Reader comments
Idaho lobbying Pentagon for next-generation fighter jets

Anybody hear from our own Utah Congressional delegation, Sen. Bennett or Rep. Bishop in particular? While they seem to be focused on short-term economic, re-election interests, the long-term future of the development and construction of productive, useful military aircraft may be diverted to Idaho or elsewhere while Utah is left with an outdated, unused, and eventually declining military program, losing crucial employment and federal dollars in the long run.

Non-dare call it welfare!!

This article highlights the weakness of conservatives and exposes the truth. A fact in this debate is that military contracts are conservative forms of welfare.

Take the F-22. A plane that is questionable in performance, will likely NEVER see combat but costs over $400 million per plane. We have roughly 180 of them and the Air Force wants another 180. As this debate worked its way through Congress we hear the age old cry of "jobs! If we eliminate the F-22 we lose 90,000 jobs!" First, we aren't eliminating the F-22, just not buying another 180 of them, and second the F-22 is about defense, not a job works programs.

The F-35 has avoided much scrutiny because of the F-22 but it has the same "welfare" feel to it. The F-16 is a viable plane and design for another 30 years. Similar is the F-15SE, yet we must purchase hundreds of billions worth of jobs projects.

And now let people call me names. For those who have read my posts know that I'm very conservative, just not into welfare...of any sort.