Political Hotsheet
July 15, 2009 12:58 PM

Congress to Military: Take More F-22s. We Insist.

(AP)
President Obama's reiterated Wednesday that he is prepared to veto the 2010 defense appropriations bill if the version that crosses his desk authorizes $1.75 billion in funding to continue building F-22 Stealth Fighters, also known as Raptors.

With the cost of building one new F-22 coming in at just under a quarter billion dollars, that's enough for seven more planes.

As the White House notes in a statement, "the collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments determined that a final program of record of 187 F-22s is sufficient to meet operational requirements."

Though some Air Force leaders have suggested that more F-22s are needed, the White House's point seems difficult to argue: As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in February, "the reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater."

On Monday, the president wrote a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee stating flatly, "we do not need these planes."

"To continue to procure additional F-22s would be to waste valuable resources that should be more usefully employed to provide our troops with weapons that they actually do need," he wrote.

Gates, who would prefer to build F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, has been pushing for a shift in focus of military spending toward counterinsurgency preparedness. He calls the F-22 "a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios."

Yet members of both parties in Congress are pushing through funding for the F-22s. The reason? Jobs. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the plane, says 95,000 jobs would be lost in a variety of states if F-22s stop being built. The company has spent millions lobbying to keep the airplane in production, according to National Public Radio.

Republicans Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, whose party has been railing against Democrats for wasteful spending, have been pushing hard to fund the F-22s. Chambliss argued on the Senate floor yesterday that it is up to lawmakers – not the military – what gets funded. He acknowledged that many of the jobs lost if production ended would be in his home state.

The leading Senate opponent of funding the F-22s is also a Republican: 2008 GOP presidential nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain. "We cannot argue that we should spend taxpayers' dollars for weapons systems simply to create or keep jobs," he said, adding that Congress will work to provide employment opportunities to those who lose their jobs.

McCain and Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, who head the Armed Services Committee, have been pushing an amendment to get the F-22 funding killed. But they retreated Wednesday, with Levin saying the amendment "was temporarily withdrawn because we couldn't get to a vote."

Indeed, there are not clear party lines when it comes to the F-22: The Bush administration also tried to kill it, and many Democrats are siding with Chambliss and supporting the funding. One defense analyst told NPR that there may not even be enough votes in the Senate to keep a presidential veto from being overturned.

The $1.75 billion in F-22 funding is, amazingly enough, actually just a giant drop in a gargantuan bucket: The total price tag on the fiscal year 2010 defense bill is $679.8 billion.
Tags:
F-22s ,
Raptors ,
Military ,
Robert Gates ,
John McCain ,
Saxby Chambliss ,
Barack Obama
Topics:
Defense
Add a Comment See all 49 Comments
by Snowhare July 22, 2009 4:23 AM EDT
1) Even if it is a drop in a bucket it is still a lot of money, no matter hov relatively small the sum may be. And as someone said: you have to start somewhere.
2) The plane is useless: We do not fight big nations in the future but small cells of terror or small headquarters of some operation or group. In this we need drones or transporters, not F22s.
3) Given that 2) is true, the whole project would kill many jobs. This argument coming from the same people who are against the stimulus bill because they don't like state-supported economy - well, anyone with a brain sees where that would lead in terms of hipocrisy.

So, the decision is correct.
Since the money stays in the military budget (I think) it can now be put to better use there. Spend it on improving drones, for example, or developing stealth-transporter planes to secretly smuggle larger numbers of troops into areas wehre they are needed. Whatever, just not this outdated Big-Nation-Against-Big-Nation-Warefare equipment
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey July 16, 2009 10:59 AM EDT
[The total price tag on the fiscal year 2010 defense bill is $679.8 billion. ]

this is absolutely shameful.

an annual budget that's creeping toward a billion dollars on defense? it's likely that better than half the budget is pork ... simply there because it trickles into congressional districts ... and those yahoos vote for it blindly only because of that.

actual need or value need not be present.
Reply to this comment
by tincup356 July 15, 2009 11:00 PM EDT
The REAL REASON congress votes for this stuff.....LOBBY DOLLARS. NO other reason , they ALL have crawled into bed with the defense lobbyists.Our government is completely full of greedy corrupt con artists. Stop the lie wars and stop wasting money on them ,defense means DEFENDING America,,,,NOT invading around the world.
Reply to this comment
by tautomer July 15, 2009 6:29 PM EDT
There is virtually no possibility of a future war involving the US. Whatever our potential enemy wants, Obama will graciously cede. No longer will the US engage in the nasty practice of killing the enemy. Instead we will do as in Afghanistan where we lose more guys than we kill.

Weapons are obsolete. It took Obama to realize that we need only smile and concede and war will vanish forever!!! It's hard to believe nobody ever realized that before he did.!!! Thank God for Obama.
Reply to this comment
by Questionews July 15, 2009 5:19 PM EDT
If we go to war with China and Russia over anything, we gunna get our booties kicked. What's the ole adage...Never get in a multi-front land war in Asia? sumpn like that.

by Berkeley_Skirt_Lifter July 15, 2009 2:58 PM EDT



Princess Bride:
"You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha"
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 July 15, 2009 5:14 PM EDT
by erasmus111 July 15, 2009 5:12 PM EDT
And no, I don't know how you got your name. How?



What am I saying???? Obviously you got it from lifting skirts!!
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 July 15, 2009 6:25 PM EDT
by Berkeley_Skirt_Lifter July 15, 2009 6:06 PM EDT
No silly girl...There was a serial skirt lifter in Berkeley. It's a funny story. Some folks wanted him treated like a child rapist and others thought he was harmless....made for great debate.


I googled it. I can't believe it! I have heard of everything now.

Some thought he was harmless? Well, if he was just lifting their skirts, maybe, but it sounds like he was doing a little more than that. : )
by erasmus111 July 15, 2009 6:29 PM EDT
Maybe his punishment should be having his fingers chopped off.
by erasmus111 July 15, 2009 5:12 PM EDT
by Berkeley_Skirt_Lifter July 15, 2009 4:59 PM EDT
I bet if we sat in Blondie's, suckin' down a couple of pints and scarfin' down some pizza, talking politics, religion, or whatever, you'd probably be attracted to this pervert!

You do know how I got my name, right?



My mommy always told me NEVER to discuss religion and politics. They start WARS. : ) BUT, if I had about 10 beers, maybe.

And no, I don't know how you got your name. How?
Reply to this comment
by rwsmith29456 July 15, 2009 5:11 PM EDT
I'm no expert but I understand the F-22 (as much as I admire it) is a black hole for production and maintenance costs. We aren't using this type of warplane at the moment. Let's push for the F-35 and get better equipment for the guys that are on the ground right now.
Reply to this comment
by Maxdog1234 July 15, 2009 5:09 PM EDT
Why you did not show the last one
Reply to this comment
by Maxdog1234 July 15, 2009 5:06 PM EDT
Well Hells Bells why don't we just buy some $300.00 Tiolet seats or
$90.00 Hammers-I mean the feds waste so much money now what's a little more.My old bosses wife worked at an air force base in Sacramento,Calif. They replaced all the chairs and desks in the offices after a year and dumped them in a big dumpster.P.S. they
were very old almost two years old,She asked why ?and was told if we do not spend the money we won't get as much next year-The air base is now closed-There trying to make it into a home for the homeless
but that's been going now for four or five years to no avail.
What a cluster *)(*
Reply to this comment
by tomrobla July 15, 2009 4:49 PM EDT
Just move funding from DOD to the Stimulus budget.
Reply to this comment
by au_fait July 15, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
cost of an F-22 is not a 250,000,000, the cost is coming closer to 150,000,000. There a reciept/invoice for each of the plans in the bar for each squadron here at Tyndall. As we receive a new plane you can see where the cost has come down. Yes the first were more expensive, but as they are built the cost comes down. BTW, there is not a fighter out there that can do what the 22 does and probably will not be one that can come close for many years. yes they are expensive, yes we do not need as many as originally planned, but ther is a need for more of them! We just need leaders with balls to put them into combat situations.
Reply to this comment
by darthcheney345 July 15, 2009 4:33 PM EDT
by bajajohn1 July 15, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
We have 187 F-22's.
-----------

That's far, far too many.

I would have spent half of that money on education, and given the other half to the poor.
Reply to this comment
by pete_in_az July 15, 2009 5:53 PM EDT
My god, its the first rational thing i've ever heard you say.
by straightmate July 15, 2009 4:10 PM EDT
This is a total cluster#$%&. Why can't people be employed building what the military NEEDS. This is the sort of thing that defines bureaucracy. Congress needs to suck it up.
Reply to this comment
by radicalc-2009 July 15, 2009 4:00 PM EDT
"95,000 jobs would be lost in a variety of states if F-22s stop being built"

Study catfish or build new planes and save 95,000 jobs.
Reply to this comment
by antoniof123 July 15, 2009 3:21 PM EDT
Republicans Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, whose party has been railing against Democrats for wasteful spending, have been pushing hard to fund the F-22s. Chambliss argued on the Senate floor yesterday that it is up to lawmakers ? not the military ? what gets funded.

Hypocrocy and stupidity at it best Mr. Chanbliss and Mr. Isakson.

This is the worst case of pork I have ever seen and you complian about what.

Dumber than dirt it seems.
Reply to this comment
by stevex47 July 15, 2009 3:18 PM EDT
I wonder why NO missions have been flown with the 187 we now have?

I think I'd prefer to invest in un-manned aircraft.
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 July 15, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
by mainermike July 15, 2009 1:18 PM EDT
This is AS I SEE IT, by Mainer Mike Brown.

Obama has to make spending cuts somewhere.


Yeah, that's right. And just like always, no one can agree on where that should be. Always someone b*tchin'. And it's the same thing no matter who is President. When you are in major debt, you make those cuts anywhere and everywhere you can.
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 July 15, 2009 3:31 PM EDT
They need to do MAJOR cuts in your state.
by erasmus111 July 15, 2009 4:36 PM EDT
Your state also has one too many "skirt lifters" (perverts). : )
by darthcheney345 July 15, 2009 4:45 PM EDT
Your state also has one too many "skirt lifters" (perverts). : )
----------------
Now, if he lifted her skirt and then DROWNED HER in a car, he'd be given a 50 year career as the most powerful member of the U.S. Senate.

What a difference it makes when you're a Democrat named Ted Kennedy...
by erasmus111 July 15, 2009 4:51 PM EDT
Shut up, dinky head.
by erasmus111 July 15, 2009 5:17 PM EDT
oops. I meant to post my comment here but screwed up. See below.
by igot_leishmaniasis July 15, 2009 2:42 PM EDT
The plains them selves don't need this 30 hour to one maintance, it's the plains skin that needs this TLC work. It's one of the most advance Air Weapons on earth, this plain can fly past mock-1 at a idle, and no one can pick it up, in flight. This plain is really a B-2 killer, it is the only aircraft in the world that can find and kill the B-2's or fly with it on missions. The reason this plain isn't in combat, it would be like going duck hunting with a Battle Ship, or water sking with an Air-Craft Carrier. But a First Strick on Iran, or N-Korea, then this is the only Fighter Jet in the World that could do this, over an over again! Even Russia is light years from this kind of Air Weapons of the USA.
We need at lease 500 of these Plains, we need 200 that would stay here in the USA at all times, just for our own protection, and a Super Carrier on each Coast, up an ready at all times. Their is only about 2+ billion people in this world that hates US, Why you ask? Because we are free, an they are not!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA an ALL THAT FIGHTS AN HAS GIVEN THEIR ALL!!!!
Reply to this comment
by bajajohn1 July 15, 2009 2:46 PM EDT
It is not a plain, which describes flatlands; it is a Plane, which flies.
by ibsteve2u July 15, 2009 2:48 PM EDT
"and no one can pick it up..."

Assuming that an idea like using the reflections of thousands of cell phone and/or other communications tower emissions parsed with, say, supercomputers modeled upon a supercomputer sold to predict the weather during the Beijing Olympics never occurs to anybody.
by ibsteve2u July 15, 2009 3:12 PM EDT
by bajajohn1 July 15, 2009 2:46 PM EDT "It is not a plain, which describes flatlands; it is a Plane, which flies."

Although whether or not it flies "good enough" under combat conditions - which includes all-weather flying through storms of both hail and missiles - has yet to be seen.

Good enough is a relative term, of course.

For instance, it could include good enough to accomplish a one-way mission, good enough to bring our pilots back, or just good enough to make our defense industry's managers and shareholders a lot of money.

Unfortunately for America, the Republicans tend to focus on the latter as the appropriate definition of "good enough".
by darthcheney345 July 15, 2009 4:42 PM EDT
by ibsteve2u July 15, 2009 3:12 PM EDT
--------------
Why don't you search for "F-22 pugachev cobra" on YouTube.

Then you tell me if it looks like it "flies good enough."
by pete_in_az July 15, 2009 5:50 PM EDT
My gosh. I'm no 'plain' junkie, but the f22 was never designed to take off of a carrier deck right?
by bajajohn1 July 15, 2009 2:40 PM EDT
We have a sophisticated weapons system in the F-22 that has not flown one single mission in either of the two theatres of war-Iraq and Afghanistan. Two REPUBLICAN senators are going against the defesnes department and the executive in pushing for a huge outlay of tax money for this unused weapons system. What is wrong with this picture?
Reply to this comment
See all 49 Comments

60 Minutes

The secrets of tennis legend Andre Agassi; the growing threat of cyber wars; and more.
Read More

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. House Passes Landmark Health Care Bill

    (480 recent comments)

HOTSHEET ON TWITTER