{"id":91995,"date":"2017-12-02T09:43:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-02T09:43:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-06T20:53:45","modified_gmt":"2023-01-06T20:53:45","slug":"obama-gets-it-half-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/02\/obama-gets-it-half-right\/","title":{"rendered":"Obama Gets it Half-Right"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>In describing the federal budget process, the late Senator Everett  Dirksen famously observed, &#8220;A billion here, a billion there, eventually  you&#8217;re talking about real money.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>So, with President Obama spending and taxing <em>trillions <\/em>on  everything from the economic stimulus to cap and trade, it&#8217;s surprising  to hear he might veto the latest defense bill over a paltry $972 <em>million<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>According to ABC News White House Correspondent Jake Tapper, Mr. Obama is threatening to do just that, because <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.abcnews.com\/politicalpunch\/2009\/06\/white-house-threatens-to-veto-defense-bill.html\">the measure contains funding for the F-22 stealth fighter and an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">Specifically,  President Obama opposes the inclusion of $369 million in the bill for  more F-22 fighter jets and $603 million for development and procurement  of the alternative engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter  Program.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">If the final bill  presented to the president contains either of those provision, a White  House statement released Wednesday threatened, &#8220;the president&#8217;s senior  advisers would recommend a veto.&#8221; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">[snip]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">The  White House also expressed objections to other provisions in the bill  restricting aircraft retirements and limiting U.S. engagements with NATO  and European allies regarding missile defense programs, as well as  other provisions, but none of them were objectionable enough to merit a  veto threat.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/formerspook.blogspot.com\/2009\/06\/not-dead-yet.html\">As we noted last week<\/a>,  Congressional supporters of the F-22 are vigorously fighting efforts to  cap production at 187 jets. By a narrow margin, the House Armed  Services Committee recently appropriated additional money for the  Raptor, funds that will purchase parts and keep the assembly line open  until Congress can (presumably) find money for additional aircraft. <br \/>But  the administration has other ideas. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has  long opposed the Raptor, believing the aircraft has little use in  low-intensity conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. Budget czar Peter  Orszag is also against the F-22, but for different reasons. Dating back  to his days as Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Dr. Orszag  has favored draconian cuts in Pentagon procurement programs, with the  Raptor at the top of that list. <br \/>Still, that position ignores a  few inconvenient truths about U.S. military policy and the F-22. First,  U.S. military strategy is predicated on air supremacy; existing fighters  like the F-15 and F-16 are getting long in the tooth, and their  qualitative advantage is slipping. The Raptor is supposed to widen that  gap, but if production ends at less than 200 aircraft, the USAF will  only have enough aircraft to deploy 4-5 squadrons, given projected  training requirements, maintenance and potential attrition. That&#8217;s a  rather slim margin for such scenarios as a China-Taiwan conflict. <br \/>Still, if Mr. Obama is wrong about the Raptor, he deserves credit for trying to kill the F-35 &#8220;alternative&#8221; engine effort. <a href=\"http:\/\/formerspook.blogspot.com\/2007\/08\/teddys-latest-defense-ploy.html\">We&#8217;ve written about the program at length<\/a>; it&#8217;s nothing but pure defense pork, aimed at funneling more money to General Electric, which builds the engine.<br \/>To  date, members of Congress have funded the alternate engine program to  the tune of $1.6 billion. Never mind that its rival power plant (from  Pratt &amp; Whitney) has consistently outperformed the GE product. Or  that the Air Force has stressed that F-35 doesn&#8217;t need an alternate  engine. Or that producing another jet engine will actually make the JSF  more expensive. <br \/>As you might expect, the alternative engine has  some high-powered sponsors, including Ted Kennedy. Before his recent  health crisis, the Massachusetts Senator inserted multiple earmarks to  support the GE engine, the most recent totaled $100 million. Kennedy  based his support on the company&#8217;s supposed plans to build the jet  engine in his home state. But, as air power analyst Loren Thompson  observed almost two years ago, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.upi.com\/Security_Industry\/2007\/08\/21\/Thompson-Files-F-35-engine-follies\/UPI-25331187715644\/\">GE has never confirmed Senator Kennedy&#8217;s claims<\/a> and actually has a 50-year history of shuttering engine plants in New England.<br \/>Given  Mr. Kennedy&#8217;s staunch support for the alternate engine, it&#8217;s a bit  surprising that the White House would use that program as grounds for  vetoing the defense bill. Perhaps the administration believes its  support for national health care&#8211;Senator Kennedy&#8217;s pet program&#8211;will  trump opposition to the GE engine. There&#8217;s also a chance the White House  is simply bluffing, or won&#8217;t fight Congressional attempts to override  the veto. <br \/>Whatever his reasoning, President Obama&#8217;s opposition to  the alternative engine program is completely justified. Now, if he&#8217;d  only show similar conviction on more pressing matters, like North Korea  and Iran.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In describing the federal budget process, the late Senator Everett Dirksen famously observed, &#8220;A billion here, a billion there, eventually you&#8217;re talking about real money.&#8221; So, with President Obama spending and taxing trillions on everything from the economic stimulus to cap and trade, it&#8217;s surprising to hear he might veto the latest defense bill over [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91995"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91995"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91995\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}