Nearly 95,000 Jobs Could Be Impacted By Program Cut

Defense experts are trying to size up how serious President Barack Obama is about his promise to reform defense procurement. The President pledged last week the "days of giving defense contractors a blank check are over"... but saying it is one thing, and doing it at a cost of thousands of jobs during a severe recession is another.

The New York Times notes two early indicators may be the European missile defense system -- already put in play as a bargaining chip with the Russians for more help in keeping Iran nuke-free -- and the F-22 Raptor fighter. As ANN reported, a decision from Obama on whether to continue funding on the F-22 was expected last week... but hasn't yet been made.

Former Pentagon official Lawrence J. Korb tells the paper canceling the F-22 would send a strong signal. While Lockheed Martin says the move would cost 25,000 jobs directly and as many as 70,000 more indirectly, Korb notes most of that impact would not happen for at least two years, while work already contracted is completed.

But, he adds, to effect lasting cuts in defense spending, "...you need a president who says to Congress, 'Put this in there, and I'll veto it.'"

The F-22 program has suppliers in 44 states... so while Pentagon officials would rather cut funding for the Raptor in order to procure cheaper F-35 Lightning II joint-strike fighters, congressional opposition to cuts could be daunting.

American University professor Gordon Adams calls the missle defense program "low-hanging fruit" that could yield a quick $10 billion cut. His list which also includes a $3.3 billion stealth destroyer for the Navy, that even the service admits it can't afford.

William S. Cohen, a former senator from Maine and defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, acknowledges that individual lawmakers will fight to preserve pork, and summarizes President Obama's challenge.

"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?"

FMI: www.af.mil, www.congress.gov