Earlier this week the Senate stripped out the funding for the F-22 fighter plane. A savings of nearly two billion dollars. It's a plane that has amazing capabilities: it's designed for air to air combat, can fly at supersonic speeds and avoid radar detection (just like my '96 Passat).
But - it's never been used once in the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I've seen some interesting arguments on both sides. The Wall Street Journal Opines that the cuts are only a drop in the bucket and America should be prepared for the next big war, noting that China is beefing up it's armed forces. And I can sort of buy that.
But I'm less convinced by the arguments from congress such as our own Rob Bishop from the first district. Primarily because I don't believe his motives are purely national defense. Congressman Bishop argues that:
“This (Bishop's) amendment will save jobs and get the Air Force more of what they want and need, but most importantly it will help provide for the defense of the country.”
The key is the first part of the sentence - JOBS. I think one of the worst things a Member of Congress can have in their district is a military base. Because, your motives for protecting the country become secondary to protecting the local economy.
I understand America needs a strong national defense. I understand that (most) equipment used for our defense needs to be manufactured on American soil. I just get a little annoyed when Congress puts their own (re-election) interests ahead of the country's.
