Military - A Victory For Sensible Defense

July 22, 2009

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Nate Carlile, and Brad Johnson

MILITARY

A Victory For Sensible Defense

With his "political capital on the line," President Obama "won a crucial victory on Tuesday when the Senate voted to strip out $1.75 billion in financing for seven more F-22 jet fighters from a military authorization bill." The "nation's premier fighter-jet program" was conceived in the waning days of the Cold War to defend against "a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet," but the jets have "yet to fly a single combat mission in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else." Limiting the F-22 to the 187 already authorized was "a key policy victory for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who has been campaigning against the plane since April" as a "niche, silver bullet solution" against a non-existent threat. As Glenn Greenwald noted, this fight is not about the overall military budget: "Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of increased defense spending. True to his word, Obama's 2010 fiscal year budget calls for $534 billion in defense spending (not including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan)." Rather, it was a battle of political will between the influence of defense contractors and the legitimate national security interests of the United States. "If the Department of Defense can't figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year," Gates argued during the F-22 debate, "then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by a few more ships and planes." Following the dramatic vote, Obama responded, "I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure."

'HUGE HUGE VICTORY': "This is a big deal," declared Slate's Fred Kaplan. "I think it is fair to say that this is a huge huge victory for Obama and Gates," military analyst Max Bergmann agreed, "and is a big step forward toward instituting a strategic shift within the Pentagon." "It's a win for Obama and Gates," Steven Benen wrote, "but just as important, it's a win for military priorities, fiscal discipline, and changing how the system operates." The political stakes were high, as "Obama stuck his neck out and threatened the first veto of his presidency" over this "indefensible defense budget boondoggle." Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb explained that a defeat on the F-22 would make it hard for Gates "to be an effective Secretary of Defense during the rest of his tenure." When the plan to cut F-22 funding was announced, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight Danielle Brian warned, "This is going to be a real test of Obama's ability to push back on the Congress." "Just last week, conventional wisdom held that the $1.75 billion authorization would easily survive a challenge on the floor." Now, "the 58-to-40 vote clearly gives the Obama administration more leeway to overhaul military spending."

THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-CONGRESSIONAL COMPLEX: In an earlier draft, President Dwight D. Eisenhower's famous "military-industrial complex" speech was going to warn the American public of the rise of the "military-industrial-congressional complex." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), one of the Senators leading the fight to end the F-22 program, returned to that theme, saying that "the F-22 amendment is a crucial vote on whether we can prevail over the Military Industrial Congressional Complex or not." Attempts to kill the F-22 program reach back to 1989, but as Korb wrote in 1999, "even when Presidents, let alone the Congress, cancel programs, they do not die." These high-cost military programs allow defense contractors to distribute jobs -- albeit at extraordinary cost to the American taxpayer and a the the expense of other noteworthy defense contracts -- across the nation. Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor the F-22, distributed the work for the jets across 44 states and 1000 subcontractors: "about two-thirds of the jobs are in California, Texas, Georgia, Washington and Connecticut." All ten senators from those states -- four Republicans, five Democrats, and Independent Joe Lieberman (CT) -- voted to preserve funding. But parochial interests, this time, found their limits. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), a longtime F-22 supporter and the home state senator of F-22 subcontractor Raytheon Corporation, decided in the end to support President Obama's agenda. But now the House of Representatives must agree. "The congressional fight over the F-22 fighter moves to the House" today, "as appropriators continue their drive to save the program over President Obama's objections."

SENSIBLE DEFENSE: "The notion that not buying 60 more F-22s imperils the national security of the United States I find completely nonsense," Gates said in June. If the House agrees, this view will have won out. Obama and Gates have proposed other cuts to outdated or unnecessary programs, but defense-contractor opposition stands in the way. The administration is attempting to end production for the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyers. Two of these $3.3-billion guided-missile ships have already been authorized, but the Navy wants to end production and build more DDG-51s, a considerably less expensive destroyer, instead. The $87 billion Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicle program, similarly "plagued by cost overruns" yet susceptible to improvised explosive devices, should also be canceled. Finally, "Gates' proposed FY10 defense budget refocuses our missile defense on programs that work while decreasing overall funding." As even the most successful "Star Wars" systems are still of questionable capability, these highly experimental and costly programs should be limited. The Center for American Progress Action Fund has launched the Sensible Defense campaign to "hold Congress accountable for putting wasteful defense spending back into the budget." Ending funding for the F-22 is just the first step in reforming military spending.

HEALTH CARE -- EXECUTIVES RECEIVE ONE-THIRD OF ALL U.S. PAY, BUT CONGRESS FEARS SURTAX: The New York Times reported yesterday that Democratic leaders, "bowing to unease among lawmakers and governors in their own party," are reconsidering the House Ways and Means Committee's proposal to pay for health care reform with a surtax on the richest one percent of Americans. Push back against the surtax proposal prompted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to suggest that only households making more than $1 million should be subject to it, instead of the graduated scale starting at $350,000 that Ways and Means proposed. But according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data, more than one-third of all pay in the U.S. now goes to executives and other highly-paid employees. That sector is receiving "nearly $2.1 trillion of the $6.4 trillion in total U.S. pay in 2007." From 2002 to 2007, earnings for American workers rose 24 percent, but the highest-paid saw a 48 percent increase. As Mother Jones' Kevin Drum noted, "in other words, the executives got a 48% increase, the rest of us got approximately nothing, and it all averaged out to 24%." Moreover, median pay raises for this year and next are set to be the lowest in decades. Increasing taxes on this small percentage of people -- who have done very well for a very long time -- would raise revenue for health reform, which remains the single biggest problem for working Americans and the country's bottom line. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said, "It certainly is okay for me to tell my friends on Wall Street, who just got a bonus of $600,000, they're going to pay more in taxes so we can lower health care costs in America."

Using a Bush administration argument, the Obama White House "has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked about visits from 18 executives, but the Secret Service replied that the documents "were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws."

Attorney General Eric Holder "has told associates he is weighing a narrow investigation, focusing only on C.I.A. interrogators and contract employees who clearly crossed the line and violated the Bush administration's guidelines and engaged in flagrantly abusive acts." Holder's limited inquiry would initially "review more than 20 abuse cases, including some involving prisoner deaths."

A report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office said "that the Pentagon had not violated a federal prohibition on propaganda by using retired military officers to promote the Bush administration's war policies in the news media." But the report did not examine whether companies received a competitive advantage -- and made it clear that "legitimate questions" remain as to whether "defense contractors...received favorable treatment in procurement decisions."

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress on Tuesday that he expects "that the jobless rate -- now 9.5% -- could rise as high as 10.1% later this year before falling to as low as 9.5% by the end of 2010 and as low as 8.4% by the end of 2011." "Still, Bernanke added that unemployment would likely remain 'well above' healthy levels through 2011."

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, said "trade tariffs in a House-passed bill to limit heat-trapping pollution have only served to irritate international negotiations and could undermine U.S. efforts to persuade developing countries to enter into a new global warming treaty." "This is a dangerous thing, and I think people in Congress must understand this," said Pachauri.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday that the U.S. would consider extending a security umbrella to states in the Persian Gulf region if Iran does not bow to international demands to rein in its nuclear program. "[I]f the U.S. extends a defense umbrella over the region...they won't be able to intimidate and dominate, as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon," Clinton said.

A new report from Amnesty International criticizes Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, stating that "thousands of Saudi suspects have been detained for years without charge or trial." The 69-page report describes Saudi Arabia's human rights record as "shocking" and "dire."

Right-wing Pastor John Hagee, who came under intense controversy during the 2008 election for his views of Catholics and gays, told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to keep building settlements. Hagee said Netanyahu should "grow and develop the settlements of Israel as you see fit."

And finally: An attempted auction of the Watergate Hotel has failed to attract any bids. The complex made infamous because it is the site of the 1972 burglary that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation did not attract any offers after bidding opened at $25 million. "The innocent hotel is part of a large condo complex that's a nice place to live, if you've got a bundle. Condoleezza Rice crashed there in between trips to global crises. Hillary Rodham Clinton dined there during a private tutor session with Rice before the inauguration."

Chris Matthews to birther congressman, "You are feeding the wacko wing of your party."

Newt Gingrich doesn't appear to have been following the national security debate over the last 8 years.

Canada's "cultural norms" are closer to South Korea than the UK?

Apparently, you can't be Surgeon General if you aren't a size 4.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) tried to kill hate crimes legislation with "poison pill" amendments.

Historically, it's not surprising that President Obama's approval rating has dropped, but reporters act like it is.

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz finds tax increases on the wealthy "onerous" -- so how "affluent" is he?

Canadians love their health care and want it to be more public.

"We are concerned that some of the bill's provisions -- most notably, the creation of a government-run health insurance plan -- would undermine this important goal and disrupt a system in which, according to a recent New York Times survey, 77 percent of Americans are satisfied with their existing health insurance coverage."
-- America's Health Insurance Plans president Karen Ignagni, 6/25/09

VERSUS

"The poll Ignagni was citing actually undercuts her position: By 72 to 20 percent, Americans favor the creation of a public plan, the June survey by the New York Times and CBS News found."
-- The Washington Post, 7/22/09

Think Progress

A Victory For Sensible Defense

Blogroll