Boehner Loses F-35

[Gipper]

House Kills F-35 Engine Funds in Defeat for Boehner
February 16, 2011, 8:06 PM EST
By Brian Faler
Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. House killed an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as lawmakers seeking deep cuts in spending voted down a program backed by House Speaker John Boehner.

With the support of more than half of the chamber’s 87 freshmen Republicans, the House voted 233-198 today to delete $450 million set aside for the engine in a measure that already aims to slash $61 billion from this year’s budget. The vote was also a victory for President Barack Obama and the Pentagon, which have long argued the program is unnecessary.

“After years of throwing good money after bad to fund the wasteful extra engine, the House has finally voted to end this unnecessary program,” said Florida Republican Tom Rooney, who co-sponsored the amendment. “Today’s vote sends a message to the American people that Congress heard their call to eliminate wasteful spending.”

Republicans split almost evenly on the engine program, with 110 voting to end it and 130 voting to keep it. Among Democrats, 123 opposed funding the engine and 68 voted to continue the spending.

Boehner, an Ohio Republican, argued the program would produce savings for the government over time. His district is near a plant that would be threatened with job losses if the program were defunded. It is being developed by General Electric Co. and Rolls Royce Group Plc
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-16/house-kills-f-35-engine-funds-in-defeat-for-boehner.html

Does anyone think if Pelosi were still Speaker and the engine plant was in her district, the Ds would vote against it? I think not.

The Rs deserve some credit for this.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Does anyone think if Pelosi were still Speaker and the engine plant was in her district, the Ds would vote against it? I think not.

The Rs deserve some credit for this.

so half of the republicans against spending ( they claim) voted to keep a engine that even the Military does not want...

 

[Gipper]

so half of the republicans against spending ( they claim) voted to keep a engine that even the Military does not want...

Yep. But, unlike your Commie Party, they voted against their speaker.

I do not expect you to understand.

 

[steveox]

Now the TEA PARTY Will Vote More Democrats out. I guess they didnt get the message.

 

[dogtowner]

Yep. But, unlike your Commie Party, they voted against their speaker.

I do not expect you to understand.

they did what the voters told them in Novebber. Refreshing.

 

[BigRob]

so half of the republicans against spending ( they claim) voted to keep a engine that even the Military does not want...

While this program was indeed not needed, let us not pretend that the Secretary of Defense (ie a political appointee of the President) does not have their own agenda to pursue.

Just because he says something is not needed does not automatically make it so, or make the military against it persay. One has to be careful in scenarios like this.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Yep. But, unlike your Commie Party, they voted against their speaker.

I do not expect you to understand.

I am unaware my party even had a member in the house or Senate...I will have to check with the local IP and ask about that...

And I fail to see your point about voting against if someone voted against there speaker....The President was against funding this 2nd engine, and it has now passed the house and senate...the Republican Speaker was for it funding it still...so should Dems have voted for funding it to be against the president to make you feel better?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

While this program was indeed not needed, let us not pretend that the Secretary of Defense (ie a political appointee of the President) does not have their own agenda to pursue.

Just because he says something is not needed does not automatically make it so, or make the military against it persay. One has to be careful in scenarios like this.

I think its safe to say Gates is not the only one saying this was not needed....and that what was driving this was Jobs in the districts. Sure there has been issues before with having just one engine...And I think there is a point to keep on working on 2...but with such a spendy thing, there must be a point we say ok its time to focus on one.

 

[BigRob]

I think its safe to say Gates is not the only one saying this was not needed....and that what was driving this was Jobs in the districts. Sure there has been issues before with having just one engine...And I think there is a point to keep on working on 2...but with such a spendy thing, there must be a point we say ok its time to focus on one.

I don't disagree in terms of this program...my point is just that we need to realize the SECDEF is also a political figure and subject to political whims.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I don't disagree in terms of this program...my point is just that we need to realize the SECDEF is also a political figure and subject to political whims.

you mean Rummy had polical ideas behind his statements?

I tend to give gates alot more room then say Rummy, but yes they all have there reasons as well...but no one in DC is free of that..

 

[Dr.Who]

so half of the republicans against spending ( they claim) voted to keep a engine that even the Military does not want...

I would agree that MORE than half of the pubs just may be answering to the Tea Party in the next election on this one.