SEN. CHRISTOPHER J. Dodd (D-Conn.) called it "the Great Engine War." "A great victory for Massachusetts, for the Air Force, and for the American taxpayer," countered Sen. Edward M. Kennedy '54 (D-Mass.). "An insult to Pratt and Whitney, its employees, and the American taxpayer" was the way Rep. Barbara Kennelly (D-Conn.) phrased it.

The cause of all this uproar last week was the government's decision to award approximately 75 percent of Navy and Air Force fighter engine contracts to the General Electric company (GE). The Pratt and Whitney subsidiary of United Technologies (UT) had previously been the sole supplier of the F-15 and F-16 Air Force fighter engines, and the F-14 Navy engine. Surprise, surprise--Sen. Dodd's and Rep, Kennelly's home state of Connecticut also happens to be the home of Pratt and UT, while much of the new GE business will be done in Lynn, Mass.

The common name for this kind of support for government contracts is "pork barrel." Congressmen routinely try to direct lucrative government business toward home state corporations. If they succeed, as many senior committee members do, they create jobs for constituents and prime a future pump of campaign funds. Common examples of this practice include dams and other water control projects; designation of national historic sites, with resulting tax breaks; and construction of federal office buildings. Just recently, Cambridge's own representative, Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, came under fire for this last category by supporting the construction of a federal complex in his home district last year.

These domestic sources of "pork barrel" are small, though, compared to the huge dollar value of defense contracts. Since much of the current federal budget deals with the so-called "transfer payments," the Pentagon purchases by far the largest amount of goods and services of any government agency. Just to indicate the importance of last week's engine controversy, United Technologies received 47 percent of its profit last year from engine and spare part sales, the majority of which were to the military. Sen. Dodd estimated the cost to the taxpayer of this supplier change at $2 to $3 billion. And fighter engines constitute only a small part of the defense budget.

What makes the whole practice look entirely silly is the fact that it is the ostensibly "peace-minded" politicians who seem to draw the greatest delight out of pushing defense contracts for their local firms. The irony of a Kennedy or a Dodd getting worked up over who gets to build what weapon should be lost on no one who follows their liberal voting records closely.

BUT THE BEST example of hypocritical support of defense construction comes from this year's Democratic presidential race. The most vociferous supporter of a nuclear freeze. Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), has also been one of the strongest supporters of the B-1 bomber. Surprise again--the B-1's principal contractor. Rockwell Corp., will base most of its B-1 operations in California.

The Air Force and the Navy justified their new choice of engine suppliers on a need to diversify contractors, to ensure competition, and thus to enhance quality. This may very well be true: but Sen. Kennedy's labeling of this switch to GE as a "great victory for the American taxpayer" should be seen for what it is--an unabashed play for hometown votes. Senators and representatives necessarily operate under certain restrictions, and one of these has always been constituent pressure. Tip O'Neill, Alan Cranston, and Edward Kennedy are no exceptions to this rule. When defense "pork barrels" look as if they might roll their way, these politicos have never been averse to a healthy push.