What would you do? Pentagon plans to cut weapons, programs and jobs in your state.

[TayTay]

The Wall Street Journal had an http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122359358620221023.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">article last October on the reviews that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was making in the Pentagon's budget. Sec. Gates had identified some very expensive projects that he didn't think would work or that were just not cost-effective.

Boeing has some big programs on the line: the Army's more-than-$160-billion modernization effort called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems">Future Combat Systems, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III">C-17 Globemaster transport plane, a shot at a $40 billion Air Force refueling jet contract, and work on Lockheed Martin Corp.'s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor">F-22 Raptor fighter.

Other sophisticated weapons that will likely be scrutinized for their need are the Navy's $3 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer">DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer, which is being built by Northrop Grumman Corp., General Dynamics Corp. and Raytheon Co. Closer look also may be given to the almost $300 billion http://www.jsf.mil/">F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, a multinational effort to produce thousands of cutting-edge jets. Lockheed is also the lead contractor on that program.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates had already been pressuring the armed services over the F-22 and Future Combat Systems, saying that neither program is relevant to current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 2009 defense budget postponed until the next administration tough decisions that could lead to shutting down production lines that make the F-22, as well as Boeing's C-17.

Political leaders will have to tread carefully. Cutting defense dollars can be perilous, particularly for Democrats eager to be seen as strong on defense issues and when the reductions come during a downturn, since such jobs are seen as one of the mainstays of the economy.

The http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/03/us_weapons_cuts_could_put_ne_jobs_in_jeopardy/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed5">Boston Globe, in a front-page above the fold story today, wrote about the impact that defense cuts would have on jobs in this area and how deeply the loss would be felt across Massachusetts and New England:

WASHINGTON - Defense contractors, high-tech firms, and manufacturing plants are bracing for thousands of potential layoffs across New England resulting from the Obama administration's plans to cancel or delay key weapons programs, according to company officials, union representatives, and members of Congress.

A metal works plant in North Grafton, Mass., that shapes titanium for use in the Air Force's F-22 fighter jet stands to lose as much as one-fifth of its workforce if production is halted, while more than 2,000 jobs could be lost at divisions of United Technologies in Connecticut that build the jet's engine and electrical power systems, officials say.

More than 2,000 employees at Raytheon Co. facilities in Tewksbury, Andover, and Portsmouth, R.I., are working on the combat and radar systems for the Navy's Zumwalt class destroyer, another program widely expected to be cut. Many workers could lose their jobs or be transferred out of the area if construction of the warship is halted, according to the officials.

And firms large and small - including General Dynamics in Taunton and iRobot in Bedford - are keeping a close eye on the fate of the Army's set of next-generation ground combat vehicles, which rely on a host of computer systems and communications developed in the Bay State, but are also on the chopping block.

"All the major programs that are being discussed would have a Massachusetts or New England impact," said a Senate aide who is tracking the budget deliberations to gauge how they might effect the region's economy, which is already struggling in the deepening recession.

The Obama administration is about to unveil a Pentagon spending plan that officials say will slash weapons programs identified as either too costly or not meeting the urgent needs of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What if you were a Member of Congress whose home district or home state faced these cuts in a time of severe economic recession? The loss of those jobs is no small matter. These are typically well-paying jobs with great benefits. The loss of the jobs will strain already bad municipal budgets in cities and towns. The loss of these jobs could well have a cascading factor as other businesses in the area have to follow up with layoffs to compensate for the lack of orders and customers.

44 US Senators wrote to Sec. Gates back in January asking him to save the F-22 fighter jet program. This was the story in The Hill newspaper:

Senators urge Obama to buy F-22s
By Roxana Tiron
Posted: 01/16/09

Senators are pressing President-elect Obama to allow the Air Force to continue buying F-22 Raptor fighter jets.

Deciding whether to buy more F-22s after the final aircraft on order is delivered at the end of 2011 is one of the first strategic and business decisions Obama’s Pentagon leaders will have to make after Inauguration.

A group of 44 senators — 25 Democrats and 19 Republicans — sent Obama a letter with the request. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), a defense authorizer who represents a state where Lockheed Martin builds the fighter plane, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a defense appropriator whose state is home to Boeing’s operations, headlined the letter. Boeing is a subcontractor for the F-22.

“Continued F-22 production is critical to both the national security and economic interests of our country,” Murray said in a statement. “At a time when we are looking to create jobs and stimulate the economy, eliminating the $12 billion in economic activity and thousands of American jobs tied to F-22 production simply doesn’t make sense.”

The article from The Hill goes on to note the unusual alliance of Senators who signed this letter:

The latest letter sent to Obama on Friday was signed by a broad group that included Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), John Thune (R-S.D.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

So, what would you do? Which lawful duty of a Senator gets precedence here? (It is the duty of a "duly elected and sworn" Member of Congress to take care of the needs of their home state or district. That would include protecting jobs. Yet it is also the duty of Congress, as an oversight branch of the government, to weed out waste and unnecessary spending from bloated budgets.)

Just curious, what would you do here? (And if you like this "poser" of a question, I have another one on fisheries management versus the needs of fishermen to make a living.)

[wisteria]

1. Well, politically I think it is a bad idea to make these cuts from the defense budget

on aircraft and weapons. And, security wise, I would rather have to much protection and defenses than not enough. Somethings you just don't skimp on and for me security is one of them. I wonder how much bidding goes on for these defense contracts? Can the same aircraft for example be made and delivered by other company at less cost. There are also smaller ways to cut costs, look into duplications of good or services. I often remember my husband telling me about the nuclear safety company he was working for years ago selling our government at a cost of hundreds of dollars "special" rubber waste cans for possible contaminated materials. These trash cans were nothing more than ordinary Rubber maid product with the company's name on them. An ordinary trash can was as affective as anything else that was purchased, but the government wanted something "special". I have to ask, how often do companies rip-off our government? Just look at the waste associated with Blackwater. Then there was a story that came out a while ago about defective body armor being sold to the US even though the manufacture new the material used in the armor was defective.

http://www.themanufacturer.com/us/content/5910/BAE_subsidiary_pays_settlement_to_US_government?PHPSESSID=7104446263bd3ecdc957ce9ba66df0fb

So, I am saying find other ways to cut waste that are not so closely related to the defense of this country.

[Mass]

2. Whether it is military, automobile or anyother industry, it is a very difficult question.

You have to balance the real need to make progress and not block the state and the country in outdated program and industries and the fact that you want to make sure that people have a job and can continue to live where they are. It is a very difficult situation, and it is even more difficult these days because for many, many years now, the government has refused to plan. Planning is what would have allowed to close these plants without creating chaos and havoc in the lives of these people.

I understand why these senators are doing that, and am not sure there is at this point a way to do otherwise for them. However, this also means that planning has to be done when training people and planning which industries will come to a place. The automobile industry is a perfect example. For years, the industry, its unions, and its elected officials have been closing their eyes and thinking things would not change. The rest of the world has evolved without them, and, while they are now starting to have these new cars that would make them competitive, the companies are now in such a bad shape that they cannot continue on their own.

The same thing was true with the steel industry. In the 70s and 80s, Europe has gone through a huge reorganization (sadly at a high cost for people and entire areas), and are now able to produce a very high quality steel. During this time, the US has decided they would wait, and a few years ago, were producing steel that was at a lower quality, but at a price too high for their own quality.

There are two actions to lead at the same time:

- the immediate action that would help people who are in these industries,
- the recognition new industries have to be brought, so that now obsolete industries can be closed.

[cadmium]

3. Glad you asked. I would absolutely advocate for jobs

in my state in the same way that I would advocate for any other big job creating project. Lobbying for your state is an advocacy role. You dont always have to be right or successful but you need to try.

[sandnsea]

4. Unique answer to the fisheries issue

We have a group of local fishermen south of us who helped create one of the coastal stewardship areas so that they could sell verified sustainable fish at a higher price. Check it out. I think it's going to be the answer in the northwest.

http://www.oceanresourceteam.org/

On edit:

Yes I dodged the military issue because it would be a painful decision to make.

[cadmium]

5. thanks -- that may

be a nice use of stimulus money--for seed money to start this kind of program.

[karynnj]

6. Really tough question

It is extremely wasteful to spend the money on systems that aren't needed, but in this economy, any major lost of jobs cascades through the state. In better economic times, it would be obvious that, even though even in the best of times there would be a political cost in voting to cut these weapons - but then it would be the right thing to do.

Now, it would seem that the administration should try to pair closings of these plants or cuts in orders with stimulus projects needing similar resources when possible. (ie could the various people producing parts and materials for Boeing create parts and materials for high speed rail?) If the biggest concentrated losses could be matched that way, people stay employed and we don't waste money on things not needed at a time when resources are scarce. (I am not naive enough to think they can save all jobs this way.)

I also think it was pretty cynical (and smart) for Boeing to get stuff from so many diverse states. I would assume that they are the ones behind that letter, which essentially blackmails the Senators with calling them out as not caring about job losses in their states.

[beachmom]

7. John Kerry has been a very conventional politician as of late.

He has been doing some good work as almost a shadow Sec. of State with respect to foreign policy, seems to be doing a lot of behind the scenes work on combatting global climate change (although Blue Dog Democrats are determined to kill cap and trade), and of course, has a stellar liberal voting record. But one cannot deny that he is not much interested in any kind of reform of pork spending, including defense pork. I understand the arguments in regards to jobs, and that is a compelling argument. However, it amounts to wanting short term good in exchange for long term fiscal deficits. We do not need the F-22. It is a waste of money. But John Kerry is really part of the problem, as exemplified in the movie "Why We Fight", and how the defense industry cleverly made sure they had factories in every state in the Union. John Kerry is simply following the script written by the defense industry to guard against budgetary cuts.

I come from Conn. and understand intimately the pain of defense budget cuts to United Technology/Pratt & Whitney, etc. So, in short, I feel New England's pain (and here in Georgia as well, where Saxby Chambliss has suddenly discovered that government spending in fact does serve as a stimulus to the economy), but in the long run, this is very bad for our country spending money on a useless plane while over 50 million Americans are without health insurance.

Presidential candidate John Kerry would have wanted the F 22 killed. But Senator Kerry is fighting to keep this waste. Hard to reconcile. To his credit, John McCain has endorsed Gates's plan.

[karynnj]

8. Actually, he was for the most effective method of ending pork, his version of the ine item veto

He was, I think, the only Democrat who supported it when Bush was President.

I am disapointed that he is supporting the F22. A more creative approach would be to pair some stimulus spending needing comparable skills or raw materials with ending a failed project - and then only in an economic crisis like this one. I know it can't be because he fears not being re-elected in 5 years. The only two reasons I can think of is that fighting it would cost him support on things he is fighting for or that he really is very concerned about the state he loves and represents.

One difference with McCain is that he ALWAYS is against spending.

[beachmom]

9. Yeah, but he has to live in the current political process, not just say

"Well, I tried to stop it, but since I couldn't let's pile up the pork!". Agreed on McCain -- he kind of is not that great as a whole, but on this particular issue I thought it was good that he maintained his opposition to defense pork, a stance not all that popular in the GOP. The hilarious thing about JK coming out supporting the F-22 is this:

http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/02/08/defense/print.html

During the presidential race, Republicans laid into John Kerry again and again for voting against some weapons systems in the early 1990s. A pro-Bush group called Progress for America Voter Fund ran a TV ad charging that Kerry had "voted against 13 weapons systems our troops depend on." And at the Republican National Convention in September, the Bush-Cheney campaign had Democratic turncoat and duel master Zell Miller say that Kerry was so opposed to spending money on weapons systems that he must want to arm U.S. soldiers with "spitballs."

So could it be that George W. Bush now wants to cut ... weapons systems?

Yes, it could be. The president's budget calls for the Pentagon to purchase fewer F/A-22 fighters, fewer destroyers, fewer amphibious ships, fewer submarines and fewer V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft than projected just a year before.

I feel like our presidential campaigns are so unbelievably dishonest. But can you argue with me how bloody ironic the F-22 situation is? Where Bush and Kerry have actually switched places??!!??

Bizarre.

[karynnj]

12. The quotes are not what they seem to be

That was Bush's 2005 budget and Kerry did not call for more F22s than Bush wanted then. Also, the Zell Miller quotes referred to the typical Republican 9and Democratic) cherry picking of past votes - the votes referenced included cuts that Kerry voted for that were recommended by Secretary of Defense Cheney in the Bush years. The Republican accusation that Kerry wanted to gut the military was not true and he even called for expanding the military to avoid the back door draft. So, there really is no pattern of them switching places.

The problem is wanting to fund a project that the military doesn't want because it employs some people in MA.

I don't think that Kerry was dishonest when he ran for President. As President, he would have had more flexibility in designing programs that would have helped create more jobs. From his comments on the stimulus package, if anything, he would have put more infrastructure spending there and more aid to the states. The financial crisis in MA is likely the reason he signed that letter.

I think his position on the F22 is wrong and I hope he changes it. There is no way I can defend wasting money on a fighter the military doesn't want. I hope that now that Gates has recommended dropping it, that he reconsiders his stand. He has has the ability to take unpopular stands in the past.

[beachmom]

13. Ah, I didn't say Kerry was dishonest. I said the presidential campaign

by BUSH was dishonest. Kerry was pummelled in a dishonest way for not supporting certain defense programs; meanwhile, Bush unveiled a budget in 2005 doing just that. And it ends up that Bush backed cutting a defense program that Kerry is now supporting. I find that hilariously absurd how backwards our politics are. People were misled big time in 2004.

Another example was McCain saying Obama's Iraq plan was the "white flag of surrender". So now Obama says we will leave in 18 months instead of 16 months, and McCain comes out and SUPPORTS it. I mean, WTF? So two more months transforms surrender into a great policy? And it goes on and on ....

[karynnj]

15. You are totally right

Zell Miller was completely dishonest. The cuts he cited were mostly ones cut at the recommendation of the GHWB administration to get the "peace dividend". The really weird thing was that the far left distorted Kerry as more pro-war than he was while the Far Right and teh Republicans tried to make people think he was a hippie peacenik out of the 1960s - something he never was. (Miler had actually praised Kerry as a war hero in the past - so he was just dishonest.)

Bush did cut back the program. Kerry now is arguing against ending it. It is not clear what Bush's current position would be to ending it.

McCain is completely disingenuous on Iraq - especially as he claims that it is how well the surge worked that lets us eave in 18 months.

I think that part of the problem is that campaigns tend to rigidly fix the positions that politicians take over the interval - now almost 2 years - that they are running. Complex answers are reduced to sound bites, designed to distinguish them in the primaries without being too extreme for the general election.

[wisteria]

18. Well, it can't easily be explained away. n/t

[wisteria]

10. I think some of Kerry's concerns might be keeping those jobs in Mass.

And, then some might just be concerns about making sure we are totally prepared to defend the US. But, yes I have to agree he has become very conventional-at least as far as defense spending goes. I remember how he got burned during the election when the Rebubs accused him of cutting just about all important defense projects. Do you remember Zell Miller and the awful "spitball" comment?

[beachmom]

11. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Look at my post above you. Great minds think alike. :)

[wisteria]

19. LOL. n/t

[Mass]

14. He will be far from the only one to want to save the plane. The F-22 is being built in 46 states,

including yours.

Now, if rather than ranting about those senators who surprisingly do their jobs, we started asking that our government plans ahead. we may advance. The F-22 is doomed, there is no question about that. May be we could have thought about it before yesterday? Once again, it is not about politicians, it is about US.

[beachmom]

16. I do not support what Chambliss is doing in Georgia. OBVIOUSLY.

I agree that WE, the people, are part of the problem but you shouldn't let the politicians off the hook so easily. They are also part of the problem. And as I said in my original post, the defense industry on purpose spreads their factories across most of the states so that every rep. and Senator will defend their program. McCain has chosen not to go along. Kerry has.

[Mass]

17. For once, McCain may be on the right sight. It is not that often, including when it comes to

military spending.

[beachmom]

20. Saxby Chambliss does the dirty work for Senator Kerry:

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2009/06/26/lockheed_senate_vote.html

Senate panel OKs F-22 funds, despite veto threat
By Mary Lou Pickel

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, June 26, 2009

A showdown between Congress and the Obama administration is brewing over continued funding for the F-22 fighter jet.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) on Thursday added $1.75 billion for continued production of the Raptor. The plane is assembled at the Lockheed Martin plant in Marietta.

Chambliss’ amendment came during debate in the Senate Armed Services Committee on the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill.

The committee approved the amendment 13-11, according to Chambliss’ staff. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted against it, according to McCain’s press secretary.

The White House said this week that President Obama will veto the defense bill if it contains funding for more F-22s. Chambliss said he was undeterred.

I view this as a state special interest. Only the people who work at Lockheed are affected (plus the surrounding area to a degree: housing, retail, etc.); the rest of us in the state really have no dog in this fight. Therefore, as a Georgian, I do not think Saxby Chambliss is doing good for our state. He's saving some jobs at one company in one city. And adding to the deficit he supposedly despises.

How do Mass. folks view this?

[TayTay]

21. Mixed. We have many jobs that are in the F-22 program

but also stand to gain enormously from the expansion of other Pentagon programs into way to combat cyberwarfare and other highly technical endeavors. Jobwise, MA is poised for a great future from Pentagon programs, even if the F-22 goes away.

That said, this program is a waste of money. Those planes were designed for a situation that existed 40 or more years ago.