Published Monday, June 29, 2009

The F-22 debate: National defense verses jobs, pork

Editorial

Editor's note: Today's guest editorial is from the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.

It would be interesting, and probably entertaining, to have a few choice words from a late general and president named Dwight D. Eisenhower concerning the flap in Congress over funding of the F-22. Because this is the government leviathan Ike dubbed the "military-industrial complex" in its purest form.

Just as a refresher, the radar-dodging F-22 jet is produced by Maryland-based Lockheed and built here in Georgia -- which brings lawmakers from both states, and the defense industry lobbyists who court them, into the middle of the issue.

The dilemma is familiar, and in the era of big-money defense contracts it will never completely go away: weapons systems and other Pentagon purchases whose strategic value might be debatable, but whose importance to specific local and regional economies is not.

In the case of the F-22, the debate arises as the United States is involved in two wars, one in Iraq from which we are trying to extricate ourselves and our troops, and another in Afghanistan that many expect to escalate.

The F-22 has never been used in either conflict.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in his recommendations to President Barack Obama concerning the budget submitted to Congress, called for a sharp reduction in the purchase of F-22s to a total of 187 -- far fewer than Lockheed and its allies on Capitol Hill want Uncle Sam to buy.

The House Armed Services Committee, in a measure supported by most of the Republicans and a few Democrats, voted 31-30 to approve another $369 million for more of the jets -- a move Gates called "a big problem." His proposed $534 billion defense budget emphasizes systems targeting unconventional enemies -- i.e., terrorists -- and fewer Cold War-type holdovers, of which he believes the F-22 is an expensive example.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, scored ostensible fiscal conservatives "who are so worried about the deficit (but) apparently think the Pentagon is funded with Monopoly money that somehow doesn't count."

Given his central role in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac part of the financial meltdown, Frank might not be the most effective pitchman for fiscal discretion. But that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Behind all the rhetoric and partisanship and high-stakes lobbying, the heart of the matter is essentially simple: the national security of the United States. Advocates for the F-22, or any other Pentagon line item for that matter, need to make the case that national defense -- not jobs or pork or regional economic development -- is the single compelling concern. If they can't, they need to shut up and save Americans a whole lot of money. After all, it's not as if there's an abundance of it to throw around right now.