Obama puts new presidential helicopters on hold

[RunInRed 19,665]

I think this would qualify as a spending cut but judging by the tenor of the board, I'm sure it will be spun another way...

President Barack Obama put on hold an order for a fleet of new helicopters that will cost at least $11 billion, his spokesman told CNN Tuesday.

"The president talked to the secretary of defense, and I think as he said yesterday to Sen. (John) McCain, we don't need any new helicopters at the White House," Robert Gibbs said on CNN's "American Morning."

Asked if that meant the order was being put on hold, Gibbs said: "That's exactly what he talked to the secretary about."

McCain, the Arizona Republican who was Obama's rival for the White House in last year's election, questioned the president about the cost of the new helicopter fleet on Monday.

"Your (proposed new) helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One," the presidential airplane, McCain said. "I don't think that there's any more graphic demonstration of how good ideas … have cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money."

The price tag for the proposed new fleet of 28 helicopters has virtually doubled to more than $11 billion over the last six years. Each helicopter in the fleet would reportedly cost around $400 million.

President Bush put in the order for new high-security presidential helicopters in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

The president's helicopter is known as Marine One when he is flying on it.

Obama suggested Monday he would put the order on hold.

"I've already talked to (Defense Secretary Robert) Gates about a thorough review of the helicopter situation. The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me," a smiling Obama said to a room of laughing congressional, corporate and community leaders.

"I think it is … an example of the procurement process gone amuck, and we're going to have to fix it," he added.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/...opters-on-hold/

[bigsixfive 341]

No spin needed. He was called out on it, then made the cut.

[RunInRed 19,665]

No spin needed. He was called out on it, then made the cut.

Actually, as the article indicates, he had Secretary Gates looking into this long before McCain or any one else called him out on it. And do not forget, this is yet another situation he inherited from the previous administration that he is now having to clean up.

Also, I find it a tad ironic that the same bunch who has been plastering this board the past 72 hours with Obama spending was all but silent the past 8 years (except for maybe Otter). Look, Obama is going to have to make some tough decisions in these trying times and yes, some of them might include short-term/one-time spending to address the crisis we face. But in the long-term, he appears to have a keen eye on the budget and an understanding that we can not sustain the current deficit track. Time will tell.

[Tigermike 4,304]

No spin needed. He was called out on it, then made the cut.

Actually, as the article indicates, he had Secretary Gates looking into this long before McCain or any one else called him out on it. And do not forget, this is yet another situation he inherited from the previous administration that he is now having to clean up.

Also, I find it a tad ironic that the same bunch who has been plastering this board the past 72 hours with Obama spending was all but silent the past 8 years (except for maybe Otter). Look, Obama is going to have to make some tough decisions in these trying times and yes, some of them might include short-term/one-time spending to address the crisis we face. But in the long-term, he appears to have a keen eye on the budget and an understanding that we can not sustain the current deficit track. Time will tell.

That is absolutely the biggest bunch of total bull**** you have ever posted.

We have been screaming for years about the spending. You have been defending earmark after earmark after earmark. You defended Obama’s huge number of earmarks and defended earmarks as a whole as both needful and necessary.

There is nothing in the article to indicate “he had Secretary Gates looking into this long before McCain or any one else called him out on it.” The only one spinning here is you and the great fiscal conservative Obama.

I find it more than “a tad ironic” for you to try and spin this in the direction you are.

Many of us on this board have been screaming about “It’s the spending stupid”. Now we have a president who is in love with spending and you want to spin, spin, spin. BS.

[AUTiger1 0]

Many of us on this board have been screaming about “It’s the spending stupid”. Now we have a president who is in love with spending and you want to spin, spin, spin. BS.

We know that we have griped about spending and Bush's unwillingness to wield the veto stamp on it, but since MoveOn, Puffington and the other left wing news outlets tell them we didn't, that is the way it has to be and what they will choose to believe.

[RunInRed 19,665]

We have been screaming for years about the spending. You have been defending earmark after earmark after earmark. You defended Obama’s huge number of earmarks and defended earmarks as a whole as both needful and necessary.

You are right, I do not think all earmarks are bad because they are a vital way projects get funded -- for better or worse, it's the system we have. However, you are either misrepresenting your stance (or it's possible I just missed it -- in which case, links would be great) when you claim you criticized the previous administration for over spending. I never once recalled you criticizing the cost of the Iraq war or any defense spending (which as you know, makes up over half of the annual budget), nor do I recall you criticizing President Bush excluding natural disasters from budgets. Heck, I don't even remember hearing you criticize Palin's infamous bridge-to-nowhere (which she was for before she was against) earmark. In fact, and again I could be mistaken, but I never recall you criticizing any spending during the last 8 years unless you were trying to take some shot at the "dims." But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one...prove me wrong.

There is nothing in the article to indicate “he had Secretary Gates looking into this long before McCain or any one else called him out on it.” The only one spinning here is you and the great fiscal conservative Obama.

So it is of your opinion that Obama just started looking into this once McCain raised a question yesterday? Funny, that's not what every one else is reporting...

McCain bemoaned cost overruns in military procurement. The new fleet of 28 Marine One helicopters being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. — now over budget at $11.2 billion — will cost more than Air Force One.

Obama said the helicopter he has now seems adequate, adding that he never had a helicopter before and "maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it."

Obama said he has already talked to Defense Secretary Robert Gates about reviewing the program and its ballooning costs.

"It is an example of the procurement process gone amok, and we're going to have to fix it," Obama said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/23...copters-review/

[Tigermike 4,304]

We have been screaming for years about the spending. You have been defending earmark after earmark after earmark. You defended Obama’s huge number of earmarks and defended earmarks as a whole as both needful and necessary.

You are right, I do not think earmarks are all bad and because they are a vital way projects get funded -- for better or worse, it's the system we have. However, you are either misrepresenting your stance (or it's possible I just missed it -- in which case, links would be great) when you claim you criticized the previous administration over spending. I never once recalled you criticizing the cost of the Iraq war or any defense spending (which as you know, makes up over half of the annual budget), nor do I recall you criticizing President Bush excluding natural disasters from budgets. Heck, I don't even remember hearing you criticize Palin's infamous bridge-to-nowhere (which she was for before she was against) earmark. In fact, and again I could be mistaken, but I never recall you criticize any spending during the last 8 years unless you were trying to take some shot at the "dims." But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one...prove me wrong.

There is nothing in the article to indicate “he had Secretary Gates looking into this long before McCain or any one else called him out on it.” The only one spinning here is you and the great fiscal conservative Obama.

So it is of your opinion that Obama just started looking into this once McCain raised a question yesterday? Funny, that's not what every one else is reporting...

McCain bemoaned cost overruns in military procurement. The new fleet of 28 Marine One helicopters being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. — now over budget at $11.2 billion — will cost more than Air Force One. (It's my opinion that your statement: "Actually, as the article indicates, he had Secretary Gates looking into this long before McCain or any one else called him out on it. And do not forget, this is yet another situation he inherited from the previous administration that he is now having to clean up." is nothing but hot air and spin. There is nothing in the article that would indicate Obama has been "looking into this long before,,," )

Obama said the helicopter he has now seems adequate, adding that he never had a helicopter before and "maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it."

Obama said he has already talked to Defense Secretary Robert Gates about reviewing the program and its ballooning costs.

"It is an example of the procurement process gone amok, and we're going to have to fix it," Obama said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/23...copters-review/

[tgr4lfe 220]

A spending cut of $11.2 million compared to the billions of $$ he is spending with the earmarks, I'm sooo glad he is cutting that $11.2 million.

I am sure that will be an earmark project magically thrown into this next spending bill by the dems..

[TitanTiger 22,262]

It's actually 100 times more than that. He's cutting 11 BILLION... with a "B".

[autigeremt 7,551]

Yep.....and it wasn't because of Gates! Obama wanted this, but he had to slash it because he was called out on it by McCain. Red, you know as well as I do if he hadn't been called out, it would have went through.

Don't piss down our backs and tell us it's raining. We aren't that stupid

[jw 4 au 548]

It's actually 100 times more than that. He's cutting 11 BILLION... with a "B".

WTF...none of this makes sense. A Boeing 777 costs $250 million, with an M. How in the hell does a freakin' "presidential helicoptor" cost $400 million. And why does the president need 28 of them for $11 billion, with a B.

[JohnDeere 0]

McCain just put Berry on the spot with this one and Obama completely showed his ignorance on this one. Obama was unable to clarify for the press what every Senator/Congressman in the room already knew.

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is running the show till Feb 2010.

POTUS Bush set the QDR that set the acquisition process moving on 'Marine One'. Obama will have his opportunity in somewhere around May to leave his footprint on the QDR and the Joint Program Guidance. Until then DoD is playing by G.W.Bush's guidance....sorry you Obama lovers out there.

What the press also fails to mention if this is an ACAT 1 acquisition program? It doest meet the dollar threshold and I assume because of Congressional intrest. So, the Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L) has the the yes/no descision authority when the program hits cost overages at the milestones not the POTUS.

And this being new technology in these aircraft....Navy probably has most of the money coming from an Research, Development, Test, and Eval (RDT&E) appropriation; so what ever they have from 2008 they have two more years to burn it up; then they have some Procurement appropriations on it; another 5 years.

So, until Obama has some input on the Joint Program Guidance and actually has input on the POM?BES in 2010; it will be a couple of years before the "Marine 1" acquisition "goes" away.

[RunInRed 19,665]

It's actually 100 times more than that. He's cutting 11 BILLION... with a "B".

WTF...none of this makes sense. A Boeing 777 costs $250 million, with an M. How in the hell does a freakin' "presidential helicoptor" cost $400 million. And why does the president need 28 of them for $11 billion, with a B.

According to Wiki...

As a security measure, Marine One always flies in groups with identical helicopters, sometimes as many as five. One helicopter carries the president, while the others serve as decoys for would-be assassins on the ground. Upon take-off these helicopters begin to shift in formation (sometimes referred to as a presidential shell game) regularly to keep the location of the president secure. Television broadcasters are prohibited from airing live footage of Marine One while it is in the air over the White House. Also, Marine One reportedly is equipped with standard military anti-missile countermeasures such as flares to counter heat-seaking missiles and chaff to counter radar-guided missiles. To add to the security of Marine One, every member of HMX-1 is required to pass a Yankee White background check before touching any of the helicopters used for presidential travel.

Marine One is always transported (as is the president's limousine) wherever the president travels, within the U.S. as well as overseas.

.....

The current helicopters have aging airframes, having entered service with HMX-1 in 1962. VH-3D replaced some VH-3A in 1978, and the remainder of VH-3A were replaced by VH-60N beginning in 1989. Due to the age of the VH-3D, a replacement type is in development, with initial operational capability due by 2008 and full operational capability by no later than 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_One

Obama's response to all of this was classic ... "the helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me. He added: "Of course, I've never had a helicopter before. So, you know, maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it."

Can we count this as another campaign promise kept? From back in July...

Obama said, "I haven't taken a close look at it, but, in principle, it is a lot of money, even in Washington."

Asked whether the president needed such a large and expensive fleet of helicopters for his most common trip, a 10-minute flight to and from Andrews Air Force Base, Obama said: "Here's what I know: that we should be spending a lot more money trying to figure out how to get our energy policy right than we should be on helicopters for the president. I have not examined in detail this proposal, and since you brought it up, I'll take a close look at it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25739131/

[rexbo 104]

I think this would qualify as a spending cut but judging by the tenor of the board, I'm sure it will be spun another way...

I agree with this cut; but I believe it is just the one of many many more coming within the Defense Department. Remember the really sad state of our military in 1980, when we couldn't even fly a few helicopters into Iran for a rescue mission? We are headed there again...

[Tigermike 4,304]

Obama said, "I haven't taken a close look at it, but, in principle, it is a lot of money, even in Washington."

Asked whether the president needed such a large and expensive fleet of helicopters for his most common trip, a 10-minute flight to and from Andrews Air Force Base, Obama said: "Here's what I know: that we should be spending a lot more money trying to figure out how to get our energy policy right than we should be on helicopters for the president. I have not examined in detail this proposal, and since you brought it up, I'll take a close look at it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25739131/

I'm happy that you chose to use that quote, I will have a post tonight on that very thing.

[OldNewby 27]

Actually, a billion = a thousand million. And a trillion = a thousand billion. A thousand trillion = way too damn much.

[TigerHeat 9]

Actually, a billion = a thousand million. And a trillion = a thousand billion. A thousand trillion = way too damn much.

A thousand trillion? No, that's NEXT year's budget.

[jw 4 au 548]

It's actually 100 times more than that. He's cutting 11 BILLION... with a "B".

WTF...none of this makes sense. A Boeing 777 costs $250 million, with an M. How in the hell does a freakin' "presidential helicoptor" cost $400 million. And why does the president need 28 of them for $11 billion, with a B.

According to Wiki...

As a security measure, Marine One always flies in groups with identical helicopters, sometimes as many as five. One helicopter carries the president, while the others serve as decoys for would-be assassins on the ground. Upon take-off these helicopters begin to shift in formation (sometimes referred to as a presidential shell game) regularly to keep the location of the president secure. Television broadcasters are prohibited from airing live footage of Marine One while it is in the air over the White House. Also, Marine One reportedly is equipped with standard military anti-missile countermeasures such as flares to counter heat-seaking missiles and chaff to counter radar-guided missiles. To add to the security of Marine One, every member of HMX-1 is required to pass a Yankee White background check before touching any of the helicopters used for presidential travel.

Marine One is always transported (as is the president's limousine) wherever the president travels, within the U.S. as well as overseas.

.....

The current helicopters have aging airframes, having entered service with HMX-1 in 1962. VH-3D replaced some VH-3A in 1978, and the remainder of VH-3A were replaced by VH-60N beginning in 1989. Due to the age of the VH-3D, a replacement type is in development, with initial operational capability due by 2008 and full operational capability by no later than 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_One

Obama's response to all of this was classic ... "the helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me. He added: "Of course, I've never had a helicopter before. So, you know, maybe I've been deprived and I didn't know it."

Can we count this as another campaign promise kept? From back in July...

Obama said, "I haven't taken a close look at it, but, in principle, it is a lot of money, even in Washington."

Asked whether the president needed such a large and expensive fleet of helicopters for his most common trip, a 10-minute flight to and from Andrews Air Force Base, Obama said: "Here's what I know: that we should be spending a lot more money trying to figure out how to get our energy policy right than we should be on helicopters for the president. I have not examined in detail this proposal, and since you brought it up, I'll take a close look at it."

ats crazy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25739131/

Still, something ain't right here. Five decoys plus the main one is still only si x! And do the decoys need to be as fancy as the main one? We ain't building even the best helicoptor for $400 million, thats crazy talk.

[SouthLink02 8]

Many of us on this board have been screaming about “It’s the spending stupid”. Now we have a president who is in love with spending and you want to spin, spin, spin. BS.

Agreed. Now we have a big spender as President. For the previous 8 years, we had an extremely cheap one.

[Tigermike 4,304]

Many of us on this board have been screaming about “It’s the spending stupid”. Now we have a president who is in love with spending and you want to spin, spin, spin. BS.

Agreed. Now we have a big spender as President. For the previous 8 years, we had an extremely cheap one.

I don't think there was anything cheap about the spending over the past 8 years. I also don't see increased government spending now lifting the U.S. out of a world wide recession.