Sometimes, I have to stand in awe at the audacity of some of the people we have sent to Congress. Throughout this week, they have been debating and voting on an end-of-year spending bill that is designed to keep the government running through September 2010. The House has already passed it’s version and the Senate reconvened this morning at 12:01 EST to vote on cloture for their version. I held no delusions that the measure would not pass, but I still have to wonder at some of the items that are in this bill.
Clik here to view.
C 17
For example, the Pentagon said it already has enough C 17 transport planes, but the legislation includes $2.5 billion for 10 more of them. It is significant to note that the production of these planes provides jobs in several states, mainly in Missouri and California. I wish to see no one lose their jobs, but does the priorities of the Pentagon not take precedent over jobs? I would think it should, but that is not the case here.
Despite the Pentagon’s assertion that it has enough of these planes, they were included in the budget. Just so we are all clear, this has been happening since 2006. Also included in the budget for the Pentagon is funding for two more programs they do not want, namely the VH-71 helicopter and an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. At the same time, production on the F-22 Fighter has been stopped.
This is not a Democrat or Republican problem, but rather one that crosses party lines. Missouri Senator Kit Bond is a Republican and California Senator Barbara Boxer is a Democrat. Both of them signed a letter in April, urging the Senate Appropriations Committee to keep funding the planes. Several other Senators signed the letter as well. Clearly, they wanted to make sure that the jobs supplied by the production of these planes do not disappear and the best way to do that is to continue funding it’s production. I am sure Boeing has no problem with that and the devil with what the Pentagon may or may not want.
Boeing has done an admirable job of making sure the C 17 is well entrenched in our economy. The jobs it provides is spread over 43 different states, so it has a lot of political support. As I said earlier, I know this measure is going to pass, but I want to draw as much attention to this as possible. In a time of hard financial times, why do we continue spending money on programs the Pentagon does not want? Should we not be looking at the future defense of our nation and not be so entrenched in the economics of it all? I would think our nation’s defense should take priority, but economics has won the day.
