White House threatens veto over defense systems in budget
posted at 12:14 pm on June 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
While Congress and the White House throw trillions of dollars away on failed stimulus packages and massive overhauls of the health and energy sectors, one billion dollars in defense spending has drawn the first Obama veto threat. Jake Tapper reports that the inclusion of money for the F-22 and an alternative engine for its competitor F-35 fighters may get a presidential bounce for the entire defense budget:
Congress and the White House appear headed for a collision. The White House this week threatened to veto a defense bill if it includes military spending that Defense Secretary Gates outlined as wasteful and unnecessary. The House passed the $680 billion bill with those provisions Thursday, by a vote of 389-22.
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.
If the final bill presented to the president contains either of those provision, a White House statement released Wednesday threatened, “the president’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.”
Um, seriously? For the record, the combined total of these two programs amounts to:
- 0.13% of Porkulus
- 0.14% of the defense bill
- 0.0972% of what Obama claims ObamaCare will cost
- 0.075% of what the CBO claims ObamaCare will cost
- 0.024% of what ObamaCare will actually cost
Bear in mind that Porkulus (mostly) and ObamaCare (entirely) don’t concern themselves with responsibilities given to the federal government by the Constitution. National security, however, is the federal government’s primary responsibility. Robert Gibbs says that these and other projects in the defense appropriation are not “necessary spending,” which is why the bill will draw Obama’s first veto — as well as giving Obama an opportunity to posture at the expense of Congress.
If Obama wants to start saving billions of dollars, let’s cut the spending on programs which the federal government has no business funding in the first place, and then get rid of the pork-barrel projects in Porkulus that will damage our economy with burdensome debt. When we’re done shedding all of those, then we can start looking at national defense.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Deficit hawk.
artist on June 26, 2009 at 12:16 PM
he needs to be drop-kicked……seriously!!
cmsinaz on June 26, 2009 at 12:17 PM
O.T.: Urkel and Merkel show on Fox.
hillbillyjim on June 26, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Why should he defend a country he hates?
Daggett on June 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Defense will continue to be bled to pay for these social money pits…it’s the one thing Dems hate spending any money on. Defense spending provides jobs and actually protects us…what use could it be?
AUINSC on June 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM
The F-22 does nothing to help destroy capitalism or expand the power of the Federal government over individual citizens.
forest on June 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Barack Obama hates the military.
milwife88 on June 26, 2009 at 12:19 PM
I was hoping you would post this. It’s simply ridiculous that Biden can baldly admit “yeah, some of the stimulus is being wasted,” but defense? That’s gotta be cut! No waste allowed in this low-priority area!
cs89 on June 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM
loudmouth883 on June 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Our new president is all about the illusion. We should be raising hell about the cut in missile defense. I guess it’s safe to assume that the F-22 is made in Red States.
Cindy Munford on June 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I like it. His resume grows daily,..if it wasn’t this it would be something else of a similar military nature. Let’s get it out in front of the voting public. I particularly like the timing.
a capella on June 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM
IMO – we don’t need the additional F-22’s. We need Predator’s by the bus load – but honestly – right now we own the skies for the foreseeable future.
We CAN live without the additional F-22’s.
IMO
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:21 PM
More inclusive.
Mommypundit on June 26, 2009 at 12:21 PM
He clearly was. Often. As a child. When the skull was still forming.
highhopes on June 26, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Do it you America-hating POS.
You can fund the ACORN crap weasels to the tune of 6 billion, and spend 35 million to protect a San Francisco dung beetle, but you won’t provide money for what, maybe six more of those fighters?
The time is coming, sure as the sun rises.
Bishop on June 26, 2009 at 12:22 PM
“The current fleet of 187 F-22s is considered enough by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who points to the fact that the F-22 has not flown a single sortie in support of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars as proof that the military needs to reorient its procurement procedure to focus on equipment necessary for counterinsurgency warfare.”
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:22 PM
He’s gutting our defenses. He said he would.
For the record the F-22 is the first time that a tactical fighter platform has been considered a strategic asset. Its that good. None of our allies have been allowed to participate in the program, making it more expensive to procure, but guaranteeing total air dominance, for the US, for the next 30 years.
elduende on June 26, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Too many F-22’s in there, not enough cash for ACORN.
Akzed on June 26, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I really cannot even believe this. He is………………..I’ve got no appropriate adjective…………I’m stammering here.
The nerve he has is astounding.
Mommypundit on June 26, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Wow. If he didn’t have such a long and honorable history of service to this country, I would think that he was purposely trying to destroy us from within.
patriette on June 26, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Obama knows that U.S. military might, centered around high technology and Air Superiority, must be Broken. We will pay for this with the lives of our children.
GunRunner on June 26, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Barry could use the number of jobs saved for his bogus porkulus numbers. Oh I forgot, defense jobs are mostly white guys. So sorry
stephana on June 26, 2009 at 12:23 PM
And how many months are we into the Administration? With all the shenanigans that have happened thus far, we still have over 3 years left (perhaps more).
Grin and bear it, folks. It’s going to get worse.
Weebork on June 26, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Obama is such a wuss. It’s no wonder liberals adore him.
It’s about what I expected from the first American-Idol President.
Guardian on June 26, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Who needs the military when you’ve got weenies?/
Disturb the Universe on June 26, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Looks like a lot of people are reacting to this news – and this is understandable.
This is a not what it appears on the surface – a little research shows that this is not a worthy battle.
People – we have enough F-22’s.
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Time to split up the country. Let the libs live in an undefended socialist welfare state. The rest of us can restore the constitution in ours. See who is better off in 5 years.
echosyst on June 26, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Give two F-22s to ACORN and the money will be reinstated.
OK, maybe that’s not a great idea.
WashJeff on June 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM
all spending is stimulus, right?. I would say he is bluffing but this is an easy way to curry favor with the left which just swallowed another 106 billion for the wars.
rob verdi on June 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Tell me P.O.
T.U.S. isn’t a Manchurian candidate.alliebobbitt on June 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Maybe it’s a reasonable cut. Maybe we’ve got enough jets.
But compared to the other spending it absolutely blows my mind.
I swear, this knucklehead President of ours embodies the coffeehouse theoretical academic. Utterly detached from the world of application, he fixates on the minor things to the lasting detriment of the major things.
He’ll spend trillions on his bread and circus for the masses (and think himself a great and moral man for doing it) but won’t fund the basic necessities because he can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t like him and simply be agree to do as he asks if only he speaks with them. Because who wouldn’t agree to a man so empathetic, understanding, and reasonable?
ARGH. Narcissus reincarnated.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 26, 2009 at 12:27 PM
That is what Chamberlain said about the Spitfire.
GunRunner on June 26, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I agree that we probably do not need to spend more money on the F-22 BUT this is a fairly symbolic gesture by the O that clearly shows what his priorities are.
Next on the list will be more cuts to the military to fund the increased welfare state he is creating. We will end up weak from within and weak towards the outside.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 12:28 PM
+100
Mommypundit on June 26, 2009 at 12:28 PM
it’s just not the F-22s….its that he would have the cajones to cut military spending, but wastes millions on a porklus bill and bailouts that are useless….
cmsinaz on June 26, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I really need to slow down the posts. I’ve got stray words from sloppy edits creeping in all over the place.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 26, 2009 at 12:28 PM
$1 billion
isisn’tisisn’tisisn’tisisn’tis a lot of money.LibTired on June 26, 2009 at 12:29 PM
so veto away, and show what a d*ck tou really are…
SHARPTOOTH on June 26, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I cannot argue with you there.
My point was narrow in scope.
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM
What will happen to America if cap and trade and Obamacare happen…
Mr. Joe on June 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM
You point is 100% correct – no quesiton about it.
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Ogabe is relying on his military experience to guide his decision, so it may be the right call. I’m just glad that doddering old man on the verge of having a heart attack wasn’t elected instead.
Bishop on June 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM
But we could afford to fly in Obama’s fav Hawaiian Chef for the luau on the White House lawn last night.
These are the very same people who want to tell private corporations how to profitably run their businesses?
…… praying for an asteroid to hit Lat: 38.898648N Lon: 77.037692W
fogw on June 26, 2009 at 12:31 PM
It makes perfect liberal sense to do this. Spending on national defense is like buying insurance. If you think nothing will happen to you then you don’t buy it. Obama thinks that he can single-handily turn our enemies into his friends by engaging them. So once everyone is our pal we don’t need to spend all those “wasteful” dollars on defense and can move towards funding all these new “rights” the libs have identified.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 12:32 PM
That’s nothing. Wait til Obama abandons the troops in the middle east, because there’s nothing left, to bring them home.
Wait til people in Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere, suffering from 100 degrees, or more a day temps, and drought, start dropping like flies, because cap and trade prevents anyone from using energy for cooling purposes, and prevents anyone from driving to seek relief…because the damn gas is to expensive. Think he’ll care? Doubtful!!!
capejasmine on June 26, 2009 at 12:33 PM
As jake-the-goose could tell you, the Spitfire played no role in WWI.
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 12:33 PM
“This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.” (Red October)
PappaMac on June 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM
In February 2009, Congressman Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, used the F-22 as an example of what he believed to be unnecessary military spending, and seemed to propose cutting funding for the project entirely:
Does this sound like someone with our best interests in mind?
fourdeucer on June 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM
C’mon! Gates says he doesn’t want this money for these aircraft. That means this is being included in the budget by some congressman who wants to satisfy some big donor that would get the contract. This has been an ongoing problem with military budgets for decades. DOD gets stuck with money for programs it doesn’t want just to help some politician get re-elected. I’m inlcined to trust Gates on this one.
Cynthia on June 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Obama hates any symbol of America’s power and exceptionalism. He dreams of America being just like every other country.
BardMan on June 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Just so we know how to appropriately evaluate your opinion, could you please post a summary of those parts of your cv relative to military aviation? Thanks.
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Somebody tell Barry it’ll save Union Jobs.
Problem fixed.
44Magnum on June 26, 2009 at 12:36 PM
This is a simplistic refutation of your point but…The F-22s are supposed to replace the F-15s as our primary air superiority fighters that are beginning to show stress fractures in their airframe due to their age (the first F-15 flew in 1972) There are approximately 670 F-15s in the USAF’s inventory. How pray tell do you replace 670 with 187? Should we cut down on air wings now too?
elduende on June 26, 2009 at 12:37 PM
The gov’t of China has more sense than ours. They’d like their nation to survive, and even play a role in world affairs.
Not the Left in the West; their highest priority seems to be neutering Western culture and ensuring its fall.
For people who claim to value tolerance, they’re strangely silent about the tide if Islam that’s about to engulf most of Europe.
jazz_piano on June 26, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Let’s remember that the Penatagon has called this spending wasteful. I’m happy that the filthy liar in the White House is listening to his advisors but am suspect as to why when he hasn’t met a bill he hasn’t been willing to foot.
highhopes on June 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM
That struck me when I read it too. This is so weird I think there must be more behind it than merely Obama’s hatred for the military. I suspect there’s some political angle to it that hasn’t surfaced yet.
petefrt on June 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Go ahead and Veto barak….and see what happens when we are attacked….and see what happens when millions march on the white house demanding your head!
I’ll be keeping the guillotine sharp!
jbh45 on June 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Robert Gibbs says that
these and other projects in thedefenseappropriation areis not “necessaryspending”True feelings.
red winger on June 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Neither did Chamberlain.
OldEnglish on June 26, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Fair Question:
- My father was USNA 52′ graduate – flew for the Navy for 25 years
- I graduate The Citadel – 1981 – Commissioned USN 81′
- Pensacola flight school – 1982 – flew for 6 years – ended my career with just under 600 hours in the F-14.
Now – I am no expert in today’s world of military aviation – but I know we don’t need more F-22’s today.
I as hawkish as they come.
Not defending Obama – NOT FOR A SECOND – just that in this case this single issue is not worth defending.
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Works for me.
-or-
He and his ilk are making moving to Costa Rica more appealing every day.
tru2tx on June 26, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Yes, I’m aware of that. I was trying to make a joke. Apparently not a good one.
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 12:45 PM
I read a paper in which a gay activist claimed that “without homophobia, there would be no manhood act; and without the manhood act, there would be no war.”
I don’t know if that thinking is typical, but it’s becoming clear that the items on the Left’s agenda are connected. It’s a comprehensive program of social re-engineering–weakened military, devalued dollar, gov’t control, etc.
jazz_piano on June 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Reasonable point your make – however the strategic vision of manned aircraft is quickly diminishing. In short order – if the opportunity presents itself you will see an unmanned airframe take out a manned enemy aircraft. When that happens, and it CAN happen today – the game will change forever.
My argument against more F-22’s very tight in scope and in time – I don’t want anyone to think I am against the long terms needs of our military.
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Gates is a politician. He has served 2 administrations with decidedly different agendas. In order to keep his job, he has to follow his boss’s orders. Frugality is definitely not part of Obama’s agenda.
a capella on June 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Thanks
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM
If we had just outright elected an America-hating Marxist scum bent on destroying our country, tell me, what would he be doing differently?
Mr. Pickles on June 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Worse, the F-22 was also supposed to replace the in-between generation of fighters we didn’t build. Remember “skipping a generation” of defense technology?
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 12:48 PM
[Sound of crickets. Tumbleweed rolls by.]
jazz_piano on June 26, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Yes sir – I respect your asking.
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:49 PM
First they cut funding for the F-22, but it was said we have enough, so I said nothing………
joeswampy on June 26, 2009 at 12:49 PM
The problem with UMV’s is that they are currently not autonomous — they have to be radio controlled. Do you want an airforce that can be destroyed by a radio jammer?
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Let’s invest the F-22 money saved in the public education system.
Because that’s working out so well.
/sarc
jazz_piano on June 26, 2009 at 12:51 PM
There are two competing ideas here.
1. We spend a lot of money on military projects because certain senators or congressmen lobby for the benefit of their state over the security of the country. Any base closing commission will bring that out. Ever wonder why we have so many military institutions in Kansas – ask Bob Dole. We keep on spending money on big ticket items but we neglect the actual welfare of the soldiers on the ground. Years of spending in the Air Force caused the army not to have proper body-armor, armored hummers, reactive armor on the Bradley, etc. We need to spend the money were it is most needed for the troops and not use it as an employment mechanism for congressmen to bring pork to their state.
2. Obama could not care less about the security of this country. He thinks that engagement and being liked by other countries will take of that.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 12:51 PM
BHO and his pacifist marxist commie boot lickers are doing everything they can to destroy this country! The are well on their way! Destroy our defense capabilities, embolden our enemeys with the worldwide apologyfest, and then force all industries to move to a country more appreciative of the jobs they create. Then you wait to hear how loud these liberal morons scream when jobs continue to leave this country!
CDM on June 26, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Jake… thanks for your service.
byepartisan on June 26, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Let me see if I’ve got this right.
Palin is overseas cheering and glad handing our troops while Barry is slashing their budgets.
hmmmmm…looks like this woman doesn’t have a clue how to play in the big leagues.
ChrisM on June 26, 2009 at 12:53 PM
He wouldn’t have to lie as much about what he’s doing.
Other than that… [crickets]
Daggett on June 26, 2009 at 12:54 PM
All I know is that you suffer from hypoxia when you argue that 187 F22’s are enough to provide air superiority. Unmaned aircraft with the flexabilty and utility of the F22 do not exist, keep dreaming and maybe you’ll see a Mach 2 unicorn!
dmann on June 26, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Bless you – you made my day – and my weekend.
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Michael Goldfarb
Mr. Joe on June 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Fair enough. But I’d like the cushion until the time we see a UAV tangle and best a Flanker H or a new Fulcrum (Mig 35).
I don’t think we can afford to shift our posture to primarily COIN, we still have resurgent strategic rivals on the planet to counter.
elduende on June 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM
All weapon systems become obsolete in time, but to eliminate
them out of political posturing is absurd. I have no idea why eliminating an effective tool in the military at this time is a good idea.
fourdeucer on June 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Our Constitution explicitly states “provide for the common defense.”
I’d rather waste 300mm on the F-22, as it falls under that directive, than fund most of the crap in the Stimulus.
byepartisan on June 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Technically, that’s very true.
However the problem is not this particular item being cut. It’s merely a symptom of the disease of liberalism – throw jawdropping amounts of money down a socialist rathole while arguing over comparatively TINY amounts being spent for military projects. The left loathes the idea of spending money on military, because the hard reality of the necessity for armed defense plays merry hell with their idiotic utopian ideals.
Dark-Star on June 26, 2009 at 12:58 PM
No need to get trollish.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Nothing wrong with your thinking.
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Pffft. The Constitution is so 18th century. Nobody cares about it anymore.
Daggett on June 26, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Can’t ever be said enough.
My father was career AF, mostly as a pilot of F-111 and then F-16.
byepartisan on June 26, 2009 at 1:01 PM
I’ll believe it when I see it. Hell, Timmy can make up that amount of money by just running the presses for 5 more minutes. It’s not like he hasn’t already done that.
GarandFan on June 26, 2009 at 1:01 PM
How long has it been since you went to MaGuires?
elduende on June 26, 2009 at 1:02 PM
And the last budget had 16,000 earmarks amounting to 48 billion dollars of “neccessary spending”?
Tuning Spork on June 26, 2009 at 1:02 PM
This a billion dollars that could go to help
arm,build,& legitimizefeed,cloth,rebuild Hamas & the Palestinian freedom fighters.portlandon on June 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Hell no we don’t.
Air superiority has been determined time and again as the most important aspect of any given battle.
The F-15, while an excellent fighter, is old and worn out. The F-16, while an excellent multirole attack plane, is aging too.
Without completely asymmetric air superiority, our other service personnel are at risk. The F-22 is so powerful, it can defeat all known and projected threats.
187 planes simply are not enough, especially once you consider their deployment strengths and availability.
I’m glad they added funding for more, because when a national entity develops such an advantage… what should they do? Rhetorical: Do you throw that advantage away? Do you only partially use it? Or do you exploit that advantage for all it is worth?
knob on June 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Oh bullcrap. GB had a mighty war machine of millions of men right across the Channel who were making absolutely ZERO effort to conceal themselves, led by an organized nation bent on frontal-assault conquest.
Fancy fighter jets really aren’t top priority in the anti-insurgency battles we’re fighting. If a hostile nation starts sailing carrier groups and/or landing sizeable numbers of plain-as-day combat troops, then we can call in our fighters.
If/until then, we need more bombers, UAV’s, better body and vehicle armor (very badly). Trying to use a sledgehammer to smash termites is silly.
Dark-Star on June 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM
I would have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he had insisted that missile defense research and development was fully funded. Since he wimped out on missile defense I believe he is as big a traitor as the “0″.
chemman on June 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM
By then its too late Einstine……
dmann on June 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM
+100
cmsinaz on June 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM
I think this is a futile argument until we identify over whom we need to have air superiority. Neither the air force nor the Navy has been able to contribute much to the type of war we are fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq other than UAW and air taxi support.
Simple instinctively saying we need more make no sense to me until we clearly identify the enemy.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Obam hates OUR America. He hates US. His America is drastically different from what we believe our great country should be.
marklmail on June 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »