Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt had an op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post laying out the case for a defense stimulus. The authors point out that the Obama administration could, with the relatively small sum of $20 billion, boost several military procurement programs with the effect of "sustaining jobs not only among prime contractors but also among their suppliers." They also point out that, "increasing the size of the armed forces would have an even more direct and immediate effect on employment." The F-22, which is entering its last year of production unless the Obama administration intercedes, is responsible for some 25,000 jobs, with another 50,000 to 75,000 jobs in its supplier base. It seems obvious that any stimulus spending should seek to preserve tens of thousands of defense jobs, especially when the spending will have an additional salutary effect on the Armed Forces.
Meanwhile, Loren Thomspon writes today:
Last week, two of the best-sourced reporters on the defense beat wrote stories indicating that the Pentagon may be getting an early start on cutting weapons programs. On February 5, Jason Sherman of InsideDefense.com disclosed that defense secretary Robert Gates had chartered a small team of aides to draft a list of major systems that could be targeted for termination in the fiscal 2010 budget. On February 6, Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg Business News reported the contents of what appears to be one such list. No decisions have been made, but if even half the options on the list are implemented, tens of thousands of good-paying jobs are about to disappear in places where the economic outlook is already bleak.
Thompson offers more specifics at the link, but if these reports are true then Obama is preparing to destroy hundreds of thousands high-paying, union jobs in this country. Thompson concludes: "it doesn't make sense to buy unneeded weapons just to stimulate the economy, but all of the programs on the reported list meet critical military requirements and are strongly supported by the services that will receive them. So maybe someone at the White House ought to consider the connection between the administration's defense and economic policies."
