12 Days of Waste-mas

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Signal.

Just think of the waste that could be eliminated if Congress would actually do its job.


The Christmas season is on, and shoppers are out in full force. This means nothing for Washington. Here, Santa Claus seems to hand out gifts all year long.

Here are 12 examples of government waste we’ve selected in the spirit of the 12 days of Christmas:

1. NASA spent $237,205 to study how rainfall affects the red crab’s annual migration to Christmas Island. Merry Crab Christmas!



2. Medicare Part B paid $132.9 million for the same medical supplies for cancer treatment that Medicare Part D paid $22 million to receive. How generous to pay six times for the same supplies!


3. The United States Postal Service lost or cannot confirm receiving 37 trailers from a leasing company. The United States Postal Service eventually purchased the titles of the missing trailers, which cost the postal service $287,000 for trailers that remain missing. Did anybody check in the garage?


4. The Defense Department overpaid by $3.3 million for radios for the Afghan army because the Defense Department failed to follow contracting procedures. Roger that.

Military radio control room (1)

5. The federal Drug Enforcement Agency paid an informant working for Amtrak $854,460 over 20 years to disclose passengers’ names. However, the DEA could have received this information for free since the Amtrak Police Department will share this information with other law enforcement agencies.

Union Station, Los Angeles, California, May 2, 2010

6. The National Institutes of Health spent $484,000 to study whether hypnosis can reduce hot flashes in postmenopausal woman and breast cancer survivors. A self-help book entitled “Relief from Hot Flashes” describes a session as “You go to a place in your mind that’s going to cool you off. It’s almost like your body is cooling itself off.”


7. Federal agencies paid nearly $50 million to the Department of Commerce’s National Technical Information Service for information that is mostly available free online. Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla.,  introduced the Let Me Google That For you Act to terminate NTIS.


8. Paralegals at the Patient Trial and Appeal Board were paid$5.1 million over four years as they watched Netflix, shopped online and used social media while on the clock.

Netflix Reports Third Quarter Earnings

9. The Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program provided $400,000 to the liquor lobby, which used part of those funds to transport foreign journalists to different breweries and distilleries in the southeastern United States. Cheers to that!


10. The Department of Agriculture granted $500,000 to provide start-up materials for butterfly farming to Native Americans in Oklahoma, which included butterfly eggs and vehicles to transport them.


11. The National Institutes of Health has granted more than$10 million towards the creation of “Escape from Diab,” which is a video game about five children who must get healthy enough to escape from a town full of obese people and their evil king.

Screen Shot 2014-12-19 at 3.39.31 PM

12. Employees at the Environmental Protection Agency used government credit cards to purchase $79,300 worth of “prohibited, improper and erroneous” goods and services. Included in the purchases were gym memberships for EPA employees and their family members, DVDs and academic memberships.


It is examples like these that show there is plenty of fat in the budget that needs to be trimmed, and Congress has a responsibility to trim it. Federal Spending by the Numbers 2014 includes 51 examples of government waste from which these 12 were selected. The report also reveals key budget trends in charts, tables and key points.

The best gift Congress could give Americans this Christmas season is to address wasteful spending with the right reformsin Congress’ 2015 budget. Uncle Sam’s handouts are not produced by elves at the North Pole but paid for with money taken from hardworking American families.

For more examples of government waste and to learn more about the federal budget, see Heritage’s 2014 edition of Federal Spending by the Numbers.


After wasting tax dollars, officials at CDC, NIH claim budget cuts hurt Ebola preparedness

1 Comment

This is by Eric Boehm @

The CDC and NIH have wasted enough money to fund Ebola research and made a vaccine.

Yet they chose to fund research to find out way lesbians are fat and giving cocaine to Japanese quails. WTF.


Here’s a lesson about how government works: Public officials think they should always have a larger pot of taxpayer money, no matter how badly they have misspent, misprioritized and misused the taxpayer money they already have.

That’s pretty much the only logical explanation to the comments made last week by the head of the National Institutes of Health and some members of Congress, who argue that budget cuts at the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control hurt the agencies’ ability to be prepared for the international Ebola outbreak.

Photo by Centers for Disease Control

EBOLA: Never wanting to waste a good crisis, some members of Congress and other federal officials are using the Ebola outbreak to call for more federal spending, despite bad track records by the CDC and NIH.

NIH has been working on Ebola vaccines since 2001. It’s not like we suddenly woke up and thought, ‘Oh my gosh, we should have something ready here,’” Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the NIH, told the Huffington Post last week.

He said the agency would “probably” have developed a vaccine by now if it hadn’t seen a “10 year slide” in support for research.

The same day, the Huffington Post argued that the CDC and NIH had been “hobbled” by more than $600 million in funding cuts over the past five years.

There’s no doubt that the deep health care cuts that we’ve seen have made it more difficult to respond in a rapid and comprehensive way to the Ebola outbreak,” U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, said on CNN.

Even once-and-future presidential candidate Hilary Clinton got into the act, arguing in an op-ed that spending cuts created by the congressional sequestration “were really starting to hurt” the CDC and other public health agencies.

And by the middle of this week, the issue had turned entirely political.

A new ad from the Agenda Project Action Fund, left-leaning super PAC, outright blamed Republicans for budget cuts that allowed Ebola to become a threat in the American homeland.

The whole thing is meant to reduce public debate over government spending to a single, obvious point: budget cuts can literally kill people.

Would handing over more money to the CDC and the NIH have helped prevent the current Ebola outbreak? Perhaps.

But given the two agencies’ recent history, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that those extra funds would have been used in other, less productive, ways.

The CDC, for example, was busted in 2007 by Oklahoma Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn’s office for a litany of questionable spending decisions.

Among them: spending $1.75 million over seven years on a “Hollywood liaison” whose job was to help movie and television studios develop accurate plot lines about diseases. To pay the position, the CDC tapped into an account that was supposed to be used to develop responses to bio-terrorism.

Making matters worse, the head of the Hollywood liaison office was found to be a former CDC employee who landed in one of the cushiest semi-retirements ever dreamed up by the federal government.

That spending might have brought more scripted realism to House, Grey’s Anatomy and General Hospital, but it didn’t do squat to help combat Ebola or any other real world disease.

Wiki Commons image

PRIORITIES: The CDC’s shiny new Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center in Atlanta contains more than $10 million of brand-new office furniture.

The CDC also spent lavishly on a new headquarters and visitor center that opened in 2006 – even though the agency already had one visitor center, and it’s hard to imagine many tourists wanting to check out something like the CDC.

The agency blew through more than $10 million in new office furniture and built a $200,000 fitness center and $30,000 sauna on-site.

Even when the CDC was combating disease, it was wasting money, Coburn’s team found.

Though the agency spent more than $2.6 billion on grants for HIV and AIDS research over five years, the CDC acknowledged that many of those grants “have no objectives” or were otherwise useless. They kept funding them anyway.

“Many times the answer is to spend more money instead of redirecting the money or eliminating the waste,” Thomas Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonprofit that tracks poor spending decisions by Congress and the federal bureaucracy, told this week. “Programs that are completely ineffective might get cut by a few percentage points or something, but the wasteful spending still exists.”

And who can forget the CDC’s attempt to eliminate syphilis? In 1999, the agency asked Congress to give them extra funding for a special project meant to practically eliminate syphilis in the United States by 2005.

Congress responded by doubling the CDC’s budget for syphilis-related programs, and the CDC spent that extra money on drag shows and invited porn stars and strippers to speak at public events.

By 2005, not only did syphilis still exist, but the number of reported cases had increased by 68 percent.

This is the same agency that we’re now being told could have prevented Ebola if only it hadn’t seen its funding reduced over the past few years.

“This review of recent CDC expenditures demonstrates that a re-prioritization of CDC funding and a review of the approach to certain types of disease prevention are in order,” Coburn’s team concluded.

Since being embarrassed by Coburn’s report, the CDC’s track record has not exactly improved.

The agency has received more than $3 billion from a new research fund created by the Affordable Care Act, but has spent only $180 million of that bounty on researching dangerous diseases.

Instead, it has budgeted millions of dollars each year for community grants aimed at convincing Americans to make smart choices about their health — essentially, taxpayer-funded advertising telling you to put down that giant soda and eat more salad.

Other grants awarded with Obamacare dollars have helped prop-up farmers markers and fund the installation of bike lanes, all of which are nice things to have — unless they’re coming at the expense of more important priorities, like researching deadly diseases.

The NIH has been no better.

As Mollie Hemingway points out at The Federalist, the NIH has seen its funding increase by 900 percent since 1970 — so much for those “funding slides” Collins was complaining about — and the NIH’s share of Department of Health and Human Services spending will top $958 billion this year.

Again, it comes down to a question of priorities. Because the NIH certainly has enough money to put towards Ebola research, if it wanted to.

Instead, the NIH has funded studies that included feeding cocaine to Japanese quail, finding out why lesbians are fat and getting monkeys sexually aroused.

If the CDC and NIH had more taxpayer money, it’s possible they would use it all to conduct round-the-clock research on an Ebola vaccine. But it’s also possible — maybe even likely, given the history here — that they would blow that extra cash on another round of questionable decisions and then come back to Congress and the American people, pleading poverty and blaming budget cuts for why the important stuff didn’t get done.

Schatz says the blame should extend beyond the two agencies in question. If there really was such a need for spending at the NIH and CDC, Congress could easily find wasteful programs in other parts of government and direct those dollars to public health.

“Prioritization runs across the entire government,” he said. “When members of Congress come out and say something is underfunded, we should ask ‘how many times have you proposed eliminating a wasteful program and redirecting those funds?’”


Obama Halts Therapy Dogs for Kids at Nat’l Institutes of Health

Leave a comment

This is from Mr.Conservative.

Just when you think Barack Milhous Capone Kardashian can not get any lower.

He proves that he is loner than whale shit on the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

There is a special place in Hell reserved for Barack Milhous Capone Kardashian.  


Under President Obama’s shut down, the National Institutes for Health (NIH) have put and end to the therapy dogs visiting sick kids claiming a lack of money to continue.

(See also: Senior Citizens Locked Inside Yellowstone National Park For Days, Thanks To Govt. Shutdown)

NPR reports: “They can only come once a week, but it’s the highlight of Sam’s week,” mother of patient Sam Whetzel said. But this week, she says, her son Sam got some bad news. “They came and stopped in, and told Sam that the therapy dog wouldn’t be coming because of the government shutdown.”

Kids love the weekly visits of the therapy dogs

“He was disappointed,” Whetzel says. “He really looks forward to the dogs coming. He has a special fondness for the little dogs that can come and just sit on his bed and lie down and curl up with him.”

Further, the NIH is not enrolling new patients in its studies or clinical trials until the shut down ends. This prevents about 200 people a week from getting possible life-saving treatments.

NIH Director Francis Collins decried the shut down.

The clinical center is often called the ‘House of Hope,’ and the ‘House of Hope’ had to close its doors to new patients because that’s what a shutdown does. How would you feel, as a parent of a child with cancer, hoping that somehow NIH and its clinical center might provide some rescue from a very difficult situation, to hear that, frankly, you can’t come, because the government wasn’t able to stay open?

(See also: Obama Shuts Down Statue of Liberty, Refuses Last Wish of Dying Girl)

As William Bigelow reports, in 2011, 23 of the top 28 highest paid federal employees were officials at the National Institutes of Health; all made over $290,000 per year.

The National Institutes of Health


Harry Reid on Helping Kids With Cancer: “Why Would We Want To Do That?”

Leave a comment

This is from LifeNews.

These comments are coming from a misleader from a party that swears

everything they do is for the chikdren.

DemocRats want to ban guns,video games,trans fats and so on for the children.

There is a special place in Hell for Dingy Harry Reid.



With a government shutdown over the issue of Obamacare and its abortion funding occupying most of the political debate, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid put his foot in his mouth in a big way today.

The House is set to vote today on H.J. Res. 73, the Research for Lifesaving Cures Act, which ensures funding for the National Institutes of Health during the government shutdown over the Obamacare debate, but Reid said Senate Democrats aren’t interested in the House Republican bill.

IN a CNN interview, Reid responded:

CNN: “If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?”

Sen. Reid: “Why would we want to do that?”

The full transcript appears below:

DANA BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?

HARRY REID: Listen, Sen. Durbin explained that very well, and he did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Sen. Schumer. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless –

BASH: I’m just asking a question.


Russians Freezing to Death during Global Warming Period

Leave a comment

This is from Political Outcast.

The people who worship at the altar of Globull warming can’t lose.

When the temperatures soar they say the it is due to Globull warming.

When freezing conditions prevail they say it is due to Globull warming.


Reports are coming in that “Russia is enduring its harshest winter in over 70 years, with temperatures plunging as low as -50 degrees Celsius [-58 Fahrenheit]. . . . The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia. Across the country, 45 people have died due to the cold, and 266 have been taken to hospitals.”

How inconvenient for Global Warming advocates.

Global Warming fears are not about science; it’s about government (tax-payer) grant money.

Scientists live or die by grant money. A long time ago universities began to realize that there’s big money to be made in doing research for the government.

Campus protests in the 1960s and early 1970s were often directed at schools that were doing work for the “Military-Industrial Complex.” The Sterling Hall Bombing that occurred on the campus of the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1970 was committed by four young people as a protest against the University’s research connections with the US military during the Vietnam War. It resulted in the death of a university physics researcher. The bombers were after the Army Math Research Center (AMRC) that was housed in the building.

The Manhattan Project, which began in 1939, was led and developed by university professors. The Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion ($22 billion in current value). The majority of the money came from the Federal government.

Research is big business that is most often driven by ideology. Those who know how to write the grants get the money.

A 2005 study in the journal Nature surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded by the National Institutes of Health which is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and health-related research. It consists of 27 separate institutes and centers. Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.

With this very brief background study, should we be surprised if scientists who are pushing Global Warming as a man-made disaster would be reluctant to criticize the claim if they knew their funding would be cut? There are big bucks in Global Warming. Those who are pushing it are mostly ideologues with a larger political agenda.


Most Americans have an idealized opinion of scientists, that they are somehow detached from the mundane world of power, prestige, and fortune.

Scientists are just like everybody else. They like money, prestige, and noteriety.

We shouldn’t be surprised that climate scientists might fudge the evidence to keep the grant money coming in. Who’s really getting harmed? Anyway, the kids need new shoes and an investment portfolio so they can get into the best universities so they can work for a university that gets grant money.

If these scientists and politicians were really concerned about Global Warming, would 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists, and 98 world leaders meet in far way places for a Climate Summit?[1] Why not set up a teleconferencing system? Really show the world what can be done to “save the planet.”

More than 1200 limos were called into service for a meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, said that there were not enough limousines in the country to fill the demand. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden,” she says. This does not count the huge carbon footprint that was created by the number of private jets (more than 140) that were used. The eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, created a total of 41,000 tons of “carbon dioxide equivalent.”

It’s a scam. Gary Sutton, writing in an online article for Forbes, made the point:

Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.[2]

So the next time someone dogmatically asserts that the majority of scientists believe in Global Warming, ask your antagonist how much grant money he’s getting?

Read more:


%d bloggers like this: