Posted on 07/30/2009 12:20:29 PM PDT by jazusamo
The House on Thursday bucked President Barack Obama’s veto threats and overwhelmingly approved a $636 billion Pentagon spending bill for fiscal 2010.
The bill, passed on a 400-30 vote, does meet Obama’s demand to cap the F-22 fighter jet program, something he personally lobbied for. But the measure still contains funding on two programs that have drawn veto threats from the administration.
In particular, the White House this week threatened to veto the bill over $560 million for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as well as $485 million for new helicopters to fly the president on short trips from the White House. The Obama administration did not request funding for either program.
Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled the new presidential helicopter program earlier this year amid much fanfare about the cost of the program, a sign of how serious they were about reining in defense spending. Obama also singled out the alternate Joint Striker Fighter engine as wasteful spending earlier this year.
Obama had also promised in a personal letter to lawmakers veto any defense bills that contained funding to continue the production of the F-22 fighter jet, insisting it be capped at 187 aircraft.
Defense appropriators initially included $369 million for parts to build 12 more of the radar-evading jets after 2010 - the same amount in the 2010 defense authorization bill already approved by the House.
Facing Obama’s veto threat, the Senate backed down and removed money for seven additional F-22 planes. House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) also called a truce on Thursday, offering a manager’s amendment, which was adopted and that now allots some of the $369 million for spare parts and engines for existing F-22s and the rest would go to other defense programs. The money is no longer down payment of sorts on any additional jets.
The Pentagon spending bill is the last of the 12 appropriations bills for the House to approve. The last time the House passed all 12 spending bills was in 2007. Last year, the appropriations bills stalled because Democratic House leaders and President George W. Bush couldn't agree on discretionary spending levels. The impasse prompted Democrats to delay consideration of most appropriations bills until Obama was sworn in to office.
Both House and Senate appropriators are aiming to get the appropriations bills for next year to the president and signed into law by the start of the fiscal year, Oct. 1. That hasn't happened since 1994. But Congress will be hard-pressed to break that trend this year, as the Senate has passed only three of the dozen spending so far and has a legislative agenda likely to be dominated by healthcare reform legislation until October.
Almost a half a bil for a couple of choppers to ferry the pres around?
I don’t get this. he doesn’t want them, but congress is going to force them down his thoat.
Something tells me that whoever is behind this has a chopper mfg in his backyard...
Look, we all know much of defense spending goes to fund corporate welfare for a lot of politically well connected people.
We have to reign in spending across the board, no exceptions.
Is the “Hate Crimes” thing attached to this one?
I’m not sure, a while back it seems like it was.
VR-71 = VH-71
I think that it was in the Senate version.
You’re right, it’s in the Senate bill.
True, if you listen to many so called conservatives and their special exceptions you will wind up like the republican that could not control spending a new path must be charted.
If you have ever seen the program presentations by defense program offices, they all seem to have the same chart. The chart is a map of the USA, and it is color coded to indicate all the states or congressional districts that have jobs associated with the specific defense system.
It is the first chart that gets shown to every congressional delegation asking for a program briefing.
The biggest systems have made this an art form . . they try for some part of their contract to live in each state.
Having local constituents employed by the defense contractor industry makes it hard for our Congressional Reps to kill a program. Look to the V-22 Osprey as a prime example. The military top brass did not want it, but the V-22 kept getting funded year after year because the contract money was so well spread out in all the states.
Hmm.
Seems like political cover to me. A setup, if you will.
Obama can veto this and say, “See?? I saved the American people money. I am fiscally conservative after all!”
I don’t know what you were discussing, but I can’t stand Huckabee, no matter how he repackages himself. I don’t like Romney much better, but for different reasons. I opposed Romney because of the Mass health care bill and I’m really glad that he didn’t win because it would be even more difficult to fight a Republican over socialized medicine than it is Obama.
Huckabee would have been just as bad, and I just don’t trust him after the stuff he pulled with McCain to close out Romney.
I’m sure you’re right, there’s a huge history of politicians funding programs our military doesn’t want. It’s a shame they won’t stop funding earmarks for private companies, that itself would save a bundle.
Which private companies are you referencing?
Actually all private companies but it seems it’s common place for those in Congress to fund many small to medium size defense companies with earmarks. They’re abusing it by getting them and having the officials donate large amounts to their campaign funds. Murtha is famous for it as are several in my state of WA tho it goes on in all states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.