OPINION:
History is replete with examples of wasteful defense spending, such as the $436 hammer and the $640 toilet seat. The latest nightmare for taxpayers is a $2.9 billion alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). This time, Congress is to blame, not the Pentagon.
Since 2006, the Pentagon, the George W. Bush administration and the Obama administration have been trying to eliminate what they consider to be an unnecessary and expensive alternate engine for the JSF, which is being built by General Electric (GE) and Rolls-Royce. Yet Congress has earmarked more than $1.2 billion for the alternate engine since 2004, and the House Armed Services Committee earmarked $485 million more for fiscal 2011. An amendment to eliminate the earmark will be considered when the bill is on the House floor this week.
Earmarks have become political poison. Several veteran congressional porkers from both sides of the aisle have been driven from office over the past month despite last-ditch efforts by House Democrats and Republicans to appear more accountable to taxpayers by implementing partial or total earmark bans.
Taxpayers are closely watching to see how Republicans, in particular, adhere to their current abstinence from earmarks. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio earlier this week told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to withdraw all Republican earmark requests for the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization bill. He and his colleagues have the opportunity to further burnish their anti-earmark credentials by supporting the amendment to cut funds for the alternate engine.
The undersecretary of defense for acquisition told Congress in March that the alternate engine is three to four years behind in development and requires an additional investment of $2.9 billion just to prepare it for aircraft testing.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has repeatedly called for a veto of any legislation that funds the project, a threat that was reiterated by White House officials on May 21. One day earlier, Mr. Gates said the current engine design “may not meet the performance needs of the Joint Strike Fighter” and additional costs to upgrade it “would presumably be paid by taxpayers.”
Proponents of the alternate engine claim it will introduce competition to the acquisition process, lower costs and provide better engine safety and reliability. These arguments might make sense in other circumstances, but not for this program.
First, private-sector competition took place in 1996, and the engine manufactured by Pratt & Whitney was chosen as the single JSF engine when the final contract was awarded in 2001. Competition does not mean buying two of everything. Unfortunately, members of Congress often ensure that losing bidders receive pork-barrel earmarks.
Second, the alternate engine increases costs because it requires duplicate production and assembly lines, spare parts and repair centers while eliminating the economies of scale offered by purchasing a single engine in greater volume.
Finally, the military uses engines that are sole-sourced; advancements in engine design, testing and production enable the Pentagon to manage any risks associated with single-engine systems. The current JSF engine has received government certification and is being produced. Conversely, the alternate engine has been plagued with problems, with about 200 hours of testing compared to 13,000 for the Pratt & Whitney engine.
We should spare no reasonable expense for the war fighters who protect our country, but funding an expensive and unneeded alternate engine for the JSF does nothing to make the country safer; it only wastes critical defense dollars. Eliminating the $485 million earmark for the alternate engine should therefore be particularly important to Republicans.
Tom Schatz is president of Citizens Against Government Waste.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.