Amongst our nation’s stagnant economy, President Obama is faced with yet another high-costing predicament. President Obama, after slamming high-flying executives traveling in cushy jets at a time of economic turmoil, will have to decide whether to proceed with creating some of the priciest aircrafts in the world. These state of the art aircrafts are said to be “equipped to deflect missile attacks and capable of waging war from the air…being able to fly farther, faster and more safely than the current decades-old craft.” However, with these top-of-the-line aircrafts comes a considerable price tag, $ 400 million per aircraft – creating a contract that has ballooned to about $ 11.2 billion. Isn’t this hypocritical for Obama to pay for these expensive aircrafts after he bashed CEOs of bailed-out companies for their private jets? Or is this a matter of national security? This also ushers in an indicator of what is more important to President Obama – our nation’s defense or our nation’s economy. Are these aircrafts completely necessary or are they merely a waste of time?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16chopper.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt
There can be valid arguments from both sides of the spectrum regarding this issue. Opponents to these new aircrafts can say that they are a waste of time, money and resources, which are all essential in our current economic situation. Proponents of creating these aircrafts stress that even though our economy is a major concern, we cannot simply put ALL of our resources into the economy. There are other things that need to be worried about as well, such as the everlasting possibility of terrorist attacks, especially on the president. Both sides of this argument can make valid points; however, these aircrafts should be made and can actually provide a slight boost to the economy through creating jobs to have these helicopters manufactured. Providing necessary jobs, thus decreasing the unemployment rate, can be accomplished through the defense industry if creating these new planes for the president is approved.
This project, called with VH-71 project, includes a quick first batch of five new helicopters with better equipment than the current fleet. Then this would be followed by 23 much more sophisticated aircrafts that would ultimately take over flying the president, the vice president and the defense secretary, among others. 23 aircrafts seems like an unnecessary amount of aircrafts, in which most of them may not even be used. It would be a lot more cost-efficient, especially during these times, to “trim down” the amount of helicopters needed to what is completely necessary among the current financial situation we are in. However, the need for these aircrafts amongst these turbulent times remains apparent. By not approving this contract, it would become apparent that president Obama’s main and sole focus is on our economy. Obama should not let other aspects of our nation, such as our defense, falter as a result of “tunnel vision” focused on our economy. These aircrafts are necessary to remain a respected nation, and can actually help out the economy by providing jobs to some of the bidding aircraft suppliers such as Sikorsky Aircraft and Lockheed Martin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It may be true that Obama is against executives getting better than first class treatment when taking to the skies, but can how the president and other important government figures fly be compared to how executives fly? I do not think that it can. The VH-71 project, which has planned to create 23 sophisticated aircraft equipped with the most advanced technology, would provide the president with a new, safer way of taking to the sky. One obvious benefit from this, even though the price of the project has increased drastically, is the increased safety of the president. Our country may have many problem areas currently, but we have to think how the country would be if we were suddenly and unexpectedly left without a president due to an attack in the sky that could be prevented by these new aircraft. The upfront cost may be a turnoff for many, however having a fleet of state of the art aircraft would be a valuable advantage for the country.
I agree that President Obama should proceed with the plan to create these new aircraft. As you state, if the president solely focuses on the economy, he is putting across the message that the economy is the only important aspect of the country at the moment. This may give others the idea to take advantage of, as you put it, the president's "tunnel vision," attacking aspects of the country that are not getting as much attention, such as defense. By going ahead and creating these aircrafts, Obama is signaling that defense is still a concern of the United States and that just because there are other problem areas in the country, it does not mean that efforts are not being put forth to protect the country.
I also believe that, despite the $11.2 billion needed to create these aircrafts, this plan could give the economy a slight boost. Creating a fleet of 23 technologically advanced aircraft would require a lot of manpower. Therefore, this plan has the potential to pull men out of unemployment and get them working again. The cost may seem hefty, but the potential safety benefits to the president, the message that defense is still important, and the potential to provide jobs make the plan worth proceeding with.
The economic stimulus package was worth roughly $800 billion. Unfortunately $11 Billion is a number that the government now spends without batting an eyelash. Kristy makes a good point in stating that this could also help improve the economy, as long as Sikorsky is given the contract for these new aircraft. Lockheed Martin, although it has many workers in America, based in France. This problem was brought up recently when the government gave an enormous tanker contract to Lockheed over Boeing. This sparked a similar debate on whose economy would really prosper from the contract. Also, Lockheed does not have very much expiereince in building helicopters.
An interesting point that was never brought up was that these new helicopters could possibly also be used in combat, which could save lives. The Air Force may someday become extinct in the near future due to the fact that remote controlled planes have worked remarkably well in test runs. The United States can now send missiles to a certain location with an accuracy of just inches. These are two reasons why top military leaders believe that Air Force will become extinct in the near future. This will save countless lives and is worth a very large sum of money. The security of the president is far different than the security of a business CEO. The CEO’s fly in private jets for minor convinces and comfort for themselves. The president is very busy and cannot afford to waste time in travel. Also he needs to have a very secure method of travel, since he is arguably the most important figure in America. His saftey is definately worth $11 Billion. Another important fact is that he can wage war while in these copters. This could end up being very important too as it reduces his time to react on a national emergency rather than having to land the plane.
There are two problems with the comparisons being made concerning this issue.
First, you can’t compare this to the controversy over the leaders of the auto industry flying their favorite jets into Washington asking for money. Obama is the president of our nation, not a CEO. The president of our nation has different duties and obligations than a CEO. A CEO is an individual who rose to the top of his or her industry and is now reaping the benefits. The president is the leader of our country. A CEO has self interest. The president does what is best for the nation. You can’t say that how a CEO chooses to spend their money has the same impacts of how the president chooses to spend the nation’s money. In short, the difference between a CEO and the president is the difference between an individual and the nation.
Second, it is inaccurate to label this the nation’s economy v. defense. In fact, labeling it a matter of national defense would lead the general public to think it serving a purpose of fighting terrorism, that’s what national defense means to most people today, accurate or not. The planes are going to protect the president, not the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is presidential defense not national defense. The president’s safety is very important but don’t make this a grander thing than it is by saying that the planes protect the country as a whole.
In response to Emily’s second statement, this article actually incorporates a matter of our nation’s defense. This defense contract by Obama is indeed a matter of national defense and should be labeled as such. In the actually article, author Peter Barker states, “The choice confronting Mr. Obama encapsulates the tension between two imperatives of his nascent presidency, the need to meet the continuing threats of an age of terrorism and the demand for austerity in a period of economic hardship.” The public should know that this is in fact a matter of national defense to further combat terrorism. It is actually an issue of presidential defense and thus encompasses our national defense. In agreement with what Morgan said; these copters have the capability to wage war and send missiles to locations with pinpoint accuracy. The public should know that these copters actually have the ability to combat terrorism and should be incorporated as part of our nation’s defense because if necessary, these copters can be used to wage war.
One of the core purposes of this article is to highlight two important issues that surround our nation – the economy and maintaining our defense. It is important to keep the United States a respected nation and this contract bolsters our nation’s defense. This can also boost our nation’s economy, if even slightly, by providing jobs in the defense industry – a crucial component of fixing our nation’s economy. In accordance with what Kristy said, Barack Obama cannot simply have “tunnel vision” and solely focus on our nation’s economy, letting other aspects falter. This “defense contract” is clearly a matter of aiding our national defense, along with our presidential defense. It is very sad, as Morgan pointed out, “$ 11 billion is a number that the government now spends without batting an eyelash.”
I think the culmination of all of our opinions is that this contract should occur as it is an imperative part of our nation’s defense. In addition, the contract needs to be given to Sikorsky because it is an American manufacturer and can provide jobs for Americans, hopefully providing a needed boost to our economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/us/politics/24chopper.html?ref=todayspaper
That is a link to a new article that says that Obama is reconsidering the decision to buy these aircraft- a good idea.
Post a Comment