Less military funding?


This post comes on the heels of President Obama not providing the DoD with the requested funding. I am someone that always wants MORE military funding, but of course the left is against military funding...no not all of it, just that added bit that makes us BETTER than any other military (we would not want an added advantage). Missile Defense, too advanced and worthy (historically democrats in congress vote against requested funding of missile defense). Stealth, too advanced. I think they are for funding rifle rounds and that is it.

Never was a big fan of Ed Morrissey, but he recently wrote a terrific piece that does not just point out a need for development but also a stimulus that yes... I, a conservative republican, would sign off on.
If the Obama administration wants government to provide a real economic stimulus while benefiting taxpayers, defense infrastructure would certainly help in both jobs and in actual defense. The F-22A Raptor seems to qualify on both counts. The program employs 95,000 people, has over a thousand suppliers, and its advocates estimate its impact on the economy at $12 billion.
Would not that be a bipartisan plan? National security freaks like myself, and most readers at CIR would be supportive of the Defense spending. The liberals that want to throw money at the problem to save jobs, well they get that! Bam, bipartisan... ok someone run the plan up to the Hill. And in addition this "plan" would also seem to have support from certain members of Congress based on a GAO report. TheHill.com reports on a requested study that resulted in a worrisome conclusion. At the same time, it's one of the first times anyone in Government outside the USAF has promoted increase of advanced weapons since the Cold War. I am concerned but at the same time hopeful that this information will encourage a push for further purchase of Raptors.

The Air Force may face severe aircraft and personnel shortfalls in the near future that could present significant challenges to its ability to protect domestic airspace, a government watchdog agency has found.

The little-publicized findings by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will likely stir a tug-of-war between the Air Force and a number of factions in Congress over whether the Air Force should buy cutting-edge — but expensive — fighter jets, such as the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or continue buying and modernizing older aircraft, such as F-15s or F-16s.
This is a great chance people! Let the dems spend OUR money on Stimulus, and we get what we would like our money spent on: NATIONAL DEFENSE. The task truly charged of the US Government by the United States Constitution. We can do all that and make both dems and repubs happy by saving jobs!
One option is to replace the F-16s with either F-22s or F-35s, both of which the Air Force is acquiring. However, according to the current F-22 and F-35 fielding schedules, only one of the units — Shaw Air Force Base — will receive the new aircraft soon enough, according to the GAO.
So the question remains: