Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Congress to Flush $365 Million Down the Toilet For Soviet-Era Fighter Jets

Posted by Jon Soltz, Huffington Post at 3:00 PM on June 22, 2009.


Hey lawmakers: The military doesn't want them. Troops can't use them. So don't tie this pork to troops or veterans.
fighterjets

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Jon Soltz in your
mailbox!

 

Let me get this straight. The latest polls say three-quarters of the American people want a public option in health care, yet it's in question. But, Congress is about to throw $369 million (on a down-payment of $2 billion) for a dozen F-22 fighter jets that even the Pentagon doesn't want. Oh, and the money for it? It's coming out of funds that were set aside to clean up dangerous nuclear waste in the U.S.

Only in Washington.

For those not familiar with the F-22 and why it's a waste, let me explain. It's one of the most -- if not the most advanced air-to-air fighters in the world ... To fight the Soviet Union's next generation fighters. That's right, that's why it was developed. The fighter has limited air-to-ground capabilities, which renders it pretty much useless in the wars we're fighting right now, and might be fighting well into the future. President Obama and Secretary Gates have rightly decided to shift our procurement to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which we could actually use, because of its air-to-ground and stealth capabilities.

Nevertheless, to play it safe, we've got 187 of the obsolete F-22s on-hand or in the pipeline already, just in case the Soviet Union ever comes through with their next-generation fighters. Secretary Gates asked for only four more, to complete what the Pentagon said it could use. After that, the military doesn't want any more of them. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz have publicly withdrawn support for it saying, "The time has come to move on."

Apparently not those looking out for defense contractors, though.

And so, Congress is about to use the Defense Authorization Bill to pay for fighters we don't need from Lockheed-Martin, while taking money from cleaning up nuclear waste. Six decades of U.S. nuclear weapons research, testing, and production activities have left dozens of Department of Energy sites contaminated by radioactive and hazardous waste. The contamination threatens workers, communities, and the environment, including major water supplies.


Now, other veterans and I aren't for cutting the Pentagon budget in a way that would hurt our troops in the field, or hurt our ability to defend America now or in the future. But, our money is best spent on equipment that is so desperately needed in Iraq and Afghanistan - items like the Stryker armored vehicle, which the troops and veterans of VoteVets.org have almost unanimously raved about, for its ability to maneuver while protecting them from IEDs. That helps us a lot more than planes sitting idle somewhere.

So, a warning. To any in Congress who vote to keep this money for the F-22 in, don't try to present it as a pro-military vote. The military doesn't want it. Troops can't use it. Most veterans would say they're not for it. And none of us are for letting dangerous nuclear waste continue to seep into our land and water. So don't try to tie this pork to troops and veterans.

In fact, those who really care about the military, troops, veterans, and America will vote to strip the money for the F-22 out. We'll be watching.

Digg!

Jon Soltz, Co-Founder and Chair of VoteVets.org, is a leader of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans community and is originally from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. From May to September 2003, Soltz served as a Captain during Operation Iraqi Freedom,


Our Troops Don't Get a 'Time Out' for the Financial Crisis
So, because there's a financial crisis, Senator McCain cannot take 90 minutes to address how he will face challenges around the world.
September 24, 2008.
McCain in 2003: 'We Can Muddle Through in Afghanistan'
It's foreign policy plans like this that got us to where we are today.
July 18, 2008.
Pentagon’s Spin On GI Bill Is ‘Offensive Nonsense’
Jon Soltz of Vote Vets weighs in on the new GI Bill.
May 7, 2008.
Iraq War Vet to Limbaugh: You're the Phony
Jon Soltz: My challenge to you, Rush, is to have me on your show so you can say all of this again, right to the face of someone who served in Iraq.
September 27, 2007.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thems Dems
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jun 22, 2009 3:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember, Congress is now run by the Democrats.

Both parties are made up of cowards. Damn them all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thems Dems Posted by: aichbe
Climate change
Posted by: badkitty on Jun 22, 2009 6:18 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering that the greatest threat to our nation's survival and security is climate change, and that the wars we are currently fighting are illegal, every dime spent on "defense" is a waste and reveals how out of touch Congress is with reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Climate change Posted by: Frugalvoter
the stench in the air is blackmail...
Posted by: Suzon on Jun 23, 2009 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the best "democracy" that money can buy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The approval votes in Congress have already been purchased...
Posted by: fsuthai on Jun 23, 2009 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and the F-22s will become a non-issue in a dismally short period of time due to the barrage of governmental excesses to keep the already rich & powerful happy...and screw the rest of you spineless American citizens that are not alarmed, not taking action, not organizing to take back our government. It's ours, the Constitution gave it to us, all of us! You need to boycott and strike...won't be any jobs or money for 90% of you soon anyhow!

My House Rep., Alan Boyd (FL Dist. 2), is a Blue Dog democrat and might as well be a Republican. I don't think he has EVER voted against anything for the military/industrial complex...too many military bases in NW Florida, lots of civilian jobs. Approx. 85% of his re-election funds come from the business sector; and the maintenance of war is a big business in the land of the Redneck Riviera.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's numbers not high tech that wins dog fights
Posted by: Hiroak on Jun 23, 2009 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ask any fighter pilot if he would rather go into combat with 10 5 million dollar fighters manned by well trained compadres or one 50 million dollar technological miracle and hands down the answer is the more you bring to a dogfight the better chance you have of living through it.

It is time to upgrade the A-10 Warthog and get more of these deadly (if not pretty) air -ground workhorses in production and develop a Cheap air to air with air - ground capability (an F-16 on steroids!!) fighter and make more of them and train more pilots.

We spend too much on defense period and we need to spend our money on the things that will help our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen protect us and keep them alive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the jobs?
Posted by: ctguy on Jun 23, 2009 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though the writer may be correct about us not needing more F-22's, there's plenty of arguments about the plane's capabilities, and whether they have been utilized properly.
Having said that, most of the debate in Congress revolves around the estimated 95,000 jobs that will be affected in 44 states if the F-22 program is cut. There's a couple year lag time until the F-35 really begins ramping up -- in the meantime, thousands of skilled aerospace workers will lose their jobs, and many vendor shops will close.
The problem is we have no national industrial policy except military production. We say we need a "green" economy, but most wind turbine and solar components are manufactured elsewhere. The stimulus "job creation" money is at this point mainly in infrastructure repair and other construction work. Not much for manufacturing workers.
If we don't want more F-22's, the government should be paying for the retooling, retraining and research & development of alternative production -- especially in renewable energy -- so the money spent goes into the US economy, keeps people working, and addresses global warming.
Nobody, neither the Obama administration, nor critics of defense spending, should think that telling thousands of manufacturing workers, "Thanks a lot, and good luck," is an acceptable solution to the situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We could always sell all those F-22's
Posted by: Chloe2005 on Jun 23, 2009 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To Russia. Then we would have a reason to develop a new plane to fight Russia. We would then be creating jobs and keeping all the defense contractors raking in the money to give to our Congress and thus continuing the cycle of greed and bribery alive! The American way goes on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This kind of article frustrates the hell out of me
Posted by: JTatSFA on Jun 23, 2009 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell us who they are. At least name the more vocal proponents so we can let them know they are not invisible. If you want to influence politics you must raise the stakes and let the congress critters know that their actions have consequences called lost elections. You can scream and petition all you want but if you cannot deliver votes or money you are just background noise. And if you write an article that doesn't name names you are just wasting my time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hit Congress below the belt......
Posted by: common intelligence on Jun 24, 2009 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER" AND THE POWER OF
THE INTERNET. PLEASE tell ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!

Propose this in 2009:

START A BILL TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOCIAL SECURITY


SOCIAL SECURITY:

(This
is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of
course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of
their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special
plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit
plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it.
After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:


When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living
adjustments...

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may
expect to draw $7, 800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred
Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000..00 during the
last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two
Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more
during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA!!! ZILCH!!!

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I
pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan =0
D
come directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid)
into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our
employer), We can expect to get an average of
$1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000
monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill
Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to

Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and
Congressmen.. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of
us

Then sit back.....

And see how fast they would fix it!

If enough people push this, maybe a seed of awareness will be
planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Add them to the collection
Posted by: osd on Jun 24, 2009 6:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of useless war toys that take up space in New Mexico. The Rows upon rows,and acres of useless scrape. Actually scrape has more use. Corporate welfare at its worst, lets piss away millions more that America doesn't have, for what purpose? Could the Military Industrial Congressional Complex be anymore corrupt or stupid? I'm sure there not done yet. Keep Americans afraid, be very afraid, and broke and watch them corrupt politicians do what ever they want. Alot of corporate dollars went into there creation. The Federal Reserve doesn't have a tight enough strangle hold on the American purse strings yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]