Because God forbid we spend $369 million to acquire F-22 fighter jets in defense of the nation. No, let’s spend that money on global warming alarmism or expansion of welfare rolls instead. Outrageous, deficit-building spending for everything but defense, apparently.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives was poised to approve on Thursday a $550.4 billion defense authorization bill for fiscal 2010 that has drawn a veto threat from President Barack Obama because it contains money for fighter jets he does not want.

The bill also authorizes $130 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that begins October 1.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said it supported the overall bill but the president’s senior advisers would recommend a veto unless some provisions were dropped.

One congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the White House veto threat as “a bargaining tool.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee was to unveil its defense authorization bill for 2010 later on Thursday, but the legislation was unlikely to be approved by the full Senate until September. House and Senate negotiators must then hammer out a compromise version before final passage.

The OMB said it strongly objected to the House decision to include $369 million in advanced procurement funds to buy 12 more F-22 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp despite a Pentagon decision to halt production at 187.

The Obama Administration apparently also objects to spending $603 million for building an improved engine for the F-35 fighter jet. Million with an “m” — not billion with a “b”. Suddenly, when it comes to defending the nation, the Obama Administration has found that it objects to large-scale spending. Either that or it’s not a fan of building the technology necessary to protect America.

Exit question: Would the Obama Administration really risk vetoing a bill providing funds for troops in harm’s way and projects that employ quite a few Americans? Even the fact that he’s blocking spending for the defense of the country aside, funds are needed for the defense programs that employ many thousands of Americans during a recession. Doesn’t sound like a smart political move outside of Berkeley.

Exit question 2: Let’s say Obama does veto the bill. Do Democrats possess the backbone to stand up against Obama in order to protect the country? I have my doubts.