The Engine No One Wants — Except Congress

The Government Is Spending $100 Million In Tax Dollars On A Jet Engine Deemed Unnecessary By The Military

(CBS)  The supersonic F-35 Lightning II is the military's next-generation strike fighter. It flies so fast that the speed is classified.

Pratt & Whitney has the government contract to make the jet's high-performance engine. But your tax dollars are also paying for GE to develop a spare engine — and it has cost you $1.6 billion so far.

The idea is that if GE and Pratt & Whitney compete, they'll build better engines that cost less and end up saving money. But here's where it really gets interesting: The military doesn't want the alternate engine. The Air Force and two independent panels have concluded it's "not necessary and not affordable" and that the supposed savings from competition "will never be achieved."

So why did Sen. Ted Kennedy personally earmark $100 million tax dollars for the project this year alone? He wouldn't agree to an interview, but part of the answer has to do with where it could be built: at GE's Massachusetts plant in Kennedy's home state — where it would bring jobs.

Kennedy is not the only one who wants to spend your tax money on the project. So does Congresswoman Jean Schmidt.

"The military says we don't want it. It's not going to save money in the long run. Why should taxpayers fund it?," asks CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

"History shows competition works; it drives down price, spurs innovation, builds a better product and saves money in the long term," says Rep. Schmidt, R-Ohio.

It doesn't hurt that the competing engine could also bring jobs to the GE plant in Schmidt's home state of Ohio.

Meantime, the military has been trying to kill the project altogether, saying the tax dollars would be better spent for force protection and IED-resistant vehicles.

"For two years in a row, the Air Force has asked Congress to take funding away from the program so they can devote it to other more urgent needs," says military analyst Christian Lowe of Military.com. "And every year Congress has come back and said 'Nope. You're going to do this alternate engine program.'"

The second engine is just one of many expensive add-ons to the defense budget.

Just this year, senators on the Armed Services Committee tacked on 309 extra projects worth $5.6 billion tax dollars — much of it for hometown contracts.

That includes the backup engine for the supersonic Lightning II, which remains on congressional life support — against the Air Force's own best advice.

[missingamerica]

Hmmm...a stamp of approval from an Ohio Republican is not necessarily a good thing these days. Some of them get paid in rare coins...

[quatermass2]

Gasp! Congressional influence in defense procurement?!?! I'm shocked, SHOCKED! Hell, if you want to go kill some program, try the C-17, or the C-130J, or the C-130 AMP (THERE'S a cost-over-running, years-behind stinker of a pork program for you). This is peanuts.

[timincal]

Heck, I always thought Sen. Byrd from West Virgina was the most corrupt Democrat in Congress.Always thought Lott from Mississippi was the most corrupt Republican but now were finding out he was ina contest with Sen. Stevens from Alaska for the most crooked.
I must have some pretty lousy Senators in my state of Indiana. Neither Sen. Lugar(R) or Sen. Bayh(D) have been accused of anything shady that I know of.

[boston1954]

Kennedy!!! I fired him and he still won't go away.

[ov442]

I love these republican scumbags that post on here talking only about Kennedy's involvment, when the same article also specifies clearly....

Congresswoman Jean Schmidt R-Ohio. "It doesn't hurt that the competing engine could also bring jobs to the GE plant in Schmidt's home state of Ohio."

....Is pushing it the same as Kennedy is.

Typical GOP supporters. Ignore when your crony commits immoral or criminal acts and try to blame a democrat for all of it, when the evidence is contrary.

The true issue here is that all of Congress does the same thing. They act like its their job to go to DC and lobby their peers and the president for earmarks for their states.

Why dont they just pass legislation that effectively sets all requests for tax dollars' use to follow specific criteria to be agreed upon by a bipartisan committee of only 4 senators (2 of each party). Require the criteria to include benefit to the nation as a whole not just 1 state, and it to be proposed to either solve a problem or be of a need of some sort.
Right now they may as well just take an agreed upon amount of cash and divvy it up as they see fit. taht would make it more fair than it is now. But following my suggestion would reduce our tax requirements.

Kennedy, the poster child for term limits. You might have guessed

[minminmin-2009]

Make the AF drive Priuses and just throw the bombs out the window.

[roach9703]

We have to stop playing games with military procurement. Ted Kennedy has some questions to answer!

[willylou11]

newster1=neurotic, frigid, middle aged cave dweller. If this anti-american toddler had their way, we'd all be banging rocks together and chewing on sticks. So, I implore all of you, having seen some of newsters previous posts, do yourself a favor and pay no attention to them, they have absolutely nothing intelligent to say.

[effallah]

Problem with the article is that the sole purpose of the military isn't just to fight wars. It's also to develop technologies. Without military backing, we wouldn't have computers or the Internet. From a pure cost-benefit standpoint, militarily, the engine might not make sense. When you factor in the societal benefits, it probably does.