Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities

Published Monday, March 29, 2004
Topeka Capital-Journal

How much do we have to pay to stop a weapons system

After 20 years of effort and an investment of some $8 billion, it finally dawned on the Pentagon that the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter was really a gold-plated turkey, so it killed the $35 billion program.

But, don't forget the fact that termination pay-offs to Boeing and Sikorsky will run about another $4 billion more, leaving a balance of $23 billion, which could be returned to the taxpaying public. Isn't that what the president wants, more money in our pockets?

But don't count on it. The Pentagon has plans to shovel most of the remaining funds into other programs, like buying 800 additional Blackhawks, among other choppers, while upgrading another 1,400 already in a U.S. fleet of some 5,772 helicopters.

One might ask that if we needed more Blackhawks and if we needed to upgrade some existing choppers, how come they weren't already line items in the current military spending bill? The obvious answer: If the Pentagon hadn't killed the Comanche, then the Army would have lived with its existing inventory of choppers.

As Congress mulls over its decision on the Pentagon's request to reallocate these funds, how about questioning the Pentagon on a couple of the other high-priced Cold War relics it wants?

For example, does the Air Force really need both the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at a program cost of $163.6 billion and the F-22 fighter at a program cost of $73.3 billion? And, how is the Navy planning to use 568 nuclear-tipped Trident II missiles at a total program cost of $42.5 billion? All of these weapons are about as useful as the Comanche--which means they are a waste of money.

And we are talking real money here for weapons unneeded for our nation's security. In fact, faced with historic federal budget deficits and a skyrocketing public debt (20 percent of it owed to foreign entities) we could well be jeopardizing our national security.

It is high time for Congress to demand a reality check from that building across the Potomac and perhaps right there on Capitol Hill.

But, more likely, Congress will fight to restore Comanche funds, as it did when the administration cut another wasteful weapons program, the V-22 Osprey.

If America is ever going to rid itself of the vast abuse of taxpayer dollars taking place at the Pentagon, then the White House and Congress will have to work together to fend off parochial interests and do the right thing for taxpayers and soldiers alike.

This is serious business. Each day the Pentagon spends over $1 billion. This means that in eight days, the Pentagon gobbles up what the entire Environmental Protection Agency spends in one year. Or in just 11 days, the Pentagon spends more than the amount America gives to poor countries annually in humanitarian aid.

Our leaders should have the nation's interests in mind--not the narrow interests that promote wasteful Pentagon spending--when they vote on whether to fund unnecessary and expensive weapons systems.

Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (USN, ret.) is a former commander of the U.S. Second Fleet and heads the Military Advisory Committee of www.TrueMajority.org, a project of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities.