Haven't seen the story but often the producing company has a contract to produce so many engines that were specifically designed by them for the military. Seems odd but that happens a lot. I've seen them still building on bases at were closed a year before because they had to fulfill the contracts that had been signed (I've seen that at least twice & maybe 3 or 4 times).
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 16, 2011 12:54:16 GMT -5
I agree. If all options- including the Pentagon- aren't on the table, it's rather disingenuous. We need to cut- there's fraud, waste, and downright unnecessary, size, scope, and spending in EVERY area.
But it just so happens that a GE plant that develops the second engine employs 7,000 people in Evendale, Ohio, near Boehner's district. Rather than take a so-be-it attitude toward jobs his constituents may hold, he's backing an earmark-like provision in the spending legislation to keep funding the unneeded GE engine.
From a link in the posted article<<<We don't want nor need the extra engine, but this is just one step in a long journey and Secretary Gates is committed to staying engaged in this process the whole way," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said after the vote, adding that Gates will still recommend a presidential veto "if necessary."
The Senate Armed Services Committee did not include money for the second engine in a related defense bill Thursday. But Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the panel chairman and a supporter of the second engine, said the Senate and House will resolve the issue later in a conference committee.
The primary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter is manufactured by Pratt & Whitney, while the second model is built jointly by General Electric and Rolls-Royce. The manufacturers have been engaged in an increasingly visible fight to win support on Capitol Hill and in congressional districts where parts for the engines are made. Both sides have media campaigns that include full-page ads in major newspapers, slots on radio programs and pushing their respective sides on blogs, Facebook and Twitter. >>>
My first thought, before reading the article, was special interests. That, IMHO, is one of the biggest problems in American politics and BOTH sides are guilty. One way or another, politicians are beholden to someone or something.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER Void where prohibited. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Apply only to affected area. May be too intense for some viewers. No user-serviceable parts inside. Freshest if eaten before date on carton. For off-road use only. One size fits all. Slippery when wet. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. First pull up, then pull down. not for resale. Mileage may vary.
Yeah, it is all bad, but I keep thinking about the 7,000 jobs............ this whole thing, all the cuts.. suck. Every cut involves jobs lost, when there are no jobs to replace them. Both sides of the aisle. I wonder if anybody, anywhere, has the stats on how the cuts in EVERYTHING will balance out to the cost of unemployment, food stamps, maybe welfare, loss of homes, etc. This is a totally bi-partisan question, and I have not heard either partisan party address it. I'm sick of politics and politicians.
about cutting spending,but fight to keep spending billions on the F35 engine that the military says they don't need or want?
I believe the House just voted to cut this F35 engine and went against Speaker Boehner who thought it would create jobs in Ohio and save the AF billions over the next ten years...but some freshmen dems and repubs said NO way Mr Speaker and good for them...IMHO
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 16, 2011 19:07:33 GMT -5
I think this Congress is truly different- at least on the House side. This is two issues now where they responded nearly INSTANTANEOUSLY to public outcry on spending. The other day it was the announcement by Paul Ryan that the cut $100 billion pledge had become the cut $32 billion pledge because they claimed too much time went by in this fiscal year; and today it was this F35 engine. It's gone as far as the House is concerned.
I am surprised Obama supported the scrapping of the engine. Is the CEO of GE one of his bar room buddies and just was appointed to something in the administration? Guess they will not be bar buddies from now on. Bohnier probably knew it would not pass so he saw the opportunity to curry favor with GE at no risk. With our trade deficet so high, why are we in bed with Rolls-Royce on this project anyway?
about two years ago there was a push to swap the contract from the Lockheed Martin's F-35 to LM's F-22 and to order fewer F-22's (fewer F-22's relative to the number of F-35's that would have been on contract). or at least that's what i remember hearing General Secretary Gates say and what i remember reading from Joanne Maguire. i must be seriously out of touch and there must be new contracts for F-35's.