“Citizens Against Government Waste” In The Pocket Of Big Business

10:20 am EST September 8th, 2009 | Politics | 7 Comments

shell game

All part of the game

The federal government is already spending billions for Pratt & Whitney to develop engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Why spend billions more for General Electric to do the same?

‘The alternate engine not only qualifies as procedural pork, it is also a waste of money on the merits,’ Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said in July in announcing an advertising campaign.

But when a video was posted on YouTube, it showed that it was paid for by GE’s competitor in the long-running, $100 billion war over the F-35 engine: Pratt & Whitney.

(via)

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

7 Responses to ““Citizens Against Government Waste” In The Pocket Of Big Business”

  1. jr says:
    September 8, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    All of these concern troll groups are astroturf from this shit to the Chamber of Commerce

  2. Sean D. Martin says:
    September 8, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    OK, it’s good to note the source of things.

    But does something not have a valid point just because it’s paid for by someone with financial interest in the outcome. Do legitimate arguments only come from completely uninvolved sources?

    Is spending billions on an alternate engines, particularly given current demands on the federal budget, a reasonable thing to do?

  3. Steve LaBonne says:
    September 8, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    But does something not have a valid point just because it’s paid for by someone with financial interest in the outcome.

    It’s not that the particular point is invalid, it’s just that the source of the money will predictably cancel this message out by advocating FOR government waste that happens to go into its pocket. That makes them a useless and treacherous ally to anybody who REALLY cares about waste. Or in other words, with friends like this…

  4. Oliver Willis says:
    September 8, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Do legitimate arguments only come from completely uninvolved sources?
    No, but if the argument is legit you don’t hide the backers. Think of all the smoking studies the tobacco companies funded, for instance.

  5. Sean D. Martin says:
    September 8, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    OW: No, but if the argument is legit you don’t hide the backers.

    On the other hand, just above your comment Steve LaBonne suggests “it’s just that the source of the money will predictably cancel this message out by advocating FOR government waste that happens to go into its pocket. That makes them a useless and treacherous ally”.

    So, don’t hide the backers if you want to be taken as legit. And if you show the source of the money the message gets canceled out.

    OK, I’m stretching the point a bit, but it sure seems like the validity of a point can’t be judged on it’s own merits. Yes, source of backing should be made known so that one can look for a potential (otherwise not noticed) hidden agenda. But, still, just because advocating against waste in in this case is in P&W’s interest doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid point, regardless of how they may argue the opposite (and make an invalid point) when that is in their interest.

  6. Steve LaBonne says:
    September 8, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    But, still, just because advocating against waste in in this case is in P&W’s interest doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid point, regardless of how they may argue the opposite (and make an invalid point) when that is in their interest.

    And THAT doesn’t invalidate the point that they’re worthless allies for anybody who GENUINELY cares about waste. Yes, sometimes cynical alliances are necessary in politics, but they’re at best a necessary evil and you better watch your back when your make a deal with the devil.

  7. Sean D. Martin says:
    September 9, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    Fair enough