Obama to Delay Tanker, Kill Bomber

CQ‘s Josh Rogin reports:

The White House has given the Pentagon guidance to delay procurement of aerial refueling tankers by five years and cancel plans for a new long-range bomber, according to three sources close to the discussions. No final decisions have been made, and the recommendations are part of negotiations between the Office of Management and Budget and the Defense Department over possible budget trade-offs this year, the sources said. The guidance represents two of the offset options that OMB gave the Pentagon last month regarding the fiscal 2010 Defense budget request. If the guidance survives the internal budget process, a huge protest will follow on Capitol Hill, where dozens of lawmakers are heavily invested in the battle over tanker procurement, which has raged for years.

A new long-range bomber may be an unnecessary extravagance given the nation’s current fiscal problems, but the military faces an urgent need for a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers. John McCain scuttled the first attempt to deal with the problem when he exposed the corrupt inside dealing that had handed Boeing a contract to lease the tankers to the Air Force. The investigation landed senior officers for both the Air Force and Boeing in prison. Then Northrop won the contract to provide the tankers only to have Boeing protest the decision with bipartisan support from the Hill — particularly from Democrats who represent Boeing’s home state of Washington and their protectionist allies. Now Obama looks set to push off the issue for another five years, out past his reelection campaign. With the government spending so many billions to stimulate the economy, it’s hard to understand what kind of sense it makes to delay a program worth as much as $100 billion or more for five years. There is an urgent need. This is a shovel-ready project. And the only obvious upside to delaying production for another five years is avoiding the political mess produced every time this issue starts creeping onto the front pages again. Update: A reader (with no ties to either firm) responds: