Gates Kills the F-22. Will Congress Revive it?


On Monday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates finally announced his long-planned cuts to big-ticket programs, including the F-22 Raptor and the VH-71 Presidential Helicopter. (Mother Jones  previewed the cuts—and military spending opponents’ reactions—last month.) In Gates’ proposed budget, the F-22, VH-71, the Navy’s DDG-1000 Destroyer, Airborne Laser Missile Defense (a laser mounted on a Boeing 747), and the Army’s Future Combat Systems program are all targeted for modification or elimination.

In March, President Barack Obama said he recognized “the real choice between investments that are designed to keep the American people safe and those that are designed to make a defense contractor rich.” The proposals Gates revealed today are supposed to reflect that tradeoff. It’s no surprise, then, that defense contractors are rebelling against the proposed changes. The Washington Independent‘s Spencer Ackerman details the gathering storm:

In January, Lockheed Martin unveiled a website called Preserve Raptor Jobs, arguing that the F-22 fighter jet it produces for the Air Force was a jobs engine during trying economic times. A spokesman for Lockheed told TWI last month that the site was merely intended to “provide information” primarily to the jet’s “supplier base,” but lawmakers from F-22-producing states warned Gates against cutting funding for the jet — which costs approximately $143 million per plane, of which there are currently 183 — using talking points that sounded much like text on the site. Similarly, defenders of the Army’s Future Combat Systems program for tech-enabled land warfare — the target of a Government Accountability Office report this week that criticized its “staggering” cost-overruns of $300 million — have argued in recent days that the program is crucial to soldier safety against insurgent attacks, even though it has yet to be deployed in full. The Politico reported this week that Boeing has deployed 100 lobbyists to Washington to push back against potential cuts.

Lobbyists for defense contractors don’t get paid to sit on their hands, so you can bet that there’s a whole gaggle of them on Capitol Hill right now telling members of Congress and their aides how important x piece of Cold War-era weaponry is to national security and, naturally, jobs in members’ districts. That’s the kind of hard work that got the V-22 Osprey (now operational) revived four separate times by Congress after Dick Cheney—Dick Cheney!—tried unsuccessfully to kill it. You can bet that Lockheed Martin will try to ensure the F-22 enjoys a similar resurrection. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), for one, doesn’t seem to be over the moon about Gates’ proposals. Skelton, the chair of the House armed services committee, released a statement this afternoon calling the proposal “a good faith effort” but emphasizing that “the buck stops with Congress,” which will “decide whether to support these proposals.”

Military spending critics are worried that Gates’ reforms—which many
see as modest—will prove hard to push through Congress. Winslow
Wheeler, a longtime Pentagon gadfly at the Center for Defense
Information, said in a statement released Monday afternoon that he
fears that the defense secretary’s “decisions on hardware will
completely preoccupy Congress.” Wheeler warns of a “major food fight”
over ending production of the F-22 and cutting other big procurement
projects. Some cuts Gates failed to make will undoubtedly draw further
criticism. Gordon Adams, former Clinton White House official for
national security budgeting and current national security professor at
American University, said in a statement that the Pentagon’s “failing
to make major reductions in other ballistic missile defense programs,
whose contribution to U.S. security has been minimal,” was
disappointing. I’ve asked the office of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a
longtime critic of wasteful military spending and especially of missile
defense programs, to comment on Gates’ proposals. I’ll post what I hear
when I hear it.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.