Kathleen Parker ["The engine that might," op-ed, June 10] insinuated that congressional support for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine is a reflection of a commitment to free-market principles while opposition results from money and information thrown around by Pratt & Whitney.
As watchdogs, we are interested only in saving billions by eliminating an unnecessary engine that both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations have wanted to cut. We have not bent and will not compromise our integrity by taking money from anyone -- including Pratt & Whitney -- with a financial stake in our advocacy positions.
Several news outlets have reported that both Pratt & Whitney and General Electric -- developer of the "alternate" engine -- have spent profusely on this duel, yet Ms. Parker failed to mention GE's lobbying efforts. As for the alternate-engine supporters in Congress? House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) admitted last week that the alternate engine is about job creation.
Our national security is too important to be just another jobs program. We should cut the alternate engine because we cannot afford it.
We can't afford the F-35 engine (The Washington Post)
Discussion
Sign Up for Updates
