Menu
Voting for the troops
Wasting taxpayer money is always a bad idea and wasting it for the wrong reason is even worse. Soldiers often face the "fog of war" on the battlefield. My simple gut check helps me see through the "fog of Washington."
A Vote Against Wasteful Spending and for Our Troops
Last week, we had "fog of Washington" moments as we worked to pass a major defense bill but I didn't lose sight of why we were there: the troops. I joined a solid majority rejecting two wasteful programs the Pentagon doesn't want and would have been funded by taking money away from our troops.
The bill known, as the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, ensures the continued operation of our Armed Forces, and it helps improve the lives of our military and their families.
First, I voted with 57 other senators on an amendment against paying for more F-22 fighter jets. The Pentagon says we have enough and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made ending their production key goal of his Defense Department reforms. Some senators fought for more jets, which are produced in their states. They proposed paying for them by cutting spending elsewhere -- partly by taking $400 million from military personnel.
Second, I voted with 58 other senators against an amendment funding an alternate engine for the military's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Senators supporting the program--again from states where they alternate engine is under development--argued it would push competition. That makes sense sometimes...but not in this case.
They suggested paying for the alternate engine by taking money from Marine Corps' helicopters to be used in Afghanistan. They also proposed taking money from Air Force special operations C-130 aircraft used to transport military personnel and materials to Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.
The Pentagon Tried to Stop the Spending
The previous administration and military leaders tried to end the alternate engine program because the Pentagon said the F-35's first engine has been doing the job. The President's 2007, 2008 and 2009 budgets didn't seek funding. But it was kept alive each year thanks to congressionally directed funding, also known as earmarks.
Defense Secretary Gates, a holdover from the previous administration, recently warned of a possible presidential veto this time around if Congressional add-ons brought back to life programs ended by the Pentagon, including the alternate engine and the F-22.
Building seven additional F-22's would cost about $1.7 billion. The alternate engine would cost about $5 billion over the next half dozen years, big business for states home to companies working on the second engine.
Wasting Taxpayer Money Would Cut Troops Support
In both cases, it didn't make sense to chop up the defense budget to make room for Congressional add-ons that the military leaders adamantly opposed as unnecessary. That would have shortchanged what our men and women in uniform need today to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm certain the "fog of Washington" will always exist. But I will never see a reason to waste taxpayer money on unwanted military hardware, and particularly not when it undermines our troops. I'll always see that clearly.