(Sen) Dodd Rallies to Union's Side to Oppose F-22 Budget Cuts

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Fox News

Facing a potentially tough election in 2010, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd rallied Thursday to the side of union members in his state whose jobs are at risk under an Obama administration budget proposal.

"I'm here today to tell you that I'll do everything I can ... to make our case to our colleagues. That is where the final defense will be for this program," Dodd told members of the Hartford chapter of the International Association of Machinists.

The group would take a big hit under Defense Secretary Robert Gates' budget proposal, which calls for halting production of the F-22 jet -- the jet's engines are made in Connecticut.

But Dodd, along with Connecticut Rep. John Larson, met with union members Thursday to assure them they'd battle Gates over the issue. Dodd has fought before to save the F-22 program, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and he said Thursday that party distinction doesn't matter to him at a time when his constituents are worried about keeping food on the table.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/09/dodd-caught-crossfire-calls-halt-f-production/

[Demeter]

1. Wrong-Way Dodd

[high density]

2. oh my

This guy's lost his compass...

[Joey Liberal]

3. Dodd is a trip nt

[msongs]

4. maybe the residents of Connecticut will tax themselves to buy 500K F-22's? nt

[tomm2thumbs]

5. all talk and bluster - he's not opposin' anything behind the scenes

only thing he's opposin' is losing his job

[Supersedeas]

6. whether we need it or not....Defense Contractors are us

[No Elephants]

32. sure, but let's hope they build something we actually need.

[droidamus2]

7. Union supporter but...

Okay I support unions all the way and what they fight for but the defense budget decisions should not be based on a 'creating or protecting jobs' approach but on the need and cost of the program proposed or to be cut. It is an unfortunate fact that if your job is tied to the Federal budget and the President and Congress decide to cut that budget you may lose your job. Just as if a private employer lost a big contract you might lose your jobs.

[JeanGrey]

11. Oh but it's ok to protect car jobs and it isn't just an

"unfortunate fact" they may lose theirs?

[high density]

17. It's OK to spend money on programs that make sense

GM and Chrysler have been given ultimatums. The Pentagon seems wise to spend money only on programs that it thinks we actually need. This is a good change from previous policy where the US taxpayers too often supported programs indefinitely because it was the politically easy thing to do. Let's have these people working on the F-22 program make something our government actually needs to buy.

[JeanGrey]

27. Some of us believe the F22 IS needed.

[No Elephants]

33. What basis do some of us have for that belief?

[droidamus2]

18. The difference is...

The union workers in the auto companies are part of our shrinking manufacturing base and it is important to help their companies stay viable not only because it effects the union jobs but all the other supplier jobs as well. Those companies are selling consumer goods not only here but overseas and decisions there should be made on creating a product that people will purchase. A similarity is that if the powers that be in the auto industry insist on making cars that nobody wants to buy or needs then people will lose their jobs. That's why the bailout for them comes with lots of strings or should. On the other hand military spending is based on 'need' (yes we do sell some of the products produced but that is not the main focus) and appropriateness for the missions supported. If it is determined due to changing international situations that a particular system is no longer right or adequate for its stated mission then that expenditure should be ended. That people, union or not, lose their jobs when this happens is unfortunate but you don't keep the program going to create an unwanted and unneeded weapons system just because it creates jobs. Another point when it comes to the auto companies if they go out of business then those jobs are permanently lost as part of the American economy. If a particular Military system is discontinued I don't think the Military is going to 'go out of business' anytime soon and I'm sure the workers will have opportunities to hook on with other military programs.

[w4rma]

24. We should quit oursourcing non-military manufacturing, then. (nt)

[droidamus2]

26. Couldn't agree with you more (nt)

[JeanGrey]

28. The F22 affects 90K people.

[KoKo]

8. Union Jobs for Failed F-22's? That's a hard call..........

Bloated Defense budget, too...for more war and killing taking away from good jobs, health care and education in the US.

Folks shouldn't have to make that kind of choice just to keep a good paying union job. Got us by the balls on this one, don't they.

[Grinchie]

9. 135 mill a pop, vs 34 Mill for the SU-30, which is a better plane.

I view the F-22 the same way I viewed the Homer, as designed by Homer Simpson when he was put in charge of designing a car.

Never mind the fact that the Avionics crashed when they flew across the International Dateline.

Don't think twice about the numerous crashes of the F-22, on landing or takeoff.

Never mind the fact that foreign sales are banned, but thats ok, the Russian SU-30 is free to be sold to anyone in the world for 25% of the cost.

Propping up the F-22 is no better than propping up Wall street.

[cboy4]

16. The SU-30 is a better plane than the F-22?

Wrong.

The Flanker is comparable to the F-15.

Certainly not the F-22.

It has none of the air superiority stealth capabilities of the 22.

What makes you say the 30 is better?

[JeanGrey]

29. You got that right. No way is it better

[IndianaGreen]

10. We don't need the F-22

What's the mission for this expensive plane?

[Revolution9]

12. personally i think the line are blurred...

with union sympathy and military contracts.

unions garauntee job security and benefits through collective bargaining.

military order contracts are in essence temporary entities.

states that rely on making weapons and contracts through temporary order agreements should expect this sort of thing to happen.

i don't see us still building other stuff from other wars we do not use and is too expensive to produce. Why should the cold war and it's out-modded stuff be any different?

the fact that we try to collectively cry tears that boeing can't keep making a pretty hangar ornament is a lost concept to me. I don't care how many jobs are involved in making this thing.

Until the taliban is flying around in air superiority aircraft that can out perform the aging f-18 i will sleep well knowing my government cut waste by killing this pointless program.

[Kolesar]

13. 80,000 jobs will be created buying more F-35s and that is a net gain for machinists

So I say "bollocks".

Why don't we finance $100 billion in wind turbines instead??

[cboy4]

14. Good! I don't want to see the F-22 program cut.

:thumbsup:

[Revolution9]

19. why?

i am clueless as to why you find the need for aircraft that was designed to fight and enemy that no longer exists(USSR)

sure i guess i creates jobs but they don't get used and it is our tax dollars paying for each worker to build them through contracts.

kill the f-22.

it is pretty but it is useless.

it is an air superiority fighter.

against and enemy with no air capabilities.

so that makes it pretty useless.

green technology and inovation are just fine at creating jobs without funding out-modded weapons whose sole purpose is air show "ooohs" and "ahhhhhhs"

time to innovate america. The military-industrial complex is not your freind.

[cboy4]

20. Umm, I happen to think our pilots deserve the very best

and safest equipment we have to offer.

And the stealth technology of the F-22 program offers that vis-a-vis the F-15 Eagles, which have all been grounded recently due to cracking issues in their frames.

Saying the F-22 is too expensive is puting a price tag on the pilots' lives in unacceptable in my opinion.

I don't mind paying my share to see that the United States has the very best, and I don't apologize for feeling this way.

[Revolution9]

22. Strawman.......

our pilots deserve the very best?

they still have the very best without this cold war weapons platform we hardly use.

the f-35 is more customizable for all branches of the military.

and it is more cost effective.

sorry we don't see eye to eye but we are not fighting an enemy that warrants the use of the f-22.

187 is quite enough.

time to move on.

you argument while admirable, is flawed.

we spend too much on "feel good" weapons systems that are just decorations for military parades.

time to cut some programs in our bloated military budget.

sorry f-22.

[Jack_DeLeon]

25. Having such aircraft make it less likely enemies will try to fight us in the air...

Russia, China, and more so the countries they sell their aircraft too are less likely to try to pick fights with us since they know our aircraft out match theirs.

However if we let our fighter capabilities degrade, others will try harder to match our capabilities, and if they perceive (rightly or wrongly) that they can match us, then that will make confrontation more likely.

People usually dont pick fights know they will lose, however they are more likely to do so if they know they atleast have some small chance of victory.

[Revolution9]

30. again.....

while this argument is meticulous crafted by cold war mentality it is wrong.
we spend more on military that all other countries combined.

beside it will take alot more than a few cut backs on fighter plane orders to make potential enemies feel anxious to attack.

this plane does not serve a "make or break" function for our military.
I wish people would stop pretending it does.

kill the f-22.

spend that money on schools,healthcare, education.

we spend so much money on military that when our men and women come home there is little for them to come home to than crumbling schools, terrible heathcare, and a kleptocratic financial system.

you want america to have an edge?

fix our problems!

stop trying to bomb away the percieved problems we have overseas.

let's "thought bomb" out troubles at home.

kill the f-22. save money. re-invest.

[Baclava]

15. 187 F-22's will be built, that should be enough for awhile

There will be nothing to match it for a decade.

The F-35 has about half the performance envelope of the F-22.

The Air Force had 127 F-22s in its active inventory as of September 2008. Under Secretary Gates' proposal, the Pentagon would buy only the 187 F-22 currently budgeted for, and increase spending on the F-35 instead.

[groundloop]

21. What people are failing to realize was that there was no 'budget cut'

The government had contracts to purchase 187 F-22's, those contracts are being honored. There was never any obligation to buy more than those 187 planes, so how can anyone reasonably claim that the F-22 program is being "cut"? This sounds like more crap out of the standard Greedy Obstructionist Party playbook - "dems are weak on defense".

Edited to add:
I live not far from the Lockheed facility, and know a handful of people that work there. I've been hearing, and have seen some tidbits in the news, that these defense contractors will be kept busy with other projects such as more upgrades on C-130's etc.

[Revolution9]

23. no doubt.

we are basically saying is "thanks for the planes, we will call you if we need more. 187 is enough for now"

the obama pentagon budget is actually a 4% increase anyways.

the GOP is shilling for boeing.

[unkachuck]

31. Dodd....

....you're making my brain hurt....

....my love of Unions is in conflict with my dislike of needless military spending....

....couldn't we retrain the Brothers and Sisters at Pratt & Whitney to do something more productive?

[Kolesar]

35. see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3824496&mesg_id=3824947

[No Elephants]

34. When politicians are worried about re-election, lobbyists suddenly become less important than

voters.


There is a lesson to be learned there, my friends. I oppose mandatory term limits. Government takes away too many of my choices as it is.

Campaign contributions and other prerequisites? Very expensive.

Keeping incumbents on their toes? Priceless.

Literally.