TW: Another example of why cutting government spending is like whack a mole. Defense programming being perhaps an especially challenging area. As you may recall Robert Gates, the highly respected Republican Defense Sec., after considerable review actually made some tough choices regarding which defense programs to keep versus trim.
The C-17 transport planes, the presidential helicopters and the F-22 fighters were amongst the trims. All three programs are still alive and I would say likely to be funded by Congress. The arguments the conservative blog below uses are tried and true- "to cut the F-22 'seriously imperils national security' (TW: obviously Gates is a fool unconcerned about national security), 'the Air Force wants them' (TW: shocking that the Air Force general whose units use the F-22 would want more planes), yada yada yada.
Then there is the intellectually bold argument that since another 100 F-22 would only cost about $15 billion ($150 million each incrementally) and we are spending more on many other government programs, why not F-22 instead of pansy things like TARPs and education.
I have been watching defense spending since I was a kid (yes I am a freak and very old), the arguments NEVER change. At some point we need to be able to make choices for defense and many other areas!
From the New Majority blog:
"It looks like the F-22 production line may not fall idle after all. Cracks in the Administration's attempts to kill it are appearing. First...the most important thing—preservation of the production line as a surge capacity in the event of war—appears to have gotten a boost from the House Armed Services Committee, who've allocated $369 million for parts to keep it active...
Second, the Pentagon's line that the "we only need 187 F-22s" policy was driven by military, rather than budgetary, concerns appears to have been proven false, which might change the procurement number sooner rather than later. Aviation Week's Ares blog puts it succinctly: "The USAF did want more F-22s and considered a 180-some force to be a high risk approach, but after the Defense Department provided the service with a new assessment of future wars, the USAF changed its mind...
...The match that might set off the military/political tinderbox around F-22 procurement could well be the June 9 letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA, where the plane is built) from four-star Gen. John D.W. Corley, chief of Air Combat Command...two of whose squadrons have flown the F-22 the longest of any units in the USAF). In this letter, Gen. Corley stated flatly: "In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid term.… To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy." ...This type of insight from a uniformed commander certainly has the potential to change the political dynamics surrounding the F-22. Members of Congress tend to listen to uniformed leaders when they go on record regarding national-security shortfalls."
...In defense spending terms, twenty-six billion is a fairly big number. In domestic-spending terms, particularly in the age of TARP and the trillion-dollar "stimulus," it's chump change. For example, President Obama wants to spend ten billion on new early-childhood education programs and another fifty or sixty billion on the Department of Education, university building projects, etc.
Which leads me to wonder—have we finally reached that great day when our schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy its fighter force?
http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=1746b2e6-ef8f-4a86-a50d-0def46f1bd95
No comments:
Post a Comment