Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Senate Votes to Cut F-22 Funding

Good news out of the Senate today, which voted to cut funding for the F-22. As Kevin Drum says, "the case against the F-22 was pretty rock solid, and if the funding cutoff had failed it would have meant that, basically, it's impossible to cut anything in the Pentagon budget. Score one for common sense." And score one, too, for Obama's decision to keep Robert Gates on as secretary of defense. His presence was one of the reasons -- maybe the reason -- that this didn't become a partisan football.

Now it's off to the House, where Jack Murtha would lay down his life to protect defense pork. Sigh.

By Ezra Klein  |  July 21, 2009; 4:52 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: "I Don't Do Policy," Says RNC Chairman Michael Steele
Next: The Difficulties of Health IT

Comments

Great news. Of course, it wasn't really a partisan issue, it's more about districts where the planes are made. But, you're a partisan Mr. Klein, so I can see how you would make that mistake.

Posted by: staticvars | July 21, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Score one for the stupidity of the ruling Democrats.

The F-22 is the world's most lethal weapon. It has no peers.

And now we won't have it, either.

Posted by: WrongfulDeath | July 21, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

@ staticvars

I think you're missing the point. Not becoming a partison football is that same as "not being a partisan issue." It's obvious that the Republican party would've made a stronger push for the F-22 on party lines by casting the Democrats as weak on defense if not for the credibility of Gates, both in the public and internally at DoD. In fact, we already saw some "weak on defense" sniping on this issue a few months ago. I'm impressed that it's been handled in such a reasonable manner.

@WrongfulDeath
I'm pretty sure an ICBM is more lethal than the best best plane ever build with 1980s tech. We're doing just fine for air superiority without taking billions away from counterterrorism and non-defense budget priorities.

Posted by: etdean1 | July 21, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

WronfulDeath, don't we already have nearly 200 F-22 fighters and this was about getting 80 or so more? Is U.S. air superiority that close to faltering we can't make due with what we've got?

Posted by: MosBen | July 21, 2009 9:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company