The letter, by the way, is B.

In the context of a $2 billion Pentagon contract, $16 million doesn’t seem like a lot of money. But it’s a lot to waste.

Last year the Pentagon awarded a valuable defense contract to build dozens of new medium-sized military transport aircraft called the C-27 J Spartan for the Army and Air Force.  

The Air Force wants to change the name to the C-27 B Spartan, which would cost $16 million because it would mean changing all technical and operational manuals to reflect the switch from J to B. The aircraft is already commercially available and known worldwide by the letter J.

The army and the contractor, sensibly, do not want to absorb this cost; $16 million is half the cost of one of the new planes.

But the Air Force’s previous transport plane from the same manufacturer was called the C-27 A Spartan, and the service has always referred to the new plane as the B rather than the J. Now it wants to make that designation official.

A story in The Hill by Roxana Tiron this week noted that there is a method to the madness, in that the most methodical way of naming the new plane is to do so alphabetically. But spending $16 million to adhere to the order we are all taught in kindergarten suggests a touch of madness in the Air Force method.

Washington has been consumed all year by a battle over congressional earmarks, in which members direct spending to their districts for sometimes dubious causes. The House and Senate are considering one-year moratoriums on these projects, which have been highlighted as examples of government waste.

The name change debate at the Pentagon is a reminder that wasteful spending in Washington goes way beyond earmarks, which make up a tiny fraction of federal government expenditures. If Congress really wants to get serious about cutting spending, it does not have to look; start with existing programs and proposals from both the administration and Congress.

Former Sen. William Proxmire used to offer Golden Fleece awards to the government projects that served as the worst examples of wasteful spending. If the Wisconsin Democrat were still alive, we feel certain he would consider giving the award to the Air Force for its astonishing fidelity to the alphabet.

 
 
 
BLOGS
ADVERTISER
Home | Privacy Policy | Terms And Conditions
The Hill
1625 K Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2008 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.