House Axes Controversial Fighter Funding
- Posted on February 16, 2011 at 8:44pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
In a sign that no federal agency if off the table when it comes to cutting government spending, the Republican-led House of Representatives voted 233 to 198 Wednesday to cancel an alternate fighter jet engine program which Defense Secretary Robert Gates called “unnecessary.”
A variant of the F-35 (AP)
The Joint Strike Fighter is reportedly America’s most expensive weapons program. The F-35 is a radar-evading fighter and the Pentagon has planned to spend $380 billion for 2,400 new planes over 25 years.
The alternate engine program was initially meant to create competition to drive down prices. Eventually, the cost of the program reached a staggering $100 billion in engine purchases and Secretary Gates said the alternate engine seemed like more of a luxury than a necessity.
The duplicate engine program has also long been labeled as a pork-barrel project on Capitol Hill, and both President Obama and his predecessor have tried and failed to scrap it. Support for the program has historically been based in geography. Members of Congress representing states like Indiana and Ohio — where General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce build the engines — have traditionally supported the spending measure. In the past, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has supported the engine, but abstained from voting Wednesday, as is the tradition of the office.
Likewise, for members of Boehner’s party to oppose the engine program is widely seen as a rebuke of the Speaker. But a number of fiscal conservatives stood firm in their opposition. According to the New York Times, 47 of the 87 new Republican members of Congress voted to cancel the alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, while 40 others voted to keep it alive.
Many of the freshmen Republicans in the House had been hesitant to trim military spending as part of their drive to reduce the nation’s large budget deficits.
But after forcing Mr. Boehner and other Republican leaders to propose greater cuts in domestic programs, they agreed to include $16 billion in military cuts in this year’s spending bill, which is being debated on the floor this week.
Killing the engine would cut an additional $450 million and save up to $3 billion over the next several years.
Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., introduced the measure to cut the program, and told the Huffington Post that he was happy to see members of his caucus working to live up to their campaign promises of reduced spending.
“What it comes down to is what was the November election about?” he said after the vote. “What were you sent here to do? And that was to cut spending. I have $450 million we can cut today. The speculation that over the next 50 years, two engines might drive down costs, is just that — it’s speculative.”
“This afternoon’s vote is but one step, although a very important one, on the path to ensuring that we stop spending limited dollars on unwanted and unneeded defense programs,” a Pentagon spokesman announced Wednesday after the vote.
G.E. reportedly plans to ask the Senate to strike down the House-approved measure to restore the funds. But even if the Senate restored the money, the measure would need to gain subsequent approval in a House-Senate joint conference committee.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 695 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 508 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 353 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 341 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 328 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 328 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 341 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 252 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 328 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (44)
gr8vox
Posted on February 20, 2011 at 12:54pmThe loons at nbc and msnbc probably caused GE to lose their funding
Report Post »gr8vox
Posted on February 20, 2011 at 12:52pmIt doesnt seem to matter that the deck has been stacked in pratt&whitney’s favor since 1962 when they got the original business for the f14, f15 and f16 fighter planes. Subsequently GE got to replace these faulty pratt engines after the air force got pissed at pratt’s failures.
Report Post »Even though those cfrappy prattt engines were replaced pratt got the yf22 raptor business without having to bid directly against ge.. And then, pratt got the entire f35 contract again without any bids being solicited from GE.
capitalismrocks
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 1:58amThe redundancies in our military need to be cut aggressively… we need to make sure that while cutting cost, the more important benefit is funding is available for newer, highly essential weapons systems, defenses and such, so I whole heartedly agree that this cut was rightful and needed…
I remember balking for a few moments when I heard the F-22′s were canceled, but then hearing that the funding for those unpurchases fighters would go to buying more UAV’s and development of newer designs, plus the F-35′s are meant to be the lower cost replacements anyway with 3 different configurations…
Given the length with which the US military is taking in the development of the F-35′s I tend to believe that the Chinese stealth fighter is just a faked mockup, it is neither stealthy nor capable of going head to head with even the original F-117′s, nevermind the F22/F35 fighters….
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:18amYour last paragraph nails it. Not one damn word on what these foreign toys can do. But, by all means, let’s assume they can also transform into robots and have mind control capabilities.
Report Post »“Give us money or you’re all gonna die or be speaking Mandarin!!!”
Bernard
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 4:17pmMr. Bill Gates is dead wrong. Cut the budget in any other area except from our military. With nations like China, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, and Mexico raising their military budget and the chaos of the middle East rapidly deteriorating into a regional war and the US facing a belligerent North Korea and even China the military budget is the least to cut. Obama is jeopardizing our security by cutting the only government sector that is stable.
Report Post »rdk
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 12:32pmWhat the heck is the “alternative engine”? The F-35 comes with a good engine, why the alternative?
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:15amThey want this plane to slice, dice and julienne fries. I suspect this article refers to the VTOL/STOL version (vertical take off/landing, short take off/landing), but I’m not sure. It does seem like there is a bit of the unctuous car dealer shenanigans going on here: “You want rust proofing with that package, right?” FYI, this is the plane that harrassed Bruce Willis in the most recent Die Hard movie.
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 12:14pmKeep the military strong…They keep us free and safe from other countries that want to do us harm.
Report Post »Race
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 11:47amObama takes a scalpel to the budget. Republicans need to use a chainsaw.
Report Post »ThoreauHD
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 11:31amWake me up when they get to socialist security, medicare, medicaid, and obamacare.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 11:02am“Support for the program has historically been based in geography.” This is all you need to know about any particular defense boondoggle. And this is coming from a man whose TV viewing is easily 75% of the time devoted to The Military Channel, builds scale models of fighter planes and loves air shows.
Report Post »The JSF/F-35 was expected to fulfill too many roles for too many military branches and too many countries. Let’s see if some of the goons who throw our money around learn from this. I’m betting not. Instead of being lean and mean when it comes to our defense, some would rather continue to believe the no expense should be spared for fancy toys and the $500.00 hammers that make them.
Silat
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:54amDrones are much cheaper and are expendable.
Report Post »Silat
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:53amI want my FEMA check!
Report Post »Silat
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:53amWhere is my FEMA check?
Report Post »LoonieNews
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:42amWe need to get a better handle on these politicians who try to get pet projects even when they are told they are not needed by the top brass within the Pentagon. Who knows more about the needs of our military (those in DC and their union bosses) or those Warfighter who know where their true needs are.
Report Post »opNorthwoods
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:32amwatch this one: Military budget of the United States
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxP_YPYypyI
GUT_CHECK
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:11amGE who works with al gore and wants cap and tax?
Report Post »yes, defund GE whenever posible
dawg of gawd
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:28amReally? So you’re willing to risk our national defense to get back at GE? Do your corporate alliances and frustrations run that deep? Then you should defund News Corp since their second largest share holder is a radical Muslim with terrorist ties.
Report Post »warloch
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 8:58amDo not buy anyhting from GE. This was a good decission to not give more money to GE. GE they bring evil to life.
Report Post »coffeeking425
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 8:44amWait, so they stopped production of the F-22, now they’ve cut the F-35…… so, America is now protected by what? Who knows if it’s accurate but from the military channel information I can remember, most pilots loved the F22, and claim it was only limited by the pilot… aka lots of fun to fly :D
Report Post »sbleve
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:03amAnd just as the F16 can not ever be a F-15. One is general purpose the the other is designed around the ‘penetration’ needs of converting a defensive posture to the Offensive deep penetration. F-35 and F-22 are of similar engineering differences.
A similar debate of what would be best – F-16 vs F-15 occurred 30 years ago. One of these would never succeed in air superiority if needed to penetrate hostile rogue empire threats.
Today’s debate concerning this engine should have been up front when the F-22 was still a contender for air-superiority attack aircraft funding. There may be little coincidental similarities of a person running the Pentagon and the best tool for a combat pilot.
The calloused hand of Ear Mark politics. My suspicion is that the post civil war Remington Rolling Block vs Springfield Trap Door .45 carbine debate was also cluttered around the Henry repeater brass magazine snafu that had more to do with metallurgy engineering than intelligence in the Congress.
Report Post »Tickdog
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 8:33amI guess this means that China will have the top fighter planes in the future..
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 11:05amThey have to steal the technology first. If we don’t continue to design it, there’s nothing to steal. However, your statement will be the fear mongering logic argument used by politicians and corporations to defend their favored boondoggles.
Report Post »urrybr
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 12:31pm@The Gooch: apparently you haven‘t been following China’s aircraft development program. The Chinese ALREADY havew their version of the F-22, and they’re working on other stealth aircraft. The Russians, by the way, have an aircraft, built by Sukhoi, called the Raptor Killer. (Raptor = F-22)!!
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on February 18, 2011 at 11:09amUm, yep. I saw the bloated Chinese version of the F-22… and not one damn story accompanying the pictures about what the machine is actually or allegedly capable of beyond the basest speculation that it has stealth capabilities that would even matter. The Russians also have the VERY impressive SU-37… like a whole dozen. This is over the course of a decade or more and some of these SU-37s are SU-35s upgraded to be “faux” SU-37s. And yet still this bugaboo is sold as an F-22 killer. A dozen or so planes? Yeah, I believe we can handle such a threat without starving are elderly people, protecting union jobs and lining the pockets of corporate greed heads.
Report Post »Listen, I like military tech., it’s just that the F-35 has turned into a shameful progression of budget over runs. Not what is needed now. This program needs trimmed and obviously protected. I had a buddy cry the blues because the F-22 ceased production. He didn‘t have a reason to lament it other than it’s a “cool, slick” jet. Yep. That‘s why we should continue to make ’em: Their cool and it makes a handful of people happy and wealthy.
Here’s a thought: If China is so great at espionage, let’s see what we can learn from them with regard to that trade. The “beating them at their own game” routine should run both ways. Are our workers, politicians and security just too stupid, greed and lazy to stop the leaking of information? I’ll take super spies along with my super jets, thank you. Let’s strike a balance and maybe even “gasp” find the leakers and hang them. I mean, such an act as sharing defense secrets is still treason isn’t it?
The F-35 is okay with me. Let’s make a few and have the other countries who wanna benefit bear more of the heavy lifting. But this plane is not a magic bullet and not beyond reproach.
rabblechat
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 8:27amBlow a mountain of money on a alternate engin to drive down cost of the program.
Report Post »Makes perfect sense to me…
If GE and Rolls-Royce want a piece of this contract, why don’t they invest their own money in R&D?
380 Billion for this project, assuming no overshoot. Thats over $1200.00 for every man woman and child in this country just to built 2,400 aircraft! Folks we are broke! we cannot afford to keep spending like this! Our Chinese issued MasterCard is maxed out!!!
http://www.rabblechat.com
entropy
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 8:27amJobs are created by the Fed Govt getting the hell out of the way and off the backs of entrepeneurs and businesses. The Fed Govt do not create any jobs except the kind that suck the life out of the private sector.
Report Post »americansfightingforcommonsense
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 8:15amI can’t understand why Obama would want to cut a GE project, since they are in cahoots with each other!? Except for the fact that he wants to weaken our influence on the world militarily! Something just doesn’t pass the smell test here!
Report Post »americansfightingforcommonsense
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 8:10amAgreed, we need to cut spending even where it hurts, but this one has me wondering if we are allowing other countries to become more powerful militarily? We must remain the worlds leader in air superiority or we will quickly become obsolete. I’m just not sure on this one! I need more info.
Report Post »DaytonConserve
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 6:03amIf GE wanted to build it, why not win on the primary bid.
Report Post »cidav8r
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 5:00amNational defense is very important to me but we have to go about providing it in a serious, cost effective way. This geographic based support for funding regardless of whether it’s good business for the country has to end. It‘s time our government realizes that it doesn’t have unlimited resources with which to work. Monetizing our debt is not an option. These self-centered congressmen have to wake up. Times have changed. This isn‘t the 80’s. Choices have to be made. Kill the second engine.
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 6:21amGovernment logic – Spend $100 Billion to save a few Million over the course of the aircraft’s lifespan. Stop electing lawyers. Elect people who understand where money comes from and how jobs are created.
Report Post »weeblewacker1
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 12:15pmwow!! you mean i agree with most of the ppl here? get rid of that engine?hell yes! man i guess even sometimes a turd can float!
Report Post »calijohn
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 3:12amit’s a start.
Report Post »bbquizzle
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 3:22amA drop in the bucket. Social Security and HHS are HALF of this year’s budget. Up and at em.
Creestof
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 5:20amProbably more than a “drop”…once you realize the way things work in these contracts. That price tag would probably double by the time they finished their foot dragging, cost over runs, paying the bribes to the politicians who helped push it through and cover up the true cost.
It’s a good start.
Report Post »GA_dandelion
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 8:51amA very good “start”. We all know the entitlements will have to be addressed , but it is only right to go after waste and fraud first.
Report Post »sbleve
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:12am$1.6 T is a start and is the suggested empire budget deficit. If it takes our Congress 10 or 20 years to reel in deficit spending annual budget, my grandchildren will still be paying the bill. No can Allow. Congress, House of Representatives by design determine what the budget will be. Via Ear Marks the Executive Branch has hood-winked the budget process.
We the people have given our God given Rights away, it is pleasant to nibble on that carrot on a string that hangs before our lip.
Report Post »Evileye
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:34amRight on
The next thing take the Key out of Air Force One.
One Vacation a year.
Cut clothing allowance for the Queen Of Sheba.
This would be symbolic .But would Let the Anointed one realize He was voted in as politician not a God
urrybr
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 12:25pmI’m just glad they didn”t scrap the F-35 altogether, like the F-22.
Report Post »Paradigmm
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 1:08pmThe militaries budget has got to be the first thing we tackle. Independent agencies, the military itself and CBO has all concluded that we could cut pentagon spending by 50% with little or no effect on our military readiness or ability to defend ourselves. Cutting the engine is a good start but we must also look at all the other military equipment and hardware that serve no other purpose other than to fund the MIC. The half boat/half tank boondoggle that cost the US taxpayers billion(s) a year along with every other piece of useless hardware. Currently we spend more and all other countries combined on out defense. Furthermore, we need to cut out these “private contractors”. You know the ones that charge our military $99 for one load of laundry that we in the states do for less than $3.
Then we go after all these military bases around the world. Do we have them there because the countries they are in want them there? If so, are we defending them from something and if we are why shouldn’t those countries pay for our services? If they need our protection and are not paying for it, then close the bases. If they really want us there they will pony up soon enough.
Next we have to tackle the tax havens for big businesses. I’ll use the oil industry because they reap the greatest rewards. The top five oil companies profit around if not more than $100 billion a year yet pay zero in taxes. Why? The argument has always been that if we tax them, they will go away. I submit that they already have gone away. They build their gas stations using taxpayer funded roads, if an emergency happens on their property the call taxpayer funded services, in short they reap the rewards the taxpayers are paying for yet give nothing back. And I haven’t even gotten into the fact that not only do they not pay taxes but in most case they receive taxpayer dollars just for being there. Do you really think that if we started making them pay taxes for goods they sell to American taxpayers that they will just pull up anchor and move across the oceans? The US uses 25% of all oil reserves, even if they are made to pay taxes they aren’t going to give up a cash cow like that. It would just cut into their profit a bit is all.
Now, some of you are going to say, but what about all the jobs we lose by all this military cutting and taxing? Simple, we put then to work building wind turbines, solar panels and steam turbines. The oil drillers that lose their jobs can now drill for geothermal power plants. We all know we need to reduce our need of foreign oil, putting that many people, not to mention the 22% un-employment we now have; we could be well on our way to energy independence within a few short years. That if you want to be energy independent? I know I do, but the oil and coal companies would rather us stay dependent on them but I say to h*ll with them.
You start with military, private contractors and taxes; put all those people back to work for an independent energy future and the economy would recover so fast you wouldn’t have to talk about entitlement. Don’t get me wrong, SS will need to be addresses, but right now it has a $2.7 surplus and is estimated to stay in the black until 2037 (no matter what you’ve heard elsewhere) so while it is an issue, just not as pressing as some would have you believe.
gofigureinternational
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 2:05pmWe need our budget balanced immediately! Roll the entire budget back to 2006-2008 levels to start with, then start looking at all programs, entitlements first and foremost. Yes, defense has to be on our hit list for cuts too, but that IS the primary job of the Federal Government (security of THIS nation). Can anyone say they feel more secure now than 5, 10, 20, 30, etc. years ago? We have millions upon millions of people pouring through our borders and we have NO clue who or what they are. The press holds up the pregnant Mexican woman as the poster child for heartless people that want border controls. They leave out the Radical Muslim carrying a biological cocktail or dirty bomb, which just coincidently can have a similar appearance to the pregnant woman’s husband or son…and that is the 1 in 7 we even catch! The Social Security program needs to have the age raised to compensate for people living longer and healthier and naturalized citizens and anchor babies should have to have lived here for a specific time to qualify for benefits. We are likely past the point of no return, but if we are to save this country, SOMEONE needs to stop the hemorrhaging immediately, not ‘insignificant’ cuts or reductions in growth “that over the next 10 years will amount to …”. Someone in the Republican or Tea Party please step up to the plate SOON and have the intestinal fortitude to pledge “your life, fortune and sacred honor”. America’s very existence depends on it!
Report Post »joe3
Posted on February 17, 2011 at 10:42pmisnt that a chinese plane? just saw the pics…….
Report Post »