Gates wants veto of defense spending bill if unwanted projects remain

[her209]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/20/gates.defense.spending/

Washington (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he will urge President Obama to veto a coming $726 billion defense authorization bill if it contains funding for unwanted projects Gates has been trying to cut for years.

Gates has been vocal about financial reform at the Pentagon, trying to rein in some big-ticket contracts and telling Congress to stop spending money on C-17 transport planes that are not needed and a $485 million alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The JSF engine program -- already delayed and over budget -- could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, according to Gates.

But with jobs at stake, Congress has ignored those requests for years and continued to appropriate funds for the C-17 and a second F-35 engine.

"The detailed conditions they [Congress] have imposed on the overall JSF program would make it essentially un-executable and impose unacceptable schedule and budget costs," Gates said Thursday at a Pentagon briefing.

"As I have stated repeatedly, should the Congress insist on adding funding for a costly and unnecessary JSF extra engine or direct changes that seriously disrupt the JSF program, or impose additional C-17 aircraft, I will strongly recommend that the president veto such legislation," he said.

The Pentagon believes the proposal for the new engine, made by General Electric, would end up costing about $2.9 billion which includes re-working the engine already being tested because there is concern it does not meet the performance needs for the F-35. Those costs would be picked up by taxpayer dollars, according to Pentagon estimates.

Additionally the contract for the new proposal by Congress would require cutting the purchase of the current engine by half to let the General Electric engine purchase catch up, according to Gates.

"Only in Washington does a proposal where everybody wins get considered a competition, where everybody is guaranteed a piece of the action at the end," Gates said.

"Yes, we're in favor of competition, but my idea of competition is winner takes all, and we don't have that kind of a situation here," he continued.

The House Armed Services Committee passed the bill Wednesday. The bill must be approved by the entire House then matched by a Senate version and signed by Obama before becoming law.

I have to admit that I was against his appointment and confirmation when he was offered the job by W. He's turning out to be a decent SoD.

 

[MovingTarget]

If the projects are truly not needed, then they should not be funded. The military budget is not a jobs program. The money should be spent on things more useful - public works, research & development, other more worthy defense projects, etc. I agree with Gates on this one.

 

[Linflas]

Unfortunately Congressional involvement in steering military contracts and procurement for purely political reasons have a history going as far back as the founding of the Republic so I doubt we will see much change in it during our lifetimes.

 

[Danube]

Why waste money on defense spending when it can be wasted on ACORN, bailing out Greece, dead end "green jobs" etc etc.

I'm all for a leaner Pentagon but that's all that gets cut by these people. Otherwise they throw great gobs of money down the crapper

 

[Anarchist420]

Otherwise they throw great gobs of money down the crapper

I wish they threw it into the sea so there would be deflation and less governmental power.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama wants more military spending, not less.

 

[ElFenix]

how much of the $726 billion is for overseas operations?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Dailytech has an article up about the alternate engine for the F35, being proposed by General Electric (the owners of NBC for you conspiracy folks) and Rolls-Royce (foreign company for you BAE tanker haters):

http://www.dailytech.com/Alternate+...g+II+Engine+Receives+Funding/article18433.htm

If the items are not needed, do not produce them. The funding can be allocated to projects that are useful / needed, maybe the Air Force's PR front (NASA) to get Constellation back on track. That would save probably as many jobs as cutting programs the DoD does not require would lose.

 

[Danube]

I wish they threw it into the sea so there would be deflation and less governmental power.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama wants more military spending, not less.

I would agree because Obama likes to see unsustainable spending. However he did defund already the missile program. I think he would probably like to close West Point, Annapolis etc as well.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I would agree because Obama likes to see unsustainable spending. However he did defund already the missile program. I think he would probably like to close West Point, Annapolis etc as well.

What drugs are you on? Close the military academies? Boy the trolls sure are coming up with crazier and crazier comments nowadays.

Now onto the OP, with some rational comments. The problem with cutting defense spending is that if the D's (and Obama) vote against (or Veto, in Obama's case), the R's will throw the "soft on defense" "soft on terror" BS, and most people will blindly go along with it (as examples, I point out our fine right-wing trolls here that will gladly post about it if it happens).

Int his day and age of clueless voters, and media that allow politicians to basically lie on camera, how do you get anyone to stop this? Of course, the MIC loves it, free money for them.

 

[Strk]

What drugs are you on? Close the military academies? Boy the trolls sure are coming up with crazier and crazier comments nowadays.

Now onto the OP, with some rational comments. The problem with cutting defense spending is that if the D's (and Obama) vote against (or Veto, in Obama's case), the R's will throw the "soft on defense" "soft on terror" BS, and most people will blindly go along with it (as examples, I point out our fine right-wing trolls here that will gladly post about it if it happens).

Int his day and age of clueless voters, and media that allow politicians to basically lie on camera, how do you get anyone to stop this? Of course, the MIC loves it, free money for them.

That will always be the problem with these massive bills and the inability to have line item vetoes. It's either accept or reject and then get hit with blanket statements. I remember when McCain got grief for voting against breast cancer research. Where was the money for the research coming from? A defense bill.

 

[Danube]

What drugs are you on? Close the military academies? Boy the trolls sure are coming up with crazier and crazier comments nowadays.

There have already been calls to reduce the size and funding of the academies. There is also a drive to start a "public service" academy which is like an ACORN college.

Just this week an Annapolis prof in NYT called the academies "mediocre" and produce " burned-out midshipmen and cadets".

 

[nageov3t]

I wish they threw it into the sea so there would be deflation and less governmental power.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama wants more military spending, not less.

considering that he's both a military man and a cabinet member, it seems safe to read between the lines and assume that Gates wouldn't have issued these statements without the White House's blessing and/or encouragement.

 

[piasabird]

I dont like govt contracts for things like fighter planes. I think if it comes down to 2 companies, that the Govt should buy like ten planes from each company and see which one does best. Prototypes are difficult to judge.

 

[Kappo]

I dont like govt contracts for things like fighter planes. I think if it comes down to 2 companies, that the Govt should buy like ten planes from each company and see which one does best. Prototypes are difficult to judge.

It costs us millions of dollars to retool for a CAR PART. Can you imagine how much it would be to retool for an ENTIRE FIGHTER JET?

WTB your mysterious money tree.

 

[3chordcharlie]

That will always be the problem with these massive bills and the inability to have line item vetoes. It's either accept or reject and then get hit with blanket statements. I remember when McCain got grief for voting against breast cancer research. Where was the money for the research coming from? A defense bill.

Line item veto comes with its own set of issues, which are much worse than the 'all or nothing' approach currently used. You might as well have the president write the budget himself as have line item veto. It's a very paternalistic sort of tool.

What is needed is a greater expectation that veto will be used, including on 'good' bills that have unrelated garbage attached. The president should adopt a policy of vetoing any bill that is not concise, and has pet projects attached to it; even if they would support the add-on project on its own.

Refuse to pass anything with junk attached, and junk will no longer be included in bills.

 

[Jhhnn]

There have already been calls to reduce the size and funding of the academies. There is also a drive to start a "public service" academy which is like an ACORN college.

Just this week an Annapolis prof in NYT called the academies "mediocre" and produce " burned-out midshipmen and cadets".

Your ability to connect unrelated events so as to create the illusion of a conspiracy is truly remarkable, in a deranged self-aggrandizing sort of way...

 

[dammitgibs]

I dont like govt contracts for things like fighter planes. I think if it comes down to 2 companies, that the Govt should buy like ten planes from each company and see which one does best. Prototypes are difficult to judge.

On the internet everyone is a DoD aerospace engineer expert extraordinaire.

 

[dammitgibs]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119371051667975920.html

Related article on defense spending earmarks...sickening.

 

[nageov3t]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119371051667975920.html

Related article on defense spending earmarks...sickening.

I certainly won't be voting to give Murtha another term in office. :hmm:

 

[heyheybooboo]

how much of the $726 billion is for overseas operations?

$150 billion'ish ???

These numbers are messed up but they are the best I can do:

For FY2009 the DoD base numbers were around $510 billion rising to around $661 billion with the cost of additional 'supplementals' for Iraq/Afghanistan which look to have been in the range of $142b --- that may or may not have over-lapped budget years. There was also $7.4 billion DoD-related in the Recovery Act.

(not sure exactly what the end result was, but we were spending around $12b/month for 'overseas contingency operations').

I'm also not sure if that included the 'back door' stuff of defense-related nuke activities which amounted to around $25 billion --- it did not include $95 billion in Veteran 'benefits and services' (which have effectively doubled since we began our 'overseas operations').

For FY2010 it gets even more confusing

Original proposal for 2010 by Obama was for $664b of which $130b was projected for I/A. But we gots the Afghan 'surge' and the estimate looks to now be $719b (don't know how much of that is 'surge' and then 'other stuff' but it does include $27b for 'nuke' activity). Does not include Vet services projected at $124b.

It looks like FY2011 the best 'guesstimate' is a nice, round $750b so $726b might be a bargain of sorts - LOL - the DoD pops up with a $60-80b 'supplemental' at least once a year.

To further confuse things .... here are the 'DoD base' projections from the Obama admins from last Spring:

FY09: $514b (so at total $661 that would put I/A at $147b)
FY10: $534b (originally plus $130b I/A but looks to be much more)
FY11: $542b (plus $50b I/A --- so much for that, not gonna happen)
FY12: $551b (plus $50b I/A)


I believe the ""$50b I/A"" projections were loosely based upon a CBO report from 2007-2008 that estimated the cost of the 'overseas contingency operations' based upon a total deployment in both Iraq and Afghanistan of no more that 30k troops. I also think that is the 'impetuous' to starting a 'wind-down' in Afghan next summer.

So much for that fantasy.





--

 

[Patranus]

I certainly won't be voting to give Murtha another term in office. :hmm:

Well he is dead. Luckily he had an airport named after him while he was still alive because he had congress fund it and he was the only one to use it.

 

[dpearson]

Why do we even need the F-35? Who would we possibly need to use it against? The Russians? The Cold War ended, people.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

There have already been calls to reduce the size and funding of the academies. There is also a drive to start a "public service" academy which is like an ACORN college.

Just this week an Annapolis prof in NYT called the academies "mediocre" and produce " burned-out midshipmen and cadets".

Ok, so somehow in your mind, reduce=close? Really?

And you got a link on creating an ACORN college? sounds like more Hannity/Rush bullshit to me.

 

[drebo]

Typical liberal tactic: bitch and moan about a few million here and there to maintain the illusion of fiscal responsibility while jamming TRILLIONS down our throat.

$500 million is balls in the scope of the entire bill and budget as a whole.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why do we even need the F-35? Who would we possibly need to use it against? The Russians? The Cold War ended, people.

The F35 was envisioned as a common replacement for platforms in use by multiple services.

Also, it was intended to allow support of newer technology that people did not want to have to retrofit onto the existing platforms.

New toys require new wheels.

the problem with new toys is that sometimes they do not work as envisioned. And it takes time to design/develop and wring out issues.

With well over 10+ years nowdays to bring a new platform to market; they have to be planned and started to be built before that which they are intended to replace become outdated and/or caught bny the opposition (friendly or hostile).