More Wasteful Spending in Congress
By Krystle Weeks | Thursday, May 19th, 2011 | PolicyWhen is two not better than one?
How about when a second jet engine is considered extravagant and unnecessary by the person who should most want it? Or when the second jet engine costs U.S. taxpayers $28 million a month? Or when the second jet engine is the poster child for senseless government waste?
Two is not better than one when the topic is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This 5th generation fighter jet needs only one engine, yet it is dogged by the extra engine program. The thinking is that competition would hold down costs and spur innovation. Unfortunately, when the alternative engine has performed so poorly in tests, and is clearly not up to scratch, this argument hardly holds water.
Pratt & Whitney, one of the developers, has an engine that has been certified for the F-35. Its F-135 engine has successfully completed 17,500 hours of testing and numerous vertical landings.
The other developer, GE/Rolls Royce, has little to show for the taxpayer dollars it has spent. Its F-136 engine has accrued nearly $3 billion in expenses at the same time hundreds of American jobs were outsourced to the U.K., where Rolls Royce is headquartered. The first complete F-136 engine began testing about two years ago and may be flight tested for the first time this year or next.
The Bush and Obama Administrations tried to pull funding for the extra engine program. In testimony before Congress, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the second engine would cost another $3 billion to develop. According to Gates, the DOD cannot find a business case in which an alternate engine program makes sense. The Pentagon issued a work termination order to drive home the point.
Some members of Congress were listening. U.S. Rep Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) developed an amendment to the continuing budget resolution that eliminated funding for the extra engine. The amendment passed.
However, the House Armed Services Committee recently passed the 2012 defense budget. Technically, it doesn’t include funding for the extra engine program, but if you read the fine print, you’ll find otherwise.
GE/Rolls Royce is permitted to continue development of its F-136 engine as long as it pays its own way. However, the DOD would be required to give GE/ Rolls Royce access to the engine components the department has already produced and access to government testing sites. Those are not small-ticket items, and American taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
Our congressional leaders need to be reminded that we have to end excessive spending if we’re going to reduce the national deficit. And we have to limit the size of government if we’re going to get the U.S. economy back on track. The extra engine debate is a perfect example of what got us in the mess we are in to begin with and we should not repeat the mistakes of the past. Congress has an opportunity to do the right thing by not increasing the national deficit on a project that even the DoD has said they do not want or need.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Growing up in Maryland typically does not yield a Republican. Fortunately, Krystle Weeks was one of the lucky few booted to the Commonwealth for her staunch conservative views. From an early age, she has been debating politics, and since 2006, she has been involved here in the Commonwealth helping Republican candidates to victory. Aside from politics, Krystle is a runner and a dynamite cook. You can email her here. Krystle also blogs at Crystal Clear Conservative and Charm Offensive Cooking.
Comments
3 Responses to "More Wasteful Spending in Congress"
KW says “Our congressional leaders need to be reminded that we have to end excessive spending if we’re going to reduce the national deficit.”
I don’t think “reminding” them is working.
The majority is DC continue to believe there is no fiscal crisis and they can continue to take bribes, pander to special interests, and spend as much as they want for as long as they want. They will continue to believe this until it is demonstrably untrue. That day is coming in the form of a fiscal train wreck.
I have worked unsuccessfully to prevent the train wreck, to no avail. I am now of the mind that the train wreck itself will provide the best opportunity for me to re-acquire the liberty that is my birthright. Accordingly, I am now limiting my activities to warning others of the impending wreck while taking no actions to prevent it.
Can’t we investigate an F-137 engine, too? Think of the possibilities! If you oppose my F-137 engine program, you are anti-America, anti-defense, pro-terrorism, anti-jobs, anti-Israel, and some kind of damned pro-drugs libertarian fruitcake.
“…hundreds of American jobs were outsourced to the U.K., where Rolls Royce is headquartered…”
No true. The GE work on the F-136 (60%) is being done outside of Cincinnati while the Rolls Royce work (40%) is being done in Indianapolis. This despite the fact that the UK will be the largest buyer of the engines after the US military.
However, I agree that the JSF doesn’t need two engine sources. We went through this with the Army M-1 tank engines 30 years ago, wasting untold millions of dollars on turbo diesel engines that would back fill the gas turbine engines if they failed. To my knowledge, not a single turbo diesel engine was ever installed in an M-1. This is what happens when Congress micro-manages programs that they can’t understand.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.