The F-22 and Industrial Policy
Posted in Uncategorized on 04/21/2009 07:39 pm by admin2,000 to 3,000 Connecticut jobs depend on the continuation of the F-22 fighter aircraft program.
So it’s a serious situation when the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, recommends the end of the program after four more planes. At Pratt & Whitney and their suppliers, if Gates’ recommendation were implemented, F-22 related layoffs could begin this year.
It’s no wonder that elected officials, aerospace manufacturers and other Connecticut firms, and the Machinists Union, have joined the fight to keep the program alive — at least until the next generation of war plane, the F-35, is ready for production in 2014.
Senator Chris Dodd and Representative John Larson extolled the technological virtues of the F-22 at a press conference hosted by the Machinists Union on April 9, 2009. As a weapon, it is superior to anything else in the skies. There are few countries on earth that could afford to even contemplate constructing an aircraft with matching capabilities. According to Gates, that means we have enough.
What’s most striking about this debate about whether to continue the program is what’s missing. In particular, those who want to end the program, and effectively eliminate the work being done by an estimated 75,000 to 90,000 people across this country, have no suggestions about what else these workers might make.
Obama proposed, and the Congress authorized, literally billions of dollars in spending for highways, bridges and other infrastructure repair and upgrading. That will create jobs. Undoubtedly, some displaced manufacturing workers, after a period of joblessness and the economic chaos that accompanies it, will find a way to shift to construction work. That’s good. But most displaced — or better described — discarded F-22 manufacturing workers will sink down through the economic ranks until they arrive at a low skill, low wage service job.
At Pratt & Whitney, layoffs by seniority can still mean people with 30+ years losing their jobs, since there has been little hiring and lots of layoffs over the years. Those workers will end up in their mid-50’s looking for work, and if lucky enough to find it, beginning at the bottom of the ladder in a new place after decades of service to both Pratt and the US government, that asked for and received a lot from the workers.
What’s missing from the debate and discussion about the military budget, the F-22, the stimulus package and the future direction of our economy is any mention of a national industrial policy. In effect, our current industrial policy — and the one in place since WWII — is to fund military production. Millions of US workers depend on the production of weapons for continued employment. When such programs are threatened, proponents may invoke national security, but are just as likely to focus on the need to keep jobs. That should not be the only choice.
If the government does not want more F-22’s, they should be working with the affected manufacturers on making other products needed by the country. The government should commit to pay for the retooling, retraining and product development costs, just as if they were ordering missles or mid-air refueling tankers.
Europe has done this for years, over the objections of the United States. Airbus, as a prime example, could not have become the giant they are in aerospace manufacturing, without subsidies from several governments. But as a result of that support, they employ thousands of workers — and have become the chief rival of Boeing for the title of top airframe manufacturer. With the exception of the A400 military transport, Airbus has achieved its current status producing civilian aircraft — with support that US companies would only receive for military or space projects.
The current focus by the Obama administration on renewable energy as a future engine for the US economy makes sense. Decreased dependence on foreign oil diminishes a huge source of internatonal conflict — making defense requirements potentially less onerous. But US manufacturing, and manufacturing workers, should not become casualties of the peace.
Energy and transportation are two critical areas where public policy plays a key role. US defense contractors should be pressed into service on developing and producing products to address these crucial needs. Keeping our skill base intact should be considered a national priority. Keeping people on the job, applying those skills to new and necessary products, should be a major component of our economic recovery effort.
We should continue the F-22 program. But in the long run, we will need a national industrial policy that includes government investment in non-defense production. Our future as a nation depends on it.