Fortress Oahu: "Some people get paid, but who’s paying the price"

Joan Conrow wrote a feature story in the Honolulu Weekly critically examining the military’s impacts in Hawai’i. Here’s a snippet:

Fortress Oahu

by Joan Conrow | May 23, 2012

Cover

Cover image for May 23, 2012

With roots planted in the 1893 overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani and a presence that extends through the entire archipelago, the military’s influence in Hawaii is surpassed only by tourism.


The military controls some 236,000 acres throughout the state, including 25 percent of the land mass of Oahu, and thousands of square miles of surrounding airspace and sea. Yet as a branch of the federal government, the Department of Defense (DoD) operates in the Islands with little public oversight and virtual impunity, except when national environmental laws come into play.

Notwithstanding, it’s burned up native forests, dumped hazardous materials into the ocean and killed protected native species. It’s rendered land unusable with its unexploded ordinance, disrupted neighborhoods with its noise, dropped nearly every bomb known to man on the island of Kahoolawe. It’s unearthed ancient burials, launched rockets from sacred dunes, shut off public access mauka and makai. And in the course of a century, it’s transformed Waimomi, once the food basket for Oahu, into Pearl Harbor, a giant Superfund complex comprising at least 749 contaminated sites.

So why do our people, and politicians, allow the militarly to stay, aside from the fact that it is well-armed and deeply entrenched here?

Money is the answer most often given. DoD expenditures in Hawaii totaled some $6.5 billion in 2009 — about 9 percent of the state’s gross domestic product.

“Yes, some people get paid, but who’s paying the price of that?” counters Kyle Kajihiro of Hawaii Peace and Justice, a non-profit organization. “There are losers in this, and unfortunately, it’s often native people,” he adds, citing damage to ecology and cultural sites, and Hawaii’s being perceived as “am accessory to the militarization that extends from our shores.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Inouye still the 'King of Pork'

Updated at 5:26 a.m., Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Hawaii’s Inouye says he’s ‘No. 1 Earmarks Guy’

By HERBERT A. SAMPLE
Associated Press

HONOLULU – U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, normally not a politician who seeks a lot of attention outside of election years, is proclaiming himself Capitol Hill’s king of earmarks.

“It may please you or it may not please you,” he told a gathering of business leaders on the Big Island on Monday, according to West Hawaii Today. “I’m the No. 1 earmarks guy in the U.S. Congress.”

Inouye and his colleagues in the Hawaii congressional delegation have long defended targeted spending provisions as a prerogative of Congress, to which the Constitution gives the power of the purse. They also contend they can better ascertain what their districts need than executive branch officials.

During Monday’s remarks to the Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce, the 84-year-old senator described his earmarks as transparent and beneficial to the state. He cited the Army’s Pohakuloa Training Area in the middle of the Big Island, which resulted in significant upgrades to Saddle Road, once a narrow, unsafe path that connects the east and west sides of the vast island. The senator helped dedicate the newest 6.5-mile section of improved roadway on Monday.

The amount of federal money the eight-term senator has poured into the project could not be determined Tuesday. But supporters said the improvements could not have been accomplished otherwise.

“It’s a huge project for this island and we can’t wait to get it completed,” said Vivian Landrum, president of the Kona-Kohala chamber.

Federal funding for the road has not received much criticism. But other Inouye earmarks have, such as the $2 million that he and Rep. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, secured for the Imiloa Astronomy Center on the Big Island.

“Why do we need $2 million to promote astronomy in Hawaii when unemployment is going up and the stock market is tanking?” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in March.

Inouye sponsored 324 earmarks totaling more than $2 billion in the 2008 and 2009 appropriations bills, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense, two Washington, D.C., watchdog organizations.

Steve Ellis, vice president of the latter group, on Tuesday lauded Inouye for improving accountability on Senate earmarks, though more reforms are needed. But Ellis cited other comments the senator made about Hawaii projects he wants to finance before he leaves office.

Whenever Inouye departs, said Ellis, “It’s going to send a ripple effect throughout the state of Hawaii because the self-proclaimed king of earmarks is not going to be there anymore and the state is not going to have the juice to deliver anywhere near the amount of money it is getting currently.”

Some Hawaii residents object to earmarks by the state’s congressional delegation.

“As the currency that legislators use to barter favors, earmarks always come at a cost,” said Jamie Story, president of the Grassroot Institute, a free-market advocacy group in Honolulu. “They give the federal government a foot in the door on issues that should be the jurisdiction of local government.”

In contrast, “very lively applause” followed Inouye’s self-description Monday as Congress’ top earmarker, said Debbie Baker, the Kona-Kohala chamber’s chairwoman-elect.

“I suppose that if I thought an earmarked project was frivolous, I might object,” Baker added. “But from what I’ve seen, the funding that he’s brought to the state has done a tremendous amount of good and much of it in the national interest.”

Source: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090819/BREAKING01/90819014/Hawaii%E2%80%99s+Inouye+says+he+s+%E2%80%98No.+1+Earmarks+Guy%E2%80%99

"King of Pork"

May 31, 2009

In Battle to Cut Billions, a Spotlight on One Man

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON – Near the end of a two-hour hearing on a special war-spending bill this month, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, in his slow and rumbling voice, finally said the words that defense lobbyists across Washington had been hoping to hear: there was “good reason to be optimistic.”

Mr. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, was answering a fellow senator’s question about the future of Boeing’s mammoth C-17 cargo plane. But from Mr. Inouye, the taciturn new chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the comment was also the latest reminder that, as the Obama administration lifts its ax over hundreds of billions of dollars in military contracts that the Pentagon says it no longer needs, he is the industry’s last line of defense.

Mr. Inouye is best positioned to fulfill or frustrate the administration’s hopes of reining in runaway procurement costs. That makes him the object of intense courtship from industry executives, senators and even a certain Hawaiian in the White House.

“In the Senate, the buck stops with Chairman Inouye,” said David Morrison, a lobbyist for Boeing and a former aide to Mr. Inouye, the company with the most at stake in the proposed cuts.

Critics, though, say Mr. Inouye – a self-described “king of pork” responsible for nearly a billion dollars in earmarks each year – is also the most potent remaining champion of the parochialism that for decades has made major military projects hard to kill.

“There is no question a lot of this stuff is going to get put back by Congress,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. “And the question is, why? Do we need more C-17s, or are we trying to keep people employed on a weapons system that we already have enough of?” Now, Mr. Coburn said, “We’ll see what the priorities are.”

Mr. Inouye is the last of a vanishing breed of powerful old-school appropriators. His predecessor as appropriations chairman, Senator Robert C. Byrd, 91, Democrat of West Virginia, is enfeebled by age. Another former chairman, Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican whom Mr. Inouye called “brother,” lost re-election last year amid ethics charges.

And in the House, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee, is under a cloud because of federal investigations into lobbyists, contractors and other lawmakers with ties to his office.

“Inouye is the last of the old bulls,” said Steve Ellis of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks Congressional spending. “The others have been gored.”

In an interview, Mr. Inouye said he seeks only the country’s security and its soldiers’ safety as he reviews the budget presented by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. “If we agree with the secretary, we go along,” Mr. Inouye said. “And if we don’t, we act accordingly.”

But he also hinted of conflict ahead when he takes up the main defense budget. “You’ll see some interesting activity when the big bill comes up,” he chuckled.

Elected to Congress in 1959, two years before President Obama was born, Mr. Inouye is known as a war hero and civil rights icon. While other Japanese-Americans were in internment camps, he lost his arm leading an Army unit of Japanese-Americans in World War II.

Honoring that legacy is one of many pet causes to which he has doled out federal money, including in one case to a group he helps oversee. In 2000 he inserted into the annual defense bill $20 million for a project dedicated to the sacrifices of soldiers like himself at the Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles, where he was longtime chairman of the board of governors.

He capitalized on his official power to help finance the project in other ways as well. He helped draw donations from military contractors with big interests before his committee. Boeing recently pledged $100,000 a year for five years, a museum spokesman said. (Mr. Inouye, 84, whose first wife died three years ago, also married the museum’s then-president, Irene Hirano, 60, last year.)

Mr. Inouye has other close ties to lobbyists. His son, Daniel K. Inouye Jr., once the leader of a punk rock band, is a lobbyist for several entertainment and communications companies that lobby the senator intensely because he sits on the commerce committee. (Mr. Inouye’s son says he lobbies only the House.)

Mr. Inouye has rescued military contractors before, most notably when the Clinton administration tried to cut procurement. When the Pentagon balked at buying early C-17s – the plane it again wants to stop buying – Boeing hired a lobbyist close to Mr. Inouye: Henry Giugni, a former Honolulu police officer who had become Mr. Inouye’s closest aide and then, with his help, the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms.

A month later, Mr. Inouye, then chairman of the military spending panel, wrote to the defense secretary urging the acquisition of more C-17s, and production continued for 15 more years. Now, the pressure from all sides is far more intense. The president has repeatedly called the senator, aides say, to talk about priorities like passing the war-spending bill quickly – meaning without adding any big equipment programs.

“He calls me Dan,’ ” Mr. Inouye said. “I call him Mr. President.’ ”

Scores of defense industry lobbyists, meanwhile, are reminding Mr. Inouye of his past support for threatened programs, including the missile defense system, partly based in Hawaii, or the Army’s “future combat systems,” a pet project of his friend and fellow Japanese-American from Hawaii, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, now the veterans affairs secretary.

As Mr. Inouye prepared for the Senate defense budget and a House-Senate conference on the war-spending bill, some of those lobbyists had a chance to speak to him at a fund-raiser this month for his political action committee at the home of the Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta, whose firm’s clients include Boeing, Lockheed Martin and United Technologies. (All three are among Mr. Inouye’s biggest sources of campaign money.)

Dozens of senators are also beseeching Mr. Inouye to save defense jobs in their states, including 19 who have signed a letter asking him to save Boeing’s C-17.

Many lobbyists took Mr. Inouye’s cryptic “reason to be optimistic” comment as a signal that he intended to include the eight C-17s from the House’s version of the war-spending bill when it goes to conference and may add the other eight sought by Boeing in the main defense bill. Supporters of Lockheed Martin’s F-22, a plane the Pentagon has tried for years to stop buying, took heart from Mr. Inouye’s omission of $147 million requested to shut down the production line, leaving it open while the company seeks new sales either to the United States or its allies, as Taxpayers for Common Sense reported.

Mr. Inouye has kept mum about what he may seek to insert in the 2010 military spending bill. But he acknowledged feeling the pressure. “People, whenever a lot of them see me, say, ‘Congratulations, you have got a great job, chairman of the biggest committee,’ ” he said. “I don’t have the time to explain to them that I spend less time sleeping.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/politics/31inouye.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Business as usual: Democrats drive up military budget with earmarks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/AR2009030702216.html?hpid=topnews

Pentagon’s Unwanted Projects in Earmarks

Democrats Press Backyard Spending

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Ellen Nakashima

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, March 8, 2009; A01

When President Obama promised Wednesday to attack defense spending that he considers wasteful and inefficient, he opened a fight with key lawmakers from his own party.

It was Democrats who stuffed an estimated $524 million in defense earmarks that the Pentagon did not request into the 2008 appropriations bill, about $220 million more than Republicans did, according to an independent estimate. Of the 44 senators who implored Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in January to build more F-22 Raptors — a fighter conceived during the Cold War that senior Pentagon officials say is not suited to probable 21st-century conflicts — most were Democrats.

And last July, when the Navy’s top brass decided to end production of their newest class of destroyers — in response to 15 classified intelligence reports highlighting their vulnerability to a range of foreign missiles — seven Democratic senators quickly joined four Republicans to demand a reversal. They threatened to cut all funding for surface combat ships in 2009.

Within a month, Gates and the Navy reversed course and endorsed production of a third DDG-1000 destroyer, at a cost of $2.7 billion.

“Too many contractors have been allowed to get away with delay after delay in developing unproven weapon systems,” Obama said, attributing $295 billion in cost overruns to “influence peddling” and “a lack of oversight” that produces weapons meant “to make a defense contractor rich” instead of securing the nation.

He did not mention that since 2006, Democratic lawmakers have presided over a 10 percent increase in the Pentagon’s budget — it now amounts to 46 percent of the government’s total discretionary spending — and have also voted repeatedly to keep funding weapons systems that have had hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns.

Although Obama complimented one Democratic and one Republican senator who last month proposed revisions, senior Pentagon officials predict that gaining support on Capitol Hill for ending procurement abuses will be an uphill battle.

“There is equal blame to go around,” a senior defense official said Friday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of political sensitivities. “It’s bipartisan. It’s all about political expediency.”

He added that Gates, who has lately been urging both the Pentagon and Congress to set aside parochial interests in setting budget priorities, is “not naive” — he expects only to improve the process, not to perfect it. Gates is “willing to use the capital he has built up” if necessary, the official said.

But a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) defended the Democrats’ record on defense spending. “This kind of spending can play an important role in our ongoing effort to improve critical national defense programs,” Jim Manley said.

Independent experts say the obstacles to radical change in defense procurement are all familiar: Close ties between contractors and the military services help ensure that waste and inefficiency are unpunished. Lawmakers seeking home-state jobs and a steady flow of campaign contributions have every incentive to keep funding programs that Pentagon officials say they do not need, particularly in an economic downturn.

“A lot of these weapon systems that are big-ticket items now have no purpose,” said William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank. “The Taliban doesn’t have an air force. China and Russia are at least a generation behind us. So at a time when we’re talking about developing unmanned aerial vehicles and want to increase our special forces, we ought to be making a clean sweep of these systems that were built during the Cold War.”

The problem, he added, is that the defense industry, now dominated by a handful of large firms with offices or subcontractors in key congressional districts, plays the political game extremely well.

Tens of thousands of jobs directly related to the F-22, for example, are spread among 44 states, a point emphasized in a letter of support for the program signed by 194 House members on Jan. 21. The fighter was conceived in the mid-1980s, and even though Gates said last year its production should end at a fleet of 183, a bipartisan group of lawmakers appropriated $523 million as a down payment on parts to build 20 more in 2010.

“The F-22 decision is an important national security decision with ramifications for the next 30 years,” said Jeff Adams, a spokesman for Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, its manufacturer, noting that the Air Force still says it needs more planes.

Each aircraft now costs about $145 million, and senior defense officials note that the plane has not been used in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. Although the F-22 is built as an air-superiority fighter, the U.S. military has not faced a serious dogfight threat since the Vietnam War, one of the officials said. The signatories to the Jan. 16 Senate letter supporting the additional planes included Vice President Biden, then still a Democratic senator from Delaware, Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

“The thing about weapons and bases is they are backyard issues for members of Congress,” said Gordon Adams, a professor at American University who formerly served as associate director for national security and international affairs for the Office of Management and Budget. “It’s not like foreign aid. It’s about contracts in my district, contributors to my election campaign, things that directly affect my prospects of staying in office and my ability to say to my constituents, ‘I got one for you!’ That’s the heart of a weapons decision.”

Since Democrats took control of the defense appropriations process in 2006, the defense industry has shifted gears: During the 2008 election cycle, more than half of the industry’s estimated campaign donations of $25.4 million went to Democrats, marking the first time in 14 years the party had come out on top, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that monitors campaign spending.

The impact of the shift was pronounced in the two committees that control military spending in the House, where Democrats collected 63 and 66 percent, respectively, of all defense industry funds given to committee members in that cycle. The champion was defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who collected $743,275 of the industry’s money; second place was held by Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), who collected $268,799, according to the center’s tally.

Murtha added more than $100 million in earmarks to the fiscal 2008 defense bill, nearly a fifth of the total inserted by all Democrats, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. Every earmark reflects a project that the Pentagon did not seek in its budget request, and some of Murtha’s earmarks benefited clients of a lobbying firm called PMA Group, now under FBI investigation for possible violations of federal election law. PMA is run by a former Murtha aide, and some of its clients were donors to Murtha campaigns.

“We receive thousands of requests for funding each year, all of which are fully vetted and approved by the committee and the House,” said Murtha spokesman Matthew Mazonkey. “In the end, we recommend funding only those programs that have the most value and merit to the Defense Department.” Some, he added, have produced innovations that brought eventual cost savings.

Murtha also joined other Democrats — including Boxer — in adding billions of dollars to the war budget for 15 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the Pentagon did not request. “We have said we have enough” of the C-17s, the senior defense official said. “But members keep adding them to every spending bill, every opportunity they can find.” Taxpayers for Common Sense calls the persistent funding “a gift to Boeing.” Boeing spokesman Douglas J. Kennett says that the program’s cancellation would cost “over 30,000 jobs with over 600 aerospace suppliers.”

Reid is no match for Murtha, but he still managed to sponsor or co-sponsor $68 million in unrequested defense earmarks in the 2008 bill, financing the development of a “truck-deployed explosive containment vehicle,” an “integrated imagery network” for the Nevada National Guard, an Army flatbed trailer, Nevada anti-drug operations, an Air Force diesel air quality project, and a propellant agent for “slurry gel” used by the Army.

Three of Reid’s Democratic colleagues — Kennedy, Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.) — also helped add almost a billion dollars to the Pentagon budget over the past two years for continued production of an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, though the Pentagon said in 2007 that the engine is unnecessary. The plane is already $55 billion over its budgeted cost, according to the Government Accountability Office. The engine is being developed and built by General Electric and Rolls Royce in Massachusetts, Vermont, Indiana and other states; its production team says the engine will offer more flexibility for the fighter pilots if it is installed.

Kennedy also joined Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.), James Webb (Va.), Herb Kohl (Wis.) and other Democrats in demanding funding for the third, unwanted DDG-1000 Navy destroyer. “The world has changed markedly since we began the march to DDG-1000 in the early 1990s,” Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, said in January, explaining why he sought to cancel the ship in favor of building more of a smaller, cheaper and older alternative vessel.

Intelligence reports have warned that the ship will be unable to fend off missile threats, including an advanced missile being developed by China and simple ones already possessed by Hezbollah. As a result, the Navy agreed to end production of the hard-to-hide 14,000-ton vessels, capping the program at two ships instead of seven.

A Kennedy aide said of the senators’ joint letter to the Pentagon that “we’d like to think that it played a big role in changing their mind.” He confirmed that Raytheon, which makes the destroyer’s electronic components in Massachusetts, had contacted Kennedy’s office about keeping the ship in production. But, he added, “we don’t do Raytheon’s bidding.”

A Navy spokesman said Friday that the service still considers the DDG-1000 “a ship you don’t need.”

Hawai'i's biggest defense contract

Friday, January 30, 2009 | Modified: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 12:00am

Contractor has new name and Hawaii’s biggest defense project

Pacific Business News (Honolulu) – by Janis L. Magin Pacific Business News
Courtesy DCK Pacific Construction, LLC

DCK Pacific has a $176 million contract to build the first phase of the $318 million Hawaii Regional Security Operations Center near Wahiawa. The center will replace an underground facility in Kunia that was built during World War II.

A well-known construction company with an unfamiliar name tops PBN’s list of the top 25 defense contractors in Hawaii.

Dick Pacific Construction Co., which has been doing business in Hawaii since 1939, became DCK Pacific last year in a restructuring of Pittsburgh-based parent company Dick Construction Co., which is now known as dck worldwide.

In Hawaii, DCK Pacific – the DCK stands for “diversified construction knowledge” – led the pack in the list of defense contractors with almost $176 million in Hawaii contracts awarded by the U.S. Navy in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2007, for construction of administrative facilities and service buildings.

The $176 million actually was one contract, awarded to Dick affiliate Shaw-Dick Pacific LLC in April 2007, for the first phase of the Hawaii Regional Security Operations Center at Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station Pacific.

The $318 million Hawaii Regional Security Operations Center in Central Oahu is the military’s largest construction project being built in the Islands, one of the largest projects under construction in the state, and also was the largest design-build contract award for the company then known as Dick Pacific.

The facility being built at a 700-acre Navy site just outside of Wahiawa includes a 250,000-square-foot, two-story operations and data center facility, a visitors control center and a warehouse building as well as infrastructure such as roads, parking and utilities. It will replace the Kunia Regional Security Operations Center, an underground facility built during World War II.

Construction on the project, which entails approximately 500 people, started in 2007 and is expected to be finished in the fall of 2010.

DCK Pacific’s parent company, formerly known as Dick Corp., decided in 2004 to pursue more government and military work. Under its new name, it is looking to focus on high-end resorts, federal contracts and property development.

DCK Pacific’s other recent military projects in Hawaii, as Dick Pacific Construction Co., include the $80 million regional headquarters for the U.S. Pacific Command at Camp H.M. Smith., which opened in 2003, the Multiple Deployment Facility Complex at Wheeler Army Airfield, the Mission Support Training Facility and Information Systems Facility at Schofield Barracks and the C-17 Strategic Airlift Ramp and Clear Water Rinse Facility at Hickam Air Force Base.

Roger Peters, executive vice president/general manager of DCK Pacific, says the company believes military and other government projects will help everyone get through the current economic downturn.

“There’s high standards for safety and performance on military jobs, an even higher threshold that makes it tougher for a lot of other contractors to compete in that arena,” said Kyle Chock, executive director of the Pacific Resource Partnership, a joint program of the Hawaii Carpenters Union and some 220 unionized contractors, which include DCK Pacific. “Past performance is also something that they really look to.”

Number One
DCK Pacific
Defense contractors – ranked by fiscal 2007 contracts

Save the Economy by Cutting the Defense Budget

Why the Pentagon is Not a Jobs Engine

Save the Economy by Cutting the Defense Budget

http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler01272009.html

By WINSLOW T. WHEELER

As the economic news darkens in the United States, the ideas for stimulating new jobs get worse. A sure-fire way to advance deeper into recession is now being spread around: spend even more on the Department of Defense (DoD). Doing that will not generate new jobs effectively and it will perpetuate serious problems in the Pentagon. The newly inaugurated President Barack Obama would be well advised to go in precisely the opposite direction.

Harvard economist Professor Martin Feldstein has advocated in the Wall Street Journal (‘Defense Spending Would Be Great Stimulus’, 24 December 2008) the addition of $30 billion or so to the Pentagon’s budget for the purpose of generating 300,000 new jobs. It is my assertion, however, that pushing the DoD as a jobs engine is a mistake.

With its huge overhead costs, glacial payout rates and ultra-high costs of materials, I believe the Pentagon can generate jobs by spending but neither as many nor as soon as is suggested.

A classic foible is Feldstein’s recommendation to surge the economy with “additional funding [that] would allow the [US] Air Force [USAF] to increase the production of fighter planes”. The USAF has two fighter aircraft in production: the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The F-22 has reached the end of approved production (with 183 units) but the air force would love at least 60 more. However, even if Congress appropriated today the $11 billion needed for them, the work would not start until 2010: too late for the stimulus everyone agrees is needed now.

Feldstein thinks it can be otherwise. He is probably thinking of the Second World War model where production lines cranked out thousands of aircraft each month: as fast as the government could stuff money, materials and workers into the assembly line.

The problem is that there is no such assembly line for the F-22. Although they are fabricated in a large facility where aircraft production hummed in bygone eras, F-22s are today hand-built, pre-Henry Ford style. Go to Lockheed Martin’s plant; you will find no detectable movement of aircraft out the door. Instead you will see virtually stationary aircraft and workers applying parts in a manner more evocative of hand-crafting. This ‘production rate’ generates one F-22 every 18 days or so.

The current rate for the F-35, now at the start of production, is even slower, although the USAF would like to get its rate up to a whopping 10 to 15 aircraft per month.

Why do we not just speed things up?

We can’t. The specialised materials that the F-22 requires must be purchased a year or two ahead of time and, with advance contracting and all the other regulations that exist today, the Pentagon’s bureaucracy is functionally incapable of seeding production up anytime soon, if ever.

In fact, adding more F-22 production money will not increase the production rate or the total number of jobs involved. It will simply extend the current F-22 production rate of 20 aircraft per year into the future. Existing jobs will be saved but no new jobs will be created.

Note also that the $11 billion that 60 more F-22s would gobble up is more than a third of the $30 billion that Feldstein wants to give to the DoD. How he would create 300,000 new jobs with the rest of the money is a mystery. More F-22 spending would be a money surge for Lockheed Martin but not a jobs engine for the nation.
Even if one could speed up production of the other fighter, the JSF, it would be stupid to do so. The F-35 is just beginning the testing phase and it has been having some major problems, requiring design changes. That discovery process is far from over. The aircraft should be put into full production after, not before, all the needed modifications are identified.

Over-anxious to push things along much too quickly to permit a ‘fly before you buy’ strategy, the USAF has already scheduled the production of around 500 F-35s before testing is complete. Going even more quickly would make a bad acquisition plan even worse.

Even other economists are sceptical about Feldstein’s numbers. An October 2007 paper from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst found that each $1 billion spent on defence would generate 8,555 jobs, not the 10,000 calculated by Feldstein. Given the problems with the F-22 just discussed and the lack of jobs I believe it will generate, even this lower estimate sounds extremely optimistic.

More importantly, the same amount of money spent elsewhere would generate more jobs, often better ones, and it would do it faster. For example, according to the above study, $1 billion in spending for mass transit would generate 19,795 jobs (131% more than for the DoD) and in education would generate 17,687 jobs (107% more) – and the hiring could start in early 2009.

In fact, if employment is the aim, it makes more sense to cut defence spending and use the money in programmes that do it better. As for the defence budget, less money offers the opportunity for reform – just what the doctor ordered. Despite high levels of spending, the combat formations of the services are smaller than at any point since 1946. Major equipment is, on average, older, and, according to key measurables, our forces are less ready to fight.

The F-22 and F-35 programmes typify the broken system that fostered this decline. Real reform would do much more for national security than giving the Pentagon more money to spend poorly.

Winslow T. Wheeler spent 31 years working on Capitol Hill with senators from both political parties and the Government Accountability Office, specializing in national security affairs. Currently, he directs the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. He is author of The Wastrels of Defense and the editor of a new anthology: ‘America’s Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress’.

The Fall of Ted Stevens

This New York Times article explores the aftermath of the fall of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who was recently convicted of corruption charges.   Sen. Inouye is mentioned in the article.  Recently, Sen. Inouye’s name has come up in connection with the Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham scandal in several news articles and blogs.    Defense contractor Mitch Wade cooperated with prosecutors and provided tens of thousands of documents about his corrupt dealings with members of Congress.  Journalist Seth Hettena wrote in the Voice of San Diego:

A sentencing memo filed by Wade’s attorneys says he also aided the government in its investigation of “at least five other members of Congress” under investigation for “corruption similar to that of Mr. Cunningham.” According to sources with knowledge of the investigation, these five include Sen. Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii), Rep. Allan Mollahan (D-W.Va.), Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), outgoing Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.), and former Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla).

Here’s that New York Times Article about Stevens:

December 22, 2008
With Stevens’s Fall, Pipeline for Lobbyists Shuts Off
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON – Until recently, there were few better ways to start a lobbying career than by leaving the office of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska.

With 40 years of seniority on important Senate committees, Mr. Stevens, a Republican, wielded unrivaled power over industries like fishing, forestry, communications, aviation and the military, steering billions each year to pet Alaskan projects like Eskimo whaling, missile defense and even salmon-based dog treats called Yummy Chummies.

His power made his good will a valuable commodity on K Street, where many lobbying firms are located. During the past five years, just nine lobbyists and firms known primarily for their ties to Mr. Stevens reported over $60 million in lobbyist fees, not including other income for less direct “consulting.” The most recent person to leave his staff to become a lobbyist reported fees of more than $800,000 in just the last 18 months.

So when Alaskan voters narrowly rejected Mr. Stevens’s bid for re-election last month, just days after a jury convicted him of federal ethics violations, it was in some ways like the closing of the plant in a company town.

“It is sort of a miasma of ‘Wow, no Ted Stevens tomorrow?’ ” said Ronald G. Birch, his first chief of staff and the informal dean of what might be called the Stevens lobby.

Mr. Birch was the first person to open a Washington office specializing in lobbying the senator, and one of his partners is the senator’s brother-in-law, William H. Bittner, who has shared a series of profitable real estate investments with Mr. Stevens as well.

Although his law firm has a big practice in Anchorage, Mr. Birch said, “I would be Pollyannaish if I didn’t think some of our clients would say: ‘Thank you very much. We are going to go find Obama’s new best friend.’ ”

Others turned to dark humor, lashing out at the voters who cut off the main wellspring of the political pork that Alaskans – and their lobbyists – have enjoyed for so long. “They don’t understand the connection between Ted and the way of life they have come to take for granted,” read one e-mail message circulating among former Stevens staff members on K Street. “For those of us long on the dole, the coming reality will take some getting used to.”

Through a spokesman, Mr. Stevens declined to comment. He will be succeeded in January at the start of the new Congress by a Democrat, Mark Begich.

Mr. Stevens’s former aides are hardly the only Washington lobbyists to rise and fall with a single Congressional patron. Representative John D. Dingell, the powerful Michigan Democrat first elected in 1955, long sustained a coterie of lobbyists sometimes known as the Dingell Bar. They, too, are feeling the pinch at the moment from his recent loss to Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, of the gavel as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

But Mr. Stevens – Alaska’s “Uncle Ted” – is in a class by himself. For most of the last decade he was a dominant voice on both the Senate appropriations and commerce committees, which govern federal spending and business regulation. He had formed such a tight alliance with Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, a Democratic counterpart on both panels – they called each other “brother” or sometimes “co-chairman” – that their influence barely waned when one or the other party lost power.

“One of the things that made a Stevens lobbyist so valuable is that he could deliver,” said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers who studies the Senate. “When somebody who had his ear said something would happen, it usually happened. You could really trade on it. It was the coin of the realm.”

Mr. Stevens’s preference for one lobbyist over another was big news in industry trade publications, and he did not hesitate to exert his influence.

When his friend and former aide Mitch Rose was angling for a job as president of the National Association of Broadcasters three years ago – one of the loftiest perches on K Street, which had paid its previous occupant more than $1 million a year – Mr. Stevens and his staff all but threatened to shut out any other hires. “Regardless of what the N.A.B. does or doesn’t do, Senator Stevens’s go-to guy on broadcasting issues will still be Mitch Rose,” a top Stevens aide, Lisa Sutherland, told the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, warning that Mr. Rose’s rival “starts with a serious handicap, not knowing the issues and not knowing the people.”

When the group passed over Mr. Rose nonetheless, Mr. Stevens toasted his protégé to a room of communications industry lobbyists at a start-up party for his new one-man lobbying shop. Bolstered by the endorsement, Mr. Rose reaped more than $1.2 million in lobbying fees over the next nine months, according to his filings.

And what of the discussed boycott? To maintain an open line to Mr. Stevens, the association hired Ms. Sutherland, who left Mr. Stevens not long after delivering those warnings to open her own one-woman consulting and lobbying shop, Creative Government Solutions. After working for Mr. Stevens for more than 20 years, virtually her entire career, she has reported nearly $900,000 in lobbying fees over the last 18 months, including more than $200,000 in fees from the broadcasters. Other clients include Motorola, U.S. Telecom and the National Business Aviation Association, all with important interests before Mr. Stevens.

Ms. Sutherland, who declined to comment, is married to a lobbyist, Scott Sutherland. He works for the hunting and conservation group Ducks Unlimited, for which Mr. Stevens has allocated more than $3 million in federal spending since 2005 to map Alaskan wilderness. A spokesman for the organization said the project and its financing had nothing to do with the Sutherlands’ marriage.

Mr. Rose, who worked for Senator Bob Dole for four years before spending nine years with Mr. Stevens, noted that he had broadened his contacts on Capitol Hill by spending six years as a lobbyist with the Walt Disney Company immediately after leaving Mr. Stevens’s office in 2000. “When I was at Disney we dealt with a lot of people,” Mr. Rose said. “Stevens was only a part of it.”

Earl Comstock, a lobbyist and former Stevens staff member known for his close ties to the senator, represents a mixture of telecommunications and fishing companies as well as Alaskan concerns like Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, the Charter Halibut Task Force and the city of Kodiak.

Mr. Stevens’s departure “certainly isn’t helpful,” Mr. Comstock said.

“But I am not an access lobbyist; I am an issues lobbyist,” Mr. Comstock continued, saying clients hired him because of his policy expertise.

Sometimes, Mr. Comstock explained, his job was to translate clients’ arguments into the terms of most interest to the senator: the sometimes-parochial interests of Alaska. “Part of the reason why someone might hire me is to help them figure out a way to say, ‘Even though this is not directly an Alaskan issue, here is why you ought to be interested,’ ” Mr. Comstock said.

Mr. Stevens “was progressively parochial,” Mr. Rose agreed.

“If you were rolling out a new wireless technology, ‘Could it be demoed in Alaska?’ ” he said. “That was always the catechism.”

Critics have charged that Mr. Stevens assisted his aides-turned-lobbyists with federal money in more direct ways, too. He earmarked money to buy a property in Seward owned by one, to build a bridge connecting Anchorage to properties owned by two and to help the brother of a former aide-turned-lobbyist start the Arctic Paws salmon dog treat business. “We have Ted Stevens to thank for it,” the brother, Brett Gibson, told The Associated Press in an interview about his business.

Several clients represented by Stevens specialists said that they had hired their lobbyists only for their policy expertise, without regard to connections. But some acknowledged privately that they were rethinking their lobbying contracts now that Mr. Stevens is leaving the Senate.

“The word I would use is access,” said Mayor Bruce Botelho of Juneau, explaining his city’s decision to hire a former Stevens aide, John Roots, to lobby the senator on its behalf. As for whether the city would retain Mr. Roots after Mr. Stevens had gone, Mr. Botelho added, “I am not prepared to say.”

(Mr. Roots said he did not expect his business to suffer, emphasizing that he had not worked for Mr. Stevens since 1995.)

Jim Whitaker, the mayor of the borough of Fairbanks, said his municipality currently retained two lobbying firms, Mr. Birch’s firm and another called Blue Water Strategies, because of their ties to Mr. Stevens. He had observed the cluster of Stevens-related Washington lobbyists and considered it “something to take advantage of,” he said. But Mr. Whitaker is considering discontinuing those contracts. “I have thought about it,” he said. “I am in a wait-and-see mode.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/washington/22stevens.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=print

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

More of the same with Inouye as Appropriations Chair

November 22, 2008

Critics fault Inouye’s stay-the-course approach

By DENNIS CAMIRE
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, the incoming chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, doesn’t plan to make any major changes in its operations, quashing hopes of watchdog groups seeking more openness in the way tax dollars are spent.

Two groups, Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste, have long sought greater transparency in committee practices such as holding open hearings and making appropriations bills quickly available on the Internet.

Inouye said he would not make major changes in committee operations, including the handling of earmark requests and the way approved earmarks are disclosed.

“It will be the same,” he said this week.

Inouye, D-Hawai’i, said he looked at earmarks as congressional initiatives “unless you interpret the Constitution to mean that the budget is established by the president and we’re a bunch of rubber stamps.

“I’m not,” he said.

The appropriations committee decides how hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are spent annually to keep the federal government operating. One part of appropriations is earmarking, usually direct federal funding of projects in lawmakers’ home states that are popular with constituents.

The practice has come under greater scrutiny after high-profile corruption scandals.

Opponents also argue that earmarks are based on clout rather than merit, but supporters, including the Hawai’i delegation, maintain that earmarks are vital for getting federal money to states.

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said he had some hope that with Inouye becoming chairman of the full committee, he would undertake a new direction.

“But it sounds like the senator is promising more of the same rather than opening up and making the budgeting process more democratic and transparent to the public,” Ellis said.

Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said he believes changes to give the appropriations process greater openness will have to come from President-elect Barack Obama and the Senate leadership.

Obama has come out strongly for reforming the earmark process, a position at odds with Inouye’s.

In March, Obama backed legislation – ultimately unsuccessful – that would have imposed a one-year moratorium on all congressional earmarks. In a statement, Obama said he has “championed greater disclosure requirements for earmarks to ensure that the public knows which member of Congress is sponsoring the spending.

“I have come to believe the system is broken,” Obama said in the statement. “The entire earmarks process needs to be re-examined and reformed.”

During the presidential campaign, Obama favored cutting earmark spending to less than $7.8 billion, the amount spent in 1994 on earmarks. The 2008 level was $17.2 billion.

“If he (Obama) comes in and seriously pushes that proposal, then we have a chance of making more progress in terms of earmark reform and limiting spending,” Schatz said.

But Schatz said past presidents haven’t had much luck in persuading Congress to change.

“All the well-intentioned presidents on this subject run into comments and views such as those held by Senator Inouye,” he said.

Inouye and the other three members of the Hawai’i delegation have steered hundreds of millions of dollars in special project funding to the state over the years.

Inouye, who serves as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee in the current Congress, has often been singled out as one of the top lawmakers for securing special project funding.

Last year, for example, Inouye’s earmarks for Hawai’i totaled almost $230 million. He joined with other lawmakers to secure an additional $184 million in earmarks, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Source: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081122/NEWS21/811220352/1001/localnewsfront

Sen. Inouye: "Stryker brigade should not be a referendum on the Iraq war"

This was a very interesting op ed from Senator Inouye. It came after the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Federal District Court and found that the Army decision to station the Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Hawai’i without considering alternatives violated NEPA.  Inouye makes several arguments: (1) He tries to explain why the Army’s predecision to station the SBCT in Hawai’i was justified and proper; (2) He defends his own dealings with Gen. Shinseki asproper; (3) He defends the Stryker’s performance; (4) He tries to guilt trip opponents of the project for not backing a program that protects troops; (5) He evokes the spectre of bloodthirsty terrorists at our doorstep to alarm the reader; (6) He tries to guilt trip opponents for disrupting billion dollar construction projects and forcing Strykers to sit idle; (7) He goes so far to say that supporting the Strykers is downright patriotic; and the most interesting of all, (8) He tries to distance the Strykers from the war.

HonoluluAdvertiser.com

Posted on: Sunday, December 17, 2006
COMMENTARY

Don’t fence them in
By U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye

In 1999, the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, informed me that he intended to transform our Army by making it lighter and more lethal, thereby allowing it to deploy more quickly and fight longer. He requested and received Congress’ support for a new advanced vehicle, the Stryker, which would become the backbone of the redesigned infantry brigade.

Many months later, the chief called to tell me that, after looking at all the Army bases in the United States, he would recommend basing one of the Stryker brigades at Schofield Barracks, if an assessment from a full environmental impact study showed it was safe. The two-year study noted that there would be some risk; however, it concluded that the Army could sufficiently mitigate the primary environmental concerns. Plans were then formulated to begin this powerful transformation.

Not everyone agreed. A few antimilitary and environmental groups opposed Gen. Shinseki’s plan. They sued, contending that Strykers did not belong in Hawai’i. The U.S. District Court reviewed this matter in great detail and concluded in 2005 that the Stryker basing could go forward as planned. However, in October of this year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the District Court’s recommendation, not because of any pressing environmental concerns, but because Gen. Shinseki had not formally examined all other basing options before choosing Hawai’i.

As a result of this ruling, 167 Stryker vehicles are sitting idle at Schofield Barracks. Hundreds more sit in warehouses on the Mainland waiting to be shipped. Approximately 4,000 soldiers at Schofield Barracks have had to stop training but are still slated for deployment in 2007. Our country is at war. With the pace of operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our Army is stretched thin. We simply cannot afford to stand down any of our forces right now. This is particularly true of the Stryker brigades.

Today, Stryker brigades are the most effective and highly sought-after units for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? Because Strykers protect and save the lives of our soldiers. Gen. Shinseki was right once again. The Army is desperately seeking approval to train our Stryker brigade because it is scheduled to deploy next year. For the safety of our soldiers we must allow the training to resume while the Army completes the supplemental environmental study that examines other locations, as required by the court.

There have been some who question why Strykers should be in Hawai’i, instead of Washington or Alaska. First and foremost, national security demands it. Gen. Shinseki selected Hawai’i because of its strategic location. Today, Southwest Asia is the frontline on the global war on terror; tomorrow it could be Southeast Asia. Terrorists are fighting in the Philippines. They are active in Indonesia and are attempting to gain footholds in other countries in our region. In addition to terrorism, there are other threats to the region. We face an unstable, dangerous and well-armed dictator in North Korea. We also know from the past that new threats emerge that we are unable to forecast today. It is essential to our security, our economy and our way of life today and tomorrow that we are prepared to defend and protect the Asia-Pacific region.

At the same time, we are cutting back our overseas forces. In fact, we are finalizing plans to reduce the number of U.S. forces in South Korea and Japan. To remain engaged and credible, we must maintain forces on U.S. soil in the region. Basing a rapidly deployable and lethal Stryker brigade in Hawai’i will signal to those who may wish to do us harm that we are prepared to meet our security objectives in the region.

The nation has made a significant investment to base Strykers in Hawai’i. More than $63 million has been spent in Hawai’i, $230 million is on hold, and a total of $1.9 billion is planned for military construction projects in Hawai’i. It is costing the government nearly $1 million every month for the delays caused by the work stoppage. And it is costing jobs as layoffs of Hawai’i residents are beginning to occur.

Some contend that we could train the Stryker brigade elsewhere. While it is possible to relocate the Stryker brigade, that also may require lengthy environmental analyses to be conducted and the expenditure of millions of dollars. Additional delays in relocating the brigade will only increase the pressure on our overworked military. Furthermore, base and training space are limited. If we have to devote facilities and ranges outside of Hawai’i which are currently being used by other units, we will not be able to efficiently and effectively train our military forces.

In 2002, I voted against providing President Bush with the authority to attack Iraq. I continue to believe it was an error. However, I have and will continue to do everything I can to support our troops. This issue on the Stryker brigade should not be a referendum on the Iraq war.

Today, less than 1 percent of Americans are willing to make the sacrifice to wear our nation’s uniform. They deserve our support.
They deserve the best equipment and the best training we can provide to prepare them for battle. They serve to preserve our democracy. But for our democracy to continue to flourish, all Americans must do their part.

Hawai’i’s strategic location makes it critical that we base a large number of forces here to ensure our nation’s security. We do our part to serve our country by welcoming our Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and Air Force personnel into our home.

The Army must complete the supplemental environmental work as requested by the appeals court. However, as these studies are ongoing, our soldiers should not be penalized and placed in harm’s way in faraway, dangerous lands without receiving the training they need to protect themselves, and get the job done. We also should not extend their deployment and time away from their families because they are forced to receive their training and equipment in another state. They should not have to make this further sacrifice.

We have asked enough from these warriors. It’s our turn to support them and their need to adequately train in Hawai’i. It should be our duty.

Daniel K. Inouye is Hawai’i’s senior U.S. senator. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY

false