Jay Dee wrote on October 21, 2008 02:05 PM: Defense Geek,

I could not have said it better myself. This article does not mention the billions of dollars that Progeny, (like many other small hi tech compaines around the country) have saved the taxpayers through forced competition (against large monopolized contractors which consume the majority of spending in our country) to produce superior products for 1/4 of the price.

When are people going to stop breathing in every misleading article that they read? People---- wake up! You are being spoon fed a bunch of sensationaled/politicized crap. Everyone has an agenda- unfortunately, you have to look a little bit further than the daily newspaper for the truth.

Would you rather have career beauracrats in DC making decisions about how to spend taxpayer money or your representative in government? I think that the latter is what the constitution intended. Earmarks generate competition and produce superior technology in all industries across the country.

If you want to really make a difference in government spending/waste, look at the top 5 defense contractors and see how they do business with the US Government. Earmarks are only chunk change by comparison.

defensegeek wrote on October 21, 2008 12:34 PM: I work in the defense industry. And I have worked for both large and small companies. It’s interesting to see that every article related to earmarks is about the underlying accusation that the politician and the company have done something bad. When will someone write an article about the success of earmarks and how they truly drive change? If it weren’t for earmarks, there would be no UAVs. We would have lost more people at war. We would still be buying toilet seats for $1500. Earmarks are a way to enable change and challenge war profiteers. Instead of jumping to conclusions and villanizing those people trying to make change, try to understand their rationale. Better yet, why not do a story on the $20-30M worth of political contributions that Lockheed and General Dynamics each make every year in order to maintain status quo to stay the course and profit from avoiding change. Take a look at the Airforce F-35 which is in constant overrun, will cost $1 Trillion of the tax payer’s money, and is built to fight a cold war threat. Even though the company in this article didn’t get the money yet, they do have people working at offices and bases in Nevada. Jon should be commended for his efforts to capture some of the $500B defense budget and bring it back to Nevada to create jobs and change the way government spends defense dollars. If you think about it, if things go well with the UAV program, we can all get a refund by shutting down an unnecessary F-35 program.

Grump wrote on October 21, 2008 09:33 AM: What the story did not disclose is the very close proximity between Porter asking for earmark and getting contributions from Progeny's principals and their families! Very, very, very close proximity!

Like Senator Reid, Congresswoman Berkley also asked for earmarks for Progeny BUT neither of them received a penny in contributions from Progeny or family members related to the owners.

Lastly, Murtha is NOT the only one that approved these requests but two Republican chairman of the committees just a few years ago...like Congressman Jerry Lewis of CA (who as of a few weeks ago has spent $1,000,000,000 on legal fees).

Jeremy wrote on October 21, 2008 08:47 AM: Put him out on his ear. If $30k doesn't "make or break" a campaign and if you are sincere about being transparent about not selling your services (and our money), then don't accept the money, Porter.

Remember things like this and the $700,000,000,000 bailout he voted for when you go to the polls. This isn't a partisan issue, this is an American issue.

Susan wrote on October 21, 2008 08:31 AM: This Jon Porter is using his position to get $$ for himself. Yet the R-J just endorsed this corrupt s.o.b. on Sunday. We should do our part and vote him out of office. You can go do it today, in fact.

Jerry Mac wrote on October 21, 2008 08:27 AM: Wayne:

Name one Federal Congressman that has not received donations from an out-of-state company that he has supported (albeit loosely used) “via ear marks (sic).” In addition, why does it matter whether it is in-state or out-of-state? Is in-state corrupt and out-of-state not?

For all of its fallacies, this is how our federal system works. This is not corruption. If it were, Porter should be in jail.

addie wrote on October 21, 2008 08:22 AM: Does McCain know about Porter's PORK spending?

The Most Wasteful, By Far, of Taxpayer Dollars wrote on October 21, 2008 08:08 AM: The R-J editorials kvetch about government waste, but you never hear them attack the most wasteful, by far, government entity:

the military industrial complex that Ike warned us about is his farewell address.

Instead, the R-J goes after those hobgobblin Clark County teachers.

So Porter is closely tied to the biggest waster of taxpayer dollars there is, and the biggest beneficiary of corporate welfare.

Surprise!

Wayne wrote on October 21, 2008 07:46 AM: Jerry Mac "To succeed, every politican (sic) - regardless of affiiation (sic) - must have an impressive donor list."

The problem is when the donor list includes an out of state company that just got a huge contract via ear marks. That doesn't just look corrupt . . . it is.

Harry wrote on October 21, 2008 07:34 AM: Another greedy public official that needs to go. The only problem is his replacement who is another greedy, ego maniac politician with a Texas twang.