Here's the vote breakdown on the Senate F-22 rejection:
(a yes vote is to oppose building even more F-22s)
YEAs ---58
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---40
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 2
Kennedy (D-MA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
F-22 Vote Important for Arms Control
John Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World, who has been fighting the military spending battle as long as anyone in Washington, made this point about the importance of the Senate vote against more F-22s--that it was critical to win it to help us in upcoming arms control votes (such as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty & a START follow-on treaty):
"The vote was also significant because it provided an opportunity for the Defense Department and Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin to rev up their vote counting operation. They set up procedures to count noses, persuade the undecideds and win over those who started out supporting the F-22.
This vote counting operation, with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, will be vital when the Senate gets to later votes on a START follow-on treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty."
"The vote was also significant because it provided an opportunity for the Defense Department and Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin to rev up their vote counting operation. They set up procedures to count noses, persuade the undecideds and win over those who started out supporting the F-22.
This vote counting operation, with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, will be vital when the Senate gets to later votes on a START follow-on treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty."
Senate Says No to More F-22s!
The Senate voted 58-40 to reject even more F-22 Raptors beyond 187 (including the 183 F-22s already built, plus the 4 included in the Obama Administration's budget). The vote margin was larger than expected, which is good news for upcoming fights, including the House battle (which may come today).
This is a significant victory for Secretary Gates and the Obama Administration, and for those reformers who believe, as I do, that our military budget is way out of whack. It also avoids a depressing defeat on this issue, which would have been spun as a bad turn of events for the Administration, with media spin no doubt extrapolating to health care & climate change.
More importantly, would have raised the question of whether or not we reformers could ever retire any weapons program, no matter how unnecessary, even when the DOD & the President were on our side (which, of course, is not normally the case).
So it's not the end of the Empire, or bringing the oil/military/industrial complex to its knees--but it is a win--and it's been a while since our side has slowed down the military juggernaut on any issue.
This is a significant victory for Secretary Gates and the Obama Administration, and for those reformers who believe, as I do, that our military budget is way out of whack. It also avoids a depressing defeat on this issue, which would have been spun as a bad turn of events for the Administration, with media spin no doubt extrapolating to health care & climate change.
More importantly, would have raised the question of whether or not we reformers could ever retire any weapons program, no matter how unnecessary, even when the DOD & the President were on our side (which, of course, is not normally the case).
So it's not the end of the Empire, or bringing the oil/military/industrial complex to its knees--but it is a win--and it's been a while since our side has slowed down the military juggernaut on any issue.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
F-35 alternative engine "unnecessary" & "unwanted"
A quarter-page ad in the "A" section of today's Washington Post highlights the cost of the "alternative engine" for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that is currently being argued over in the Congress. The key argument in the ad is that one "unwanted, unnecessary alternate engine" for the F-35 would cost the same as 53 Joint Strike Fighters.
The ad quotes a March 2007 GAO report that puts the price of this engine at $7.2B.
Some of us agree that the engine is unecessary, and hope that the Obama Administration does veto it if the Congress insists on trying to fund it.
Of course some of us think the F-35 is "unnecessary", too...especially at a cost of up to $1T!
The ad quotes a March 2007 GAO report that puts the price of this engine at $7.2B.
Some of us agree that the engine is unecessary, and hope that the Obama Administration does veto it if the Congress insists on trying to fund it.
Of course some of us think the F-35 is "unnecessary", too...especially at a cost of up to $1T!
"We'll Have to Back Down"
Chairman John Murtha and the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee decided to keep funding more F-22s than President Obama and the Secretary of Defense requested.
However, even Chairman Murtha seems to indicate that if the President remains steadfast on his veto threat, more F-22s may not survive the process--here's a key paragraph from the article in The Hill online:
"Murtha, in a briefing with reporters, acknowledged the veto promise and indicated that if the presidential veto is looming over the spending bill and Congress does not have the votes to override the veto and support more F-22s, 'We'll back down on the damn thing.'"
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-defense-appropriators-ok-more-f-22-funds-2009-07-16.html
However, even Chairman Murtha seems to indicate that if the President remains steadfast on his veto threat, more F-22s may not survive the process--here's a key paragraph from the article in The Hill online:
"Murtha, in a briefing with reporters, acknowledged the veto promise and indicated that if the presidential veto is looming over the spending bill and Congress does not have the votes to override the veto and support more F-22s, 'We'll back down on the damn thing.'"
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-defense-appropriators-ok-more-f-22-funds-2009-07-16.html
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
"We Do Not Need These Planes"
President Obama reiterated his Administration's pledge to veto any attempt by the Congress to fund more F-22s beyond the 187 that Secretary Gates requested.
This Washington Post article also notes that the Administration criticized the attempt by the Congress to fund an "alternative engine" for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The article, written by R. Jeffrey Smith, notes that President Obama sent a letter to Senator Carl Levin and Senator John McCain, who head up the Senate Armed Services Committee. The President's letter was blunt: "We do not need these planes"...
The article noted that the "president's veto threat reflects his desire to win congressional backing for virtually all of the large revisions in Pentagon spending put forward by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in April, including terminating a half-dozen Cold War-era weapons programs to help pay for arms and equipment that military commanders say they need in Iraq and Afghanistan and for future counterinsurgency efforts. 'I think we've done pretty well' winning support for most of the changes, Gates told reporters last month, with the exception of the proposed $1.75 billion for more F-22s and $439 million for an alternative engine for the F-35 that the Pentagon has long considered wasteful."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071303098.html?hpid=moreheadlines
This Washington Post article also notes that the Administration criticized the attempt by the Congress to fund an "alternative engine" for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The article, written by R. Jeffrey Smith, notes that President Obama sent a letter to Senator Carl Levin and Senator John McCain, who head up the Senate Armed Services Committee. The President's letter was blunt: "We do not need these planes"...
The article noted that the "president's veto threat reflects his desire to win congressional backing for virtually all of the large revisions in Pentagon spending put forward by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in April, including terminating a half-dozen Cold War-era weapons programs to help pay for arms and equipment that military commanders say they need in Iraq and Afghanistan and for future counterinsurgency efforts. 'I think we've done pretty well' winning support for most of the changes, Gates told reporters last month, with the exception of the proposed $1.75 billion for more F-22s and $439 million for an alternative engine for the F-35 that the Pentagon has long considered wasteful."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071303098.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Sunday, July 12, 2009
F-22 Battle Looms
Rep. Barney Frank, one of the leaders of the fight to cut the military budget down to a sensible size, has several times this year made the case to activists that we need a victory this year.
One of the obvious targets is the F-22 Raptor, since even the Bush/Obama Secretary of Defense says we don't need any more.
That fight is now. If you care about this issue, call your Congress members.
One of the obvious targets is the F-22 Raptor, since even the Bush/Obama Secretary of Defense says we don't need any more.
That fight is now. If you care about this issue, call your Congress members.
Blue Dogs Refuse to Look at DOD for $$
As we all know, the Democrats in Congress have the votes to pass health care reform, no matter what the Republicans do, if they would stick together and remember what they promised the voters they would do.
Unfortunately, a small group of "Blue Dogs", who claim to stand up for fiscal responsibility, are holding up reform by demanding that any new costs be paid for with equivalent cuts.
But why? If we need $300B or $400B over the next 10 years to finance the current reform package, why not look across the river at the Pentagon for some of that money. After all, the DOD budget was essentially doubled during the Bush/Cheney years, despite the obvious fact that we have no global enemy who can compete with our military might.
For most American families, health care is more important than more fighter planes.
Unfortunately, a small group of "Blue Dogs", who claim to stand up for fiscal responsibility, are holding up reform by demanding that any new costs be paid for with equivalent cuts.
But why? If we need $300B or $400B over the next 10 years to finance the current reform package, why not look across the river at the Pentagon for some of that money. After all, the DOD budget was essentially doubled during the Bush/Cheney years, despite the obvious fact that we have no global enemy who can compete with our military might.
For most American families, health care is more important than more fighter planes.
F-22 Takes Hit from Post
Friday's Washington Post headline says it clearly: "Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings". That's the F-22 Raptor they're talking about--we already have 183 of them, and the hawks in the Congress want to build more, even though the Secretary of Defense says we don't need any more.
Maybe sometime soon the Post could do a similar critique of the over-budget, still-technically-deficient F-35 Joint Strike Fighter--you know, before we spend half a trillion dollars more...
http://webmaila.juno.com/webmail/new/5?userinfo=52db97590d82205c1ee3ac98de31d61c&count=1247444645
Maybe sometime soon the Post could do a similar critique of the over-budget, still-technically-deficient F-35 Joint Strike Fighter--you know, before we spend half a trillion dollars more...
http://webmaila.juno.com/webmail/new/5?userinfo=52db97590d82205c1ee3ac98de31d61c&count=1247444645
Congress Ignores Administration on Military Cuts
Armand Biroonak blogs at the Campaign for America's Future about recent decisions in the Congress to go beyond the recommendations of Secretary Gates, by adding even more money to the bloated military budget.
Biroonak notes that the F-22 was designed to meet a Soviet threat that no longer exists, which means that the 183 Raptors we already have should be more than enough.
In addition, of course, plans are proceeding for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which may ultimately cost as much as President Obama's first stimulus package.
The blog notes that the Administration did issue a veto threat on the extra F-22s, its first one.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009072806/congress-breaks-administration-protects-defense-lobby
Biroonak notes that the F-22 was designed to meet a Soviet threat that no longer exists, which means that the 183 Raptors we already have should be more than enough.
In addition, of course, plans are proceeding for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which may ultimately cost as much as President Obama's first stimulus package.
The blog notes that the Administration did issue a veto threat on the extra F-22s, its first one.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009072806/congress-breaks-administration-protects-defense-lobby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)