Politics Plus

One of the areas in which Secretary Gates has done a credible job, despite his initial appointment by the Bush Regime, had been identifying and calling for the end of weapons systems not suitable for the unconventional warfare we are most likely to face.  One such is the F-35 spare engine.

Recognizing the need to cut spending in light of record budget deficits, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced major cuts to a number of big-ticket weapons programs last year that the Pentagon concluded it no longer needed. Gates — who was first appointed by President Bush — is so serious about the need to eliminate these programs that he has called on President Obama to veto any defense spending bill that contains funding for further development of these wasteful, unnecessary systems. Chief among the cuts is an extra engine for the F-35 fighter jet, of which Gates has said, “Every dollar additional to the budget that we have to put into the F-35 is a dollar taken from something else that the troops may need.”

One would think that self-styled budget hawks like Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) would herald Gates’ proposed cuts. He has said “if we are going to put our fiscal house in order, everything has to be on the table. We have to be willing to look at domestic spending, we have to be able to look at entitlements, and we have to look at defense.”

But in an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt yesterday, Pence defended spending hundreds of millions more on an extra engine, despite having said moments earlier that one of his top priorities is “to get federal spending under control.” Pence attempts to make a national security argument for the engine, before quickly revealing his true motives:

HUNT: Everybody seems to be for — most people say they’re for fiscal discipline, but it gets hard when it’s in your district. Let me give you one example for you. You went to the House floor to defend money for a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter … [which would have] a factory in your district. The Pentagon says it doesn’t want it. The other day a Tea Party group — this is a Tea Party group — said of this project, it’s an example of “opportunistic parasite feeding on the expansion of government.” Tough stuff.

PENCE: Well, sure. And everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but — and not entitled to their own facts. The reality is, and the Heritage Foundation produced a very important study on this, is that it is believed that when you were talking about a military defense contract that will span decades of time, it is in the interest of taxpayers in the long run to have more than one source, more than one manufacturer of that engine.

The fact that one of those two engines in part is manufactured in Indiana, we certainly welcome. We’re proud of those jobs. But at the end of the day, I really do believe that it was in the interest of our national defense.

Watch it:

 

In contradicting the Pentagon by claiming that the extra engine is “in the interest of our national defense,” Pence seems to be claiming that he — a former talk radio host — knows more about national security than the military. Rolls Royce, the company that would produce the extra engine, employes 4,000 people in Pence’s district and has spent millions lobbying for the engine… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

One could hardly accuse Gates of being a dove, so if he says he doesn’t need it, we shouldn’t build it.  Pense is protecting jobs in his in district and one of his major donors at everyone else’s expense. Those $hundreds of millions need to be spent on something America needs.  Conservatives may argue that we need those jobs.  First we can use the money to create jobs.  I would have no objection to spending it on defense jobs providing what out troops actually need.  Moreover, why should Pense get the jobs?  If we’re going to target jobs to specific districts, itself a questionable idea, we should at least target them to locales where the Rep and Senators support job creation, not to locales where they oppose job creation for everyone else.

I did not cover this story yesterday, like many did, because I did not understand the procedural context of his outburst and wanted to make sure I understood it.  What happened was that Republicans wanted to attach a poison pill amendment to relief for 9/11 first responders, and failing that, delay the bill beyond the August recess by loading it with amendments.  The only way Democrats could get it through was to use a procedural rule that did not allow amendments, but required a 2/3 majority.  Then Republicans claimed that they were for the bill, but could not vote for it, because no amendments were allowed, and tried to blame their NO votes on Democrats.

House Republicans late Thursday were able to corral enough votes to defeat a bill that would have provided up to $7.4 billion in aid to those sickened by toxins resulting from the 9/11 attacks.

In the process, they set off a host of fiery speeches and denunciations from their Democratic colleagues and produced a veritable YouTube moment from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), whose district includes many of the affected.

At the heart of the debate was a procedural maneuver made by Democrats to suspend the rules before consideration of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The move allowed leadership to block potential GOP amendments to the measure (there was worry that Republicans would attach something overtly partisan in hopes that it could pass on the otherwise widely-popular measure). It also meant that the party needed a two-thirds majority vote.

When the final tally was announced, there were 255 representatives for the measure, 159 against… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Unlike the video I’ve been seeing, this video includes the Republican liar to whom Weiner replied, and a conversation between Lawrence O’Donnell and Officer Joseph Camarrata.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What might have happened had Democrats allowed amendments?  In the Senate, Harry Reid was trying to bring a bill providing $30 billion to community to banks for small business loans and tax cuts for business that create jobs.  Republicans said they would filibuster unless Reid allowed amendments.  Read did his normal cave-in and agreed to allow three Republican Amendments.  Guess what happened?

Lawrence O’Donnell and Journalist Annie Lowrey discussed it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

See?  The only thing that changes is the Republican BS excuse for saying NO.

I feel angry that Reid told democratic senators who were outraged at this to cool off.  He should have lined them up to vent their rage for voters to see.

How I wish thet Anthony Weiner and Harry Reid would switch jobs!