Amid the serious concerns raised about government spending - particularly health care and so-called stimulus packages - there lies another, less publicized issue, that should cause great alarm: government plans to kill competition among suppliers, thereby eliminating the best-known mechanism for controlling costs.

The plan involves the Joint Strike Fighter, a program already over budget and behind schedule - so much so that it has come under fire from Congress and the Pentagon. Now, the Pentagon wants to eliminate head-to-head competition between the aircraft's potential engine producers. Such a decision would be both short-sighted and wasteful.

One engine project, from Pratt & Whitney, faces more than $2 billion in cost overruns and is years behind schedule. A competing engine from GE-Rolls-Royce is finishing development after a $3 billion taxpayer investment and poised for decades-long, annual competition. It is more than 70 percent complete and ready to fly next year.

The Pentagon's plan to kill the GE-Rolls Royce engine is simply foolish. It would save money this year and next, but it would waste $3 billion taxpayers have already invested. Moreover, the decision to kill the GE-Rolls Royce engine would give Pratt & Whitney a $100 billion, single-bid, monopoly for decades.

The cost benefits of head-to-head competition would more than pay for the development of the second engine. The Pentagon will also be ignoring 15 years of bi-partisan congressional support and directives for competing and fully interchangeable JSF engines. Finally, the Weapons Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, signed by President Obama, mandates competition through the life cycle of major weapon systems programs.

Of course, the benefits of competition go well beyond costs. Given the scope of the JSF program, planners recognized years ago that competing engines would be key to national security. The JSF program will be the largest weapons procurement in U.S. history, replacing the majority of current tactical fighter aircraft in the U.S. Air Force, Marines, and Navy inventories, as well as tactical aircraft of nine or more international partners - more than 4,000 aircraft in total. It will ultimately account for 95 percent of our fighter coverage. So, killing head-to-head competition would leave our fighter fleet acutely vulnerable to an engine recall. Is it really in the best interests of taxpayers - and our servicemen and women - to rely solely on one fighter engine?

Even setting aside national security concerns, the value of competition in defense programs is historically validated - especially competition among large fighter engines. After facing serious problems with a single engine provider for its F-15 and F-16 fleets in the 1980s, the U.S. government introduced a competing engine. The improvement in contractor behavior through competing engine suppliers was dramatic, resulting in vastly improved engine reliability and performance, and a 20 percent reduction in overall costs, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

After considerable study, the GAO recently concluded that similar benefits would be realized with competing JSF engines. For the JSF engine acquisition over time, that's a potential $20 billion in savings. Equally important, the GAO cites significant non-financial benefits through competition, including far greater JSF readiness. Competing engines keeps contractors honest and efficient.

I am gratified that many in Congress - on both sides of the aisle - are taking issue with this imprudent effort by the Pentagon. Americans need to demand that the Pentagon doesn't kill competition.

At the very time when American jobs are scarce and our global aerospace technological leadership is being challenged, we simply cannot afford to ignore the far-reaching implications of canceling the competition among JSF engine producers as it approaches completion.

State Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) serves as Senate Majority Leader. He represents the 21st Senate District which includes portions of Cherokee and Cobb counties.