Obama’s veto threat over F-22 divides senior Dems

[babylonsister]

Obama’s veto threat over F-22 divides senior Dems
By Roxana Tiron
Posted: 07/14/09 07:40 PM


Several senior Democrats may defy party leaders on an important defense vote — and the behind-the-scenes arm-twisting is dividing the party’s Senate majority.

President Obama personally vowed to veto any defense bill containing additional funds for the F-22 fighter jet program.

Democratic leaders support an amendment that would strip the $1.75 billion for seven additional jets from the 2010 defense authorization bill, which is being debated on the Senate floor this week.

But several senior Democrats are from states that will see gains from building more F-22s.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who represents the state where Pratt & Whitney builds the F-22 engine, told The Hill he was working with his Democratic colleagues to convince them to support the purchase of more jets despite the president’s opposition. Dodd also faces a tough reelection campaign next year.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the vice chairman of the Senate Democratic Conference, will be a key vote to watch. The watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, which supports removing the F-22 funds, lists Schumer as poised to vote against stripping the money.

Schumer declined to say how he was voting, telling The Hill he is still studying the issue, and advised: “Watch the vote.”

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is co-sponsoring an amendment with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the panel’s ranking member, to remove the funds.

The vote on that amendment was originally scheduled for Tuesday afternoon but was moved to Wednesday morning.

more...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-veto-threat-over-f-22-divides-senior-dems-2009-07-14.html

[Cha]

1. Thanks for posting, babylonsis..

Should be interesting to see where this goes.

[lindisfarne]

2. Barney Frank, on Republicans & Dems trying to preserve funding for F-22:

"These arguments will come from the very people who denied that the economic recovery plan created any jobs. We have a very odd economic philosophy in Washington: It’s called weaponized Keynesianism. It is the view that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/weaponized-keynesianism/

Frank criticizing Dems, saying they think the Pentagon is funded with monopoly money (also brings up issue of environmental cleanup & Pentagon lowballing cost estimates):
http://www.wikio.com/video/1299885

[SpartanDem]

9. +1

[beachmom]

10. Anyone know if F22s are made in his district? They ARE made in Mass.

but maybe not in his district.

[DrToast]

3. Senators have too much power

The Senate is an abomination of governance. Sorry, just needed to get that off my chest. Carry on.

[Fearless]

4. In the end politicians are just politicians regardless of their party.

:banghead:

[Cali_Democrat]

5. It's clear that the Senate doesn't serve the people's best interests

Why exactly would we need the F-22? Are we gonna do battle with Eurasia in the near future?

[Hippo_Tron]

6. I'm glad the President is standing his ground on this one

If he doesn't then the defense budget will be completely untouchable for the rest of his presidency. When you can't cut an airplane that is outdated and never used, you can't cut anything.

[PVnRT]

7. Jesus, even McCain supports not funding it?

Fail, Chris. Fail oh so badly.

[beachmom]

11. It's about bringing the bacon home. And JOBS. I agree they should be defunded,

but local constituents tend to disagree if their job is on the line.

[cboy4]

8. Let's hope we fund the F-22 program. What a plane!

[Posteritatis]

12. If their objections are based on money that will come into their districts...

.. Then I would have thought they'd be quite content with the fact that there's three thousand F-35s planned for construction for the US and most of its allies. In terms of number of people employed and the length of time they'd be in work on the project, that's got to be a pretty big deal, no?