This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Feb. 2, 2010 - U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country, are demonstrating that bipartisanship isn't dead when it comes to defending military projects at home.
The two -- who each hold key positions on their chamber's Armed Services Committee --were out front Tuesday with their defense of Boeing's C-17 cargo plane, which faces production extinction in the Obama administration's proposed budget for the coming fiscal year.
Joining the two is, of course, Missouri's biggest congressional defender of back-home spending, U.S. Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo. -- who even attracted a cover photo Tuesday night in Politico over his opposition to C-17 cuts.
And Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Springfield and a contender to succeed Bond, weighed in with his support of the C-17, while also condemning the Obama administration for its hefty spending.
McCaskill, by the way, got hammered last year with complaints from some labor leaders that she wasn't doing enough as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to defend Boeing's products and well-paying jobs.
Not so Tuesday. During the Senate panel's first session to discuss the proposed Department of Defense budget for the coming fiscal year, McCaskill made a point of defending Boeing's C-17 cargo plane, which would see its production line terminated in that next budget.
McCaskill noted the C-17 production image, of late, as "a model for on-time, under-budget program management."
Among other things, the senator highlighted the C- 17's record as the preferred cargo aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Aren’t there airstrips in Afghanistan that are certainly more friendly to a C-17 than a C-5?”
McCaskill was jabbing at the plane's perceived rival, Lockheed's older, larger C-5s.
Then she continued during the hearing:
“It’s my understanding we’re not using the C-5s in Haiti. Isn’t that correct? We’re using, as we always do, the reliable, easy-to-land on short runways, load ‘em up, get ‘em out, cheaper-to-fly C-17 in Haiti..."
McCaskill then, according to her staff, "went on to highlight the limitations of the C-5, as well as major problems, including cost overruns, with C-5 modernization efforts.
"The C-5, which is an older aircraft than the C-17, is the plane that makes up the majority of the U.S. strategic airlift fleet along with the C-17. In particular, the C-5 has more difficulty landing in inhospitable situations, which posed a problem in Iraq , and has experienced expansive maintenance problems making it unavailable to conduct missions on average fifty percent of the time...."
On the House side, Akin -- who generally disagrees with everything McCaskill stands for -- is on the same page when it comes to the C-17.
Akin is the ranking member of the House Armed Services, Seapower subcommittee.
While blasting the Obama administration's proposed budget "for recklessly ballooning the federal deficit,'' Akin contended Tuesday that the cuts in the C-17 funding "threatens to shut down the nation’s only large airlift line currently in production."
“The C-17 has and continues to be an integral element of our nation’s ability to project force as well as bring humanitarian aid. One need only look to our dependence on the C-17 aircraft during the recent humanitarian missions in Haiti to see how critical this capability is.”
“As ranking member of the Seapower subcommittee, I am also concerned that the budget does not address the looming shortfall of fighters for our aircraft carriers,” said Akin, referring to the other Boeing aircraft with St. Louis ties -- the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
“I remain committed to promoting the F-18 Super Hornet as a reality based solution to the fighter shortfall.”
Blunt offered similar comments Wednesday afternoon:
“These aircraft are critical in every aspect of our military operations,” Blunt said, referring to the C-17. “On anything from moving troops and vehicles into combat to delivering humanitarian supplies to parts of the world affected by disaster, men and women in uniform know they need the C-17 to do their job.”
“It doesn’t really matter how many supplies and troops we have if we can’t pick them up and move them to places they’re needed,” Blunt said.
“If the President is serious about protecting jobs and protecting the country – two things he’s talked a lot about lately – this is exactly the kind of program that needs to continue," Blunt continued. “Telling thousands of Missourians who work on this key national security program they’re going to be out of work because of the president’s misplaced budget priorities seems like a real step backward for both of those goals.”
“Here again we’re seeing the president attempting to spend a record $3.8 trillion next year – including $1.6 trillion in deficit spending – on things that just don’t make sense to the American people. Instead, we need a balanced budget that reduces the deficit, lowers taxes on American families and keeps our country safe.” Blunt concluded.
