Our new Congressman, Mike Pompeo, voted against funding a military aircraft engine being developed by General Electric Aviation.
This was his position during the campaign, despite heavy lobbying efforts locally from GE and elected officials to support the so-called alternate F-35 engine. It would have been hypocritical of him to vote for the engine project, unless the facts had changed significantly.
But does this represent a pattern going forward for Pompeo? The question it raises is how much will Pompeo (and other lawmakers) protect economic interests in their own district? We are in a bit of a new era here with overall federal spending reduction being the ultimate goal, (and at the state level to some degree) even to the detriment of backyard benefits. Even Obama says he will veto any so-called earmarks, money individual congressmen stick into legislation for projects in their districts.
But how far can this go? Wichita relies so heavily on aviation and aviation relies heavily on govt. contracts. Pompeo does support Boeing's tanker bid, but how far would he go to fight for something like that (Tiahrt fought tooth and nail). So many things like Ark City levee system, Strother Field development/maintenance, to name a couple, get funded by federal dollars. They don't just come here ... somebody has to advocate for them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your blog says he voted against it but the Traveler published an article saying the spokeswoman voted for it. So which is it?
I think the era you are speaking about is the one that uses the Federal Government as a key means to redistribute wealth. (Which today is really redistribution of DEBT.) Maybe even as a means to get your own agenda funded by the rest of the Countries taxpayers?
The only problem with the logic which is used Today? It's not using current taxpayer revenue - it is the tax dollars of future Generations and maybe even some who are yet UNBORN!
It just might mean the return of STATE and LOCAL GOVERNMENT and concentrated efforts to seek to develope on a LOCAL or Regional basis!
But, to continue to be subsidized on the backs and at the expense of those who have NO CHOICE?
Might just fit the definition of a THEIF(S)!
I am glad he voted against this corporate welfare proposal. GE has enough money.
Post a Comment