Costly earmark undercuts fighter
In all my years of public service, I have never seen today’s level of anger and frustration from the American taxpayer. With excessive spending by the federal government, they are right to be upset.
Many unnecessary taxpayer-funded projects have caused this runaway spending. One in particular has not only added to the problem but also diverted resources from other critical tools needed by our military and caused undue delays for additional projects. As a congressman, I’m speaking out because my first priority is to protect the taxpayer.
Last September, I spearheaded a letter to my colleagues about eliminating an egregious earmark in the defense budget for the “alternate engine” for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
President George W. Bush first proposed canceling the alternate engine in 2006, which is manufactured by GE Rolls-Royce, but Congress continued to earmark more than $1 billion for this project despite testimony from Pentagon leaders who say they don’t want or need it.
The alternate engine’s proponents claim that funding the project creates competition that can lower costs for the taxpayer, but studies have shown that an alternate engine won’t save taxpayer dollars.
The Joint Strike Fighter has an engine that is working well and powering the plane through all its test flights, while the alternate engine — because of developmental problems — won’t even be ready to compete for at least another five years.
What’s more is Marine Corps Brig. Gen. David Heinz stated that if he was forced to fund the alternate engine project it would “take 50 to 80 tails out of the program.”
You heard right: In order to build a backup engine for a plane that already has a properly working engine, Congress is ready to sacrifice 50 to 80 needed aircraft.
I support competition. However, competition doesn’t mean buying two of everything. Plus, no military aircraft developed in the last 30 years has used an alternate engine.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) summed it up well: “The issue comes down to the point of are we going to take ... a weapon system away from our men and women to fund a second engine to compete with an engine that is already successful.”
Last year, we made some progress on taxpayers’ behalf. The alternate engine boondoggle — in an overwhelming bipartisan vote with the support of both Georgia senators — was defunded in the U.S. Senate.
However, the vote never made it to the House of Representatives, and Congress ultimately allocated another $465 million.
If Congress doesn’t rein in its appetite for spending and stop funding the unnecessary alternate engine, taxpayers can expect to spend another $3 billion to complete development of the backup engine, not to mention the billions more they’ll pony up for production and maintenance costs.
No wonder taxpayers — both Republican and Democratic — are frustrated.
The Joint Strike Fighter is a crucial link in the defense of freedom, but this particular program does nothing to aid its work.
Funding for the alternative engine program must be stopped, returning fiscal discipline to the process and prioritizing our military’s resources. American taxpayers are watching and demanding it, and so am I.
U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) represents Georgia’s 3rd Congressional District.
