New York (CNN) -- In a time of voter anger at unsustainable government spending and Washington hypocrisy, here's a story that should get your blood up.





Last week, the House of Representatives considered eliminating a nearly half-billion dollar earmark that was snuck into a defense authorization bill. But members of both parties voted to keep the corporate pork in the bill -- despite a supposed moratorium on earmarks and despite that the Pentagon has repeatedly said it doesn't want the money.





Only in Washington would bureaucracy be force-fed a project it doesn't want or need.





But so far, we haven't seen this contempt for taxpayer dollars make its way to protest signs or talk radio driven talking points. That's because President Obama opposes the earmark and the Republican congressional leadership voted for it.





This doesn't fit neatly into the hyperpartisan narrative of screaming about socialism -- in which Republicans bewail overspending by Democrats -- but it's a perfect illustration of how deep the dysfunction is in Washington.





At issue is the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter platform, a corporate subsidized boondoggle that has cost taxpayers $1.2 billion in earmarks since 2004. It is estimated to cost at least $2.9 billion more until its completion.





Defenders argue that paying GE and Rolls Royce to develop a second engine for Air Force fighters will stimulate competition in the defense industry and bring down costs in the long run while protecting jobs in the short run.





Critics point out that crony capitalism can't create a true free market in the defense industry -- it's the equivalent of diet hucksters who claim you can eat yourself fitter. This is about money: pork barrel politics hiding under the noble banner of national defense.





Here's how the sordid story unfolded:





An anonymous earmark was added to the defense authorization bill, requesting $485 million in new funds for the alternate engine program, despite a much-ballyhooed moratorium on earmarks going to for-profit entities (agreed to by Democrats), and a total ban on earmark requests agreed to by Republicans for fiscal year 2011.





In reaction, a small bipartisan group of members of Congress -- led by Democrat Chellie Pingree of Maine and Republican Tom Rooney of Florida, joined by Democrat John Larson of Connecticut and Republican Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia -- proposed an amendment to strip the bill of the ugly anonymous earmark. Their principled stand went down to defeat by a vote of 193 to 231.





It's no surprise that in a recession, the congressional representatives of Ohio and Indiana would vote to keep the earmark subsidy in the bill, including the normally stalwart fiscal conservative Mike Pence of Indiana. Those states are benefiting most from the development of the engines in terms of jobs on the ground.





What's more surprising is why so many of their colleagues would climb on this pork-barrel bandwagon, including the Republican congressional leadership led by John Boehner and Eric Cantor, who are trying to build the midterm election campaign around a promise to restore fiscal discipline.





That selling job that should be even tougher since a majority of Democrats voted to kill the alternate engine and a majority of Republicans voted to keep it going.





"This was the first big earmark test for 2010, and Congress failed," said Thomas A. Schatz, the President of Citizens Against Government Waste, which has been a steadfast critic of the alternate engine and recently released a detailed report on the subject.





"Neither party comes out looking good, but Republicans in particular missed a golden opportunity to show that they are really serious about getting government spending under control."





The next chance to stop the half-billion dollar alternate engine earmark is the Senate, when it takes up the defense authorization bill later this month. But even success there from genuine fiscal conservatives such as John McCain could be undone when the bill goes to conference -- it's the Washington way.





The final stop would be a presidential veto, which President Obama has promised, under advice from Defense Secretary Gates.





A half century ago, Republican President Eisenhower warned about the influence of the military-industrial complex.





The former five-star
What is the cost of the project? who voted for half a billion dollars for project What did the Pentagon say about the defense spending project?
$2.9 billion both parties it doesn't want the money.
question: What is the cost of the project?, answer: $2.9 billion | question: who voted for half a billion dollars for project, answer: both parties | question: What did the Pentagon say about the defense spending project?, answer: it doesn't want the money.