Sequestration victims

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 23, 2013 5:38 p.m.

    This isn't limited to the F35, nor just to sequestration. In any case of cuts, programs for people will always get cut before any sort of procurement from a business big enough to turn up on a candidates' donation radar.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    July 23, 2013 4:15 a.m.

    Obama proposed sequestration in the same sense that Solomon proposed cutting a baby in half. Completely unbelieving that either side would allow it. Never underestimate the depths of foolishness Congress will sink to in the name of short term partisanship.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    Republicans wanted to shut down the gov't unless they got their cuts. Obama did not want the sequester, he only proposed it as a means to get Republicans to stop threatening to make the nation default. If he had his way there'd have been a debt ceiling increase with 0 mandated cuts but Republicans refused to go with that so Obama had to propose something that would satiate their bloodlust for deficit cutting. The Republicans actually wanted more cuts than the sequester had but moved to that as a compromise. After all Speaker Boehner said he got 90% of what he wanted in that sequester deal.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 22, 2013 5:25 p.m.


    March 3, 2013, Forbes Magazine reported: "None other than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief economic advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the third presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling finally wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”

    Obama proposed Sequestration. Spin it all that you want, but the fact remains that OBAMA proposed Sequestration. It was his idea. He wanted to shut down the country unless he got his way. Some people in Congress (Republicans) are educated enough to know that the Constituion does not allow the President to get his way and that the role of the President is to enact the laws passed by Congress. Congress is not Obama's "flunky".

  • stuff Provo, UT
    July 22, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    The fact is the government didn't spend less. They just withheld money from government works and diverted it elsewhere. In a very literal sense, this so-called sequestration is nothing more than an additional tax on government-employed citizens. At the same time, they continue to fund many questionable, even needless, activities and programs.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "Obama proposed Sequestration. "

    Obama and Democrats wanted a debt ceiling increase without any cuts. Republicans are the only reason we're in this mess. Sequestration is still better than going off the cliff and defaulting (or instantly slashing 30% of the budget which would be the sequester on steroids) which was the tea party plan.

  • BYUtah Fan Herriman, UT
    July 22, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    Keep in mind that the F-35 is a highly technical program. Unless you are an engineer, you are probably not qualified to understand a lot of what is going on. I am familiar with the evaluation from which these criticisms arise. The primary point of the evaluation was that the practice of training with an immature aircraft is unwise and should be halted. It is a point well taken. But, it is NOT a criticism of the aircraft itself. As an engineer for DOD, I see nothing in the list of problems that is unsolvable or unexpected. Indeed everything on this list looks like normal teething problems of a brand new, state of the art, fighter aircraft. As for the use of drones in place of manned aircraft, that day is coming. But it is not here yet. The Navy's X-47B project is precisely what you are talking about - an attack drone designed to operate from aircraft carriers. But, this is a demonstrator project - not ready for combat. The bad guys are not standing still in their anti-aircraft systems. We cannot rely on legacy aircraft to carry through to the drone stage.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 22, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    To the libs out there wanting to maintain the welfare programs, tell us why it is that the cuts only are applied to us "little people" and not the politicians pet projects?

    Why is it that AF1 wasn't grounded to save a few million?

    Why is it that Congress isn't furloughed one day per week, along with all of their staff?

    Why is it that so much of the Executive branch are not touched by it?

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    July 22, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    VST - you are absolutely right. Eisenhower called it perfectly in his departing speech - "Beware of the military industrial complex..." Today the Pentagon has military bases in every state and U.S. territory and Congress doesn't dare cut defense spending lest they lose there own jobs in the process. It really leaves us in quite a conundrum. Let's reduce federal spending but where do we start? Some will say to start with welfare, entitlements, medicaid. Others will say unnecessary weapons systems, expansive military operations (700+ bases worldwide). And some will suggest we neglect our national infrastructure. But as we see, federal spending impacts almost everybody in some way.

    Someday we might enough members of Congress with enough courage to take on that challenge. But not today.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    And here I thought you were a constitutional expert. Have you forgotten that under the Constitution, the President has the right to veto legislation that he deems improper or unwise? His duty to execute only arises after Congress has overridden his veto, or if he waives his right to veto. That's one of the important checks and balances in the Constitution, as you should know. Further, there is no Constitutional restriction on the executive proposing legislation; Congress still has to vote on it. There is nothing wrong with the president proposing legislation; all presidents have done so from the beginning, including your favorites, Reagan and the Bushes.

    Finally, if it is Reid's duty to see that the States (meaning, presumably, the Senate) have the opportunity to vote on legislation, isn't it also Boehner's duty to allow the House an opportunity to vote on legislation passed by the Senate?

  • patriot vet Cedar City, UT
    July 22, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    Mr. Gallegos, you are exactly on target. Thanks for an excellent letter.

    Congress and the Administration have the latitude to make the sequestration cuts where they deem necessary. As you stated, it makes no sense to cut veterans assistance programs while continuing military spending on the F-35.

    The F-35 currently costs $235,000,000 ($235 million) EACH! That is a total waste of money. The reason it continues is to fund Defense industry jobs. So, we're funding jobs that are a waste of money.

    I am a former Air Force pilot and flew in Vietnam. Manned fighters and aircraft carriers are enormous wastes of our limited tax dollars. The old generals need to develop 21st Century defense and leave behind cold war weaponry. Manned attack aircraft are a thing of the past.

    We would be far better off paying for veteran's benefits and assistance and putting defense funding into cyber security, defense satelites and drones. These are the defenses/weapons of the present and future.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 22, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    you are correct, congress should not be buying weapons systems the military does not want.

    LDS? lib,
    thanks for admitting BO and his cabal, along with harry reid, are gadiantons.

    sequestration is BO's idea;

    Boehner and BO had a deal worked out, until harry and chuckie pulled the rug out from under BO.

    No one to blame but BO, harry, and chuckie.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    July 22, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    meanwhile barack vacations in martha's vineyard

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 22, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    Obama proposed Sequestration. Now he has to live with it. Article 1, Section 7 requires that all revenue bills originate in the House. Revenue bills HAVE originated in the House. Harry Reid refused to let the Senate vote on those bills. The problem is not the House, it is Obama and the Senate. Obama has said that he would veto the House budget bills if they ever crossed his desk. Instead of doing his duty to execute the laws of the land, he is dictating legislation. He has no authority to legislate. The Court has no authority to legislate. Only Congress has the authority to legislate. Reid's duty is to see that the States have the opportunity to vote on legislation.

    Yes, people are being hurt by Sequestration. That's exactly what Obama wants. He wanted to disable the airports. He wants to keep people out of the White House. But, he wants to take Air Force One out for a spin several times a week. Ground Air Force One. Obama's job is in the White House. Let him stay there for the rest of his term.

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    July 22, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    USAF test pilots have noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights and said that this will get them shot down in every combat. Defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler concluded from the flight evaluation reports that the F-35A "is flawed beyond redemption. The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):
    •Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
    •Ejection seat may fail causing pilot fatality.
    •Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touch screen controls.
    •The radar performs poorly or not at all.
    •Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
    •Maintenance tools do not work.
    And for this we will spend $277B over the next 22 years and we are expected to pay more than $1 trillion to maintain the fleet – to one contractor, Lockheed Martin, while U.S. workers get sequestered. Does that make sense?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 22, 2013 12:11 a.m.

    Simply because --
    Lockheed Martin can BUY more votes than voters can vote.

    Just like taxpayers bailing out WallStrreet and Banks who don't pay taxes,
    while foreclosing on the very taxpayers themselves.

    Gadiantons 'control' Governments, they are NOT the Government.