Fear of Lost Jobs Is Hurdle to Reining In Defense Contracts

1
526

By CHRISTOPHER DREW

In pledging last week that the “days of giving defense contractors a blank check are over,” President Obama is taking on the giant weapons contracting system that he says has “gone amok.”

Nearly everyone agrees that huge cost overruns and delays in creating new weapons have become the norm. Even so, fierce battles are starting over some of the prominent programs he would like to cancel or cut back.

Defense experts say Mr. Obama will inevitably clash with members of Congress who are concerned about protecting jobs that such programs provide.

     

“He says he’s not afraid to fight, and he’s fighting on a lot of fronts,” said Lawrence J. Korb, a former high-ranking Pentagon official, referring to the president’s plans to reshape health care, education and energy policies.

But, Mr. Korb said, history has shown that to make lasting cuts to big weapons programs, “you need a president who says to Congress, ‘Put this in there, and I’ll veto it.’ ”

Congressional and industry leaders say they recognize that defense spending is peaking, and the time has come — given the many financial strains on the federal government — to overhaul an acquisition system that has resulted in smaller, but more expensive, fleets of combat planes and ships.

There is also broad political support for the Pentagon’s plans to shift some of the more than $650 billion in defense spending from futuristic weapons programs to simpler arms that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan can use now.

But with a labor report on Friday showing that the economy has lost 4.4 million jobs since the recession began, “if you’re talking about canceling major weapons systems, that becomes hard,” said William S. Cohen, a former senator from Maine who served as defense secretary under President Bill Clinton.

“Given the economic climate we’re operating in now, any congressman or senator is going to say, ‘I’ve got to protect the jobs in my district or state,’ and that’s understandable,” Mr. Cohen said. “The difficulty now is how do you get a majority to vote against their own interests, even if you could persuade them that the changes would be best for the national defense?”

Perhaps the most controversial program in Mr. Obama’s sights is the Air Force’s advanced F-22 fighter jet, which the Bush administration tried for years to halt, saying it was a cold war relic. Mr. Korb and other analysts say that if the president is determined to fix the contracting process, canceling the F-22 would send a strong signal.

Lockheed Martin, which makes the plane and buys parts from more than 1,000 suppliers in 44 states, has mounted a lobbying campaign emphasizing the high-paying jobs it creates.

Forty-four senators and 200 representatives have written to Mr. Obama urging him to keep buying the planes, costing $143 million each, and some analysts think a compromise to buy 30 to 60 more could be reached.

Still, industry executives say that Mr. Obama and his defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, are clearly serious about making cuts and revamping a contracting process that has let the price tag of the 95 biggest programs grow nearly $300 billion beyond their original cost estimates.

Gordon Adams, a professor at American University in Washington, said parts of the $10 billion missile defense programs, which are still being tested, represent “low-hanging fruit” for Mr. Obama. His team might also cancel a radar-evading $3.3 billion destroyer that even the Navy says it can no longer afford. And the Army’s sweeping $160 billion modernization plan seems likely to be scaled back.

Mr. Gates has said that the administration would decide by April on the cuts it plans to make. Then the action will shift to Capitol Hill, where defense contractors are likely to push back, using the jobs argument.

Some studies suggest that defense spending diverts resources from more productive investments and is a costly way to create jobs. But Marion C. Blakey, chief executive of the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group in Washington, said most of the defense jobs are relatively high-paying and provide critical technical training.

“It’s a very dangerous thing to contemplate cutting back on those jobs in this economy,” Ms. Blakey said.

Lockheed Martin says 25,000 jobs depend directly on the F-22, and perhaps 70,000 more indirectly. But only a few thousand of the people working for the company or its suppliers would face immediate layoffs if the program were canceled, because production would continue for two more years under previous government orders.

Many studies, including those by the Government Accountability Office and Pentagon boards, have shown that many weapons projects start out with unrealistically low cost estimates, depend on technologies that are not ready and face constant changes in design requirements.

“The root cause is that you’ve got an ever-changing kaleidoscope of entities involved in the decisions, and nobody has the authority to just say no and be held accountable for it,” Mr. Lehman said. “That’s what has to change.”

 

ATTENTION READERS

We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.
Previous articleEx-Detainee Says UK Supplied Torture Questions
Next articleTop 10 Veterans News from Around the Country 3-9-09