F-22 Update
9 Comments Published July 21st, 2009 in National and International Issues, Southern Utah People, Southern Utah Talking Points and Questions.Big Spenders Hatch and Bennett want to dig our debt hole deeper.
A few days ago, I documented some of the ways that conservatives are trying to spend more federal dollars on things they like, all the while claiming that they’re against more spending. (Why We Fail)
Just an update, the vote on the F-22 is likely to be today.
Big Spender Orrin Hatch wrote a piece for the Deseret News proclaiming why we need to spend $250 million, seven times over, to buy seven more of them when we already have 187 F-22s and both the Secretary of Defense and both the Republican and Democrat ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are against it. Most of the argument boils down to: “Because the money will go into the pockets of people in my district.”
You can call Hatch’s office at: (202) 224-5251
“Bennett in the Senate” (The title on his web page! It grates me the wrong way when somebody tries to sell themselves to me with an advertising jingle.) is also in favor of shoveling more of our taxpayer dollars into something the Pentagon doesn’t even want. But it took me three phone calls to find out. Nobody in the St. George office was home, nobody in the Salt Lake office knew, and I had to get the phone-answerer to go ask somebody else in the Washington office to get an answer. Gaaack! (“Bennett in the Senate - Part-time” was probably showing slides to his K Street buddies of one of his many recent trips to London and Paris.)
Bennett’s Washington DC office is at: (202) 224-5444
The editorial in today’s Standard-Examiner (published in Ogden, Utah) is about this very topic. I found the editorial most interesting and it pointed out the hate-crimes legislation which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other congressional Democrats want to attach to the F-22 bill.
“OUR VIEW: A silly F-22 debate
“Welcome to “The Twilight Zone,” otherwise known as the U.S. Senate, where a very important debate over the future of the F-22 jet fighter is being played out in conjunction with a spat over whether to add a completely unrelated hate-crimes provision into the overall defense spending bill.
“It’s called politics in the 21st century, and it’s unseriousness almost makes us take a quixotic stand for term limits. Here’s the nonsense in a nutshell: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is working with the White House on an amendment to ax $1.75 billion in planned spending on the F-22. However, congressional Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., oppose the F-22 amendment solely in order to get the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act attached to the defense bill.
“We know that’s confusing, but we’ll keep explaining. Reid and other Democrats want federal protection under hate crimes to extend to victims attacked based on gender identity, sexual orientation, disabilities and gender. Shepard, by the way, was a gay university student who was murdered in 1998.
“This has nothing to do with defense spending, a point Reid would concur with. However, Reid attached it to the defense bill because it is a measure that he wants passed, even if it piggy-backs on another bill. On its own, the Shepard hate-crimes bill would probably not pass. Many of its opponents claim that the crimes are already adequately punished under state laws or they argue that hate-crime laws stifle free speech.
“When McCain heard of Reid’s partisan move, he accused Reid of putting personal priorities ahead of the needs of those serving in our military. Reid retorted that McCain has never fully supported hate-crimes legislation.
“There are several ironies to this comedy. One is that anything that keeps increased funding alive for the F-22 is good news for the Top of Utah and Hill base. Our Utah legislators, including Rep. Rob Bishop, have been fighting long odds to keep the F-22 program healthy. It is an expensive aircraft that is not being used in current conflicts. However, we agree with those who maintain that the technological advancement of the F-22 provides a long-term edge in U.S. global military superiority.
“Unfortunately, the Obama administration has threatened to veto a defense spending bill that includes the $1.75 billion for the F-22.
“The second irony is that Reid and McCain both want to trim the F-22 program. They just can’t work it out while they are fighting over an unrelated hate-crimes measure. It’s all very silly. Perhaps more silliness will actually save the F-22 spending? Who knows?
“In our opinion, the hate-crimes legislation should be voted on separately. It’s not part of the defense bill. But, this is the way Congress works in that often-dysfunctional factory called Capitol Hill.”
Reid isn’t one of my favorite people either. I wrote an entire piece about him recently. (http://colorcomments.com/2009/05/26/what-could-be-better-than-harry-reid/)
But I’d like to point out that your Standard-Examiner doesn’t seem to think there’s a thing wrong with pounding taxpayer dollars into a rat hole … as long as it’s their rat hole.
I think the technical term for that is “hypocrisy” isn’t it?
The Top of Utah, which the Standard-Examiner represents, is very dependent on Hill Air Force Base. We need a newspaper here and we are dependent on Hill Air Force Base. It would be political suicide for the Standard-Examiner to be against the F-22 program. We don’t want either the Standard-Examiner or Hill Air Force Base to cease to exist. So, the Standard supports Hill, which keeps the Standard alive and helps keep Hill here. Them’s the facts.
No one disuputes “the facts”. But “the facts” don’t change whether it’s hypocrisy. If you want a more impressive term, Henry Kissinger, principal architect of Vietnam (55,000 Americans dead for no reason) and the criminal Nixon’s Secretary of State, called this kind of equivication, “realpolitik”.
And who doesn’t want Hill Air Force Base to cease to exist? Don’t include me in that. Hill is a war machine. (And a damned expensive one at that.) It would be absolutely great if all war machines could cease to exist.
Whether it’s practical is another question. But it’s a super wet dream.
Heard something on NPR this morning (an interview with a book author) to the effect that America has become a nation that thinks we must perpetually be “at war” somewhere. His thought (and part of the premise of his book) is that it certainly would be nice if we could change that mindset to include that maybe, sometimes, there might be other alternatives. – It is a super dream and something to work towards. – And the thought process that led to not funding the F-22s is a step in that direction. – Part of the criticism I’ve read from the elected people in Washington who wanted the F-22s funded is that the jobs/income to build these jets was needed in their districts. – Whenever I read that argument I always thought “the money will not, poof!, disappear if it is not used for the jets. If money/jobs is needed in your district, I’m certain there is SOMETHING ELSE that needs doing in your district (other than building weapons of war) that would bring jobs to your district! Be a little creative! What ELSE needs doing (other than building jets)?
Right! Now you’re talking!
I wouldn’t object to a dollar-for-dollar replacement in the exact same districts. Northern Utah could spend it digging holes and filling them up again (something we did when I was in the Army). But why do we have to continually up the multiplier of how many times we can blow up the Earth by building greater and greater stockpiles of arms.
For your viewing pleasure … your tax dollars corroding away in the Arizona desert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpyVNgi50XQ
I think I’ve been there. I think we went there on a Sunday (or a Saturday) and it wasn’t open. If it’s where we went, it’s called a “Museum.”
I saw some people briefly in one of the scans. I wonder what employees DO there?
Northern Utah would not have to dig up holes and fill them up again. There is plenty of stuff that NEEDS to be done – IMPORTANT stuff that isn’t done because of lack of funds. Things aren’t changed because of the theory of the path of least resistance and inertia. It’s just VERY MUCH easier (VERY MUCH) to just keep doing what we’ve always done than to roll up shirtsleeves, admit we’re doing it wrong, and CHANGE!
And there’s also the macho male part of our society who need always to be swaggering around and fighting. America is right and we’re gonna cram it down your throat – do it OUR way ’cause if you don’t, we’ll beat you up big-time. These folk need our huge war machine because it’s an extension of their personalities.
And since macho males exist in all societies around the globe, America DOES need a defense. But we don’t need 400% killing power; 100% will do to defend ourselves.
And extra money, like was spent on the aircraft in the graveyard – there are most needed and worthwhile projects for that money, that would provide jobs. A little imagination is needed. Which Obama has, if politicians would just stop being “politicians” and LISTEN and HEAR and THINK. And ditto for the general public.
Hatch has also been explaining that we need the F-22 for military reasons, not just jobs.
In explaining the military justification it was apparent he had memorized the talking points from Lockheed Martin or someone. He didn’t sound all that persuaded or persuasive.
There is pleny of defense work that needs to be done that is not being funded. The Army vehicle fleet — armored and soft — has been decimated in Iraq and is not being repaired or replaced. However, if you really want to kill off the big war machine, you need to support the libertarians not the democrats.
Dan – you are too hard on Bennett and his advertising. The last time he ran he had a billboard on I-15 close to the Dixie Center that said Bald is Beautiful. A great slogan — not great enough to cause one to vote for him, but great nonetheless.
Libertarians do have some good ideas, but I have a fundamental difference in philosophy with them. Libertarians assume that we’re all rugged individuals and all we need is to be left alone.
I, on the other hand, believe that the species of primates that tried out that idea was called “Neanderthal” and was wiped out because they couldn’t compete with the superior ability of Homo Sapiens to cooperate in a social structure called “civilization”.
I realize this is an overgeneralization … but I remain convinced that it’s the fundamental flaw in Libertarian thinking. The “poster child” issue that we disagree about is a great example.
You believe the best way to protect yourself is to shoot it out with the bad guys “mano a mano”. I believe the best way to protect yourself is to gradually develop things like good neighborhoods, effective police forces, and cultural attitudes that don’t accept the concept of violence as a solution. It doesn’t help much when if the bad guy is breaking down your front door and the cops aren’t there, but it will eliminate the situation where the bad guy is breaking down your front door in the first place over time. My argument is a based on looking at society as a whole. Yours seems to be based on looking at society as a collection of individuals.
It’s a difference in point of view.