CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Veterans support Romney over Obama by 24%

On Memorial Day, Gallup reports that U.S. veterans support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama for president by 24 percent -- 58 percent to 34 percent.

This finding is likely to doom Obama's efforts to gain support among military voters. According to NPR's Greg Allen, the Obama campaign hopes to capitalize on a generational change in the military:

"Four years ago, although he lost the veteran vote overall, President Obama won among vets under age 60."

The Obama campaign's focus on veterans and active military includes a new ad, launched last week, aimed at veterans and military families, as well as support for increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, a revamped GI Bill and a job training program for returning vets.

Obama's scheme to gain the support of military voters isn't going to work.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said Obama has failed to keep faith with veterans:

"He is quadrupling health care premiums for military retirees, has quadrupled the number of veterans who have to wait months on end to receive their benefits, and created a jobs environment that has put a staggering 20.2 percent of our young returning veterans out of work."

In addition, the New York Times reports that 870,000 veterans are awaiting response to claims submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a waiting list that has doubled under President Obama. According to the Associated Press, almost half -- 45 percent of the 1.6 million veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seek disability compensation.

Democrats lost the veterans vote by big margins in the last two presidential elections. In 2008, Obama lost among veterans to  McCain, 55 percent to 45 percent. In 2004,  President George W. Bush out-polled Kerry among vets 57 percent to 41 percent.

Based on Gallup's polling President Obama will lose the veterans vote by big margins as well:

"Age makes little substantive difference in the vote preferences of male veterans. Those younger than 50 are roughly as likely to support Romney as are those 60 and older. Male veterans aged 50 to 59 are slightly less skewed toward Romney, but still support him by a 15-point margin."

Peter Feaver, a professor of political science at Duke University, is also skeptical that the voting patterns of veterans are changing that much. But Professor Feaver is concerned that Obama's active campaign for the military vote risks politicizing America's armed forces:

"That is a special institutional role that historically we've tried to preserve by keeping the military as a nonpolitical institution. Yes, they may vote as private citizens. But ... it's not in their interest and it's not in the interest of the U.S. — national security more generally — for them to be viewed as an interest group."

So why would Obama make the effort? Perhaps because the critical states of Virginia, North Carolina and Florida have a lot of veterans and Obama desperately wants to carry those states.

Go find a soldiers grave

As we celebrate Memorial Day this weekend, I ask you to consider the suggestion of Ralph Kinney Bennett, who in 2006, posted a phenomenal article at TCS Daily about how to make Memorial Day truly memorable.

Photo by William D. Moss, courtesy of the Defense Department.

Go and find a soldier's grave.

It shouldn't be too hard. If you're not near a military cemetery, just about any cemetery will do.

Look for the little American flags fluttering by the stones or the little bronze markers placed by the veterans' organizations.

Or walk the rows and look for those stones that impart terse histories of short lives -- "Killed in Action on the Island of Iwo Jima," or "KIA Republic of Viet Nam," or "Iraq 2003."

I know, I know. You do plan to watch that short parade, and the ceremony at the flagpole. But then relatives are going to be over for that big cookout. There's baseball and auto racing on TV, not to mention the "Memorial Day Mattress Event" or the "Memorial Day SUV Salesathon."

Look, just take an hour away from all that. An hour. Go out early in the morning if you have to.

Go and find a soldier's grave.

Put some flowers there. Or just pause and say a prayer. Nothing elaborate. "Thanks" will do.

Or just stop and think about what it means; what it really means to give your life, in its prime, for your country. Look at that name there on the stone. Think what might have been... and what was.

Some of these men and women were in uniform by choice. Some because they had no choice. Some were heroes. Some were not.

But they were there where all hell was breaking loose. They probably had no idea they were giving "the last full measure of devotion." They just had some instant, desperate job to do. In a cockpit or a turret or a hole in the ground.

Did they grasp the "policy implications" of their presence on the high seas, in the air or on some foreign soil? Did they have time for a curse or a prayer when they saw the muzzle flashes or heard that rushing sound, or when the bomb sent the Humvee into the air?

Go and find a soldier's grave.

You can have that hamburger and beer later, and maybe relax in the hammock and not give a thought to that one whose life span is now an incised line in stone -- that one who represented you, like no Congressman could.

Go and find a soldier's grave.

Remember what duty costs.

Then just bow your head and, as Gen. George S. Patton said, do not mourn that such men died, but thank God that such men lived.

Remember Memorial Day honors the men and women who died while serving in the American military. How will you make this Memorial Day memorable?

Go find a soldier's grave

As we celebrate Memorial Day, I ask you to consider the suggestion of Ralph Kinney Bennett, who in 2006, posted a phenomenal article at TCS Daily about how to make Memorial Day truly memorable. Make this Memorial Day really memorable.

Photo by William D. Moss, courtesy of the Defense Department.

Go and find a soldier's grave.

It shouldn't be too hard. If you're not near a military cemetery, just about any cemetery will do.

Look for the little American flags fluttering by the stones or the little bronze markers placed by the veterans' organizations.

Or walk the rows and look for those stones that impart terse histories of short lives -- "Killed in Action on the Island of Iwo Jima," or "KIA Republic of Viet Nam," or "Iraq 2003."

I know, I know. You do plan to watch that short parade, and the ceremony at the flagpole. But then relatives are going to be over for that big cookout. There's baseball and auto racing on TV, not to mention the "Memorial Day Mattress Event" or the "Memorial Day SUV Salesathon."

Look, just take an hour away from all that. An hour. Go out early in the morning if you have to.

Go and find a soldier's grave.

Put some flowers there. Or just pause and say a prayer. Nothing elaborate. "Thanks" will do.

Or just stop and think about what it means; what it really means to give your life, in its prime, for your country. Look at that name there on the stone. Think what might have been... and what was.

Some of these men and women were in uniform by choice. Some because they had no choice. Some were heroes. Some were not.

But they were there where all hell was breaking loose. They probably had no idea they were giving "the last full measure of devotion." They just had some instant, desperate job to do. In a cockpit or a turret or a hole in the ground.

Did they grasp the "policy implications" of their presence on the high seas, in the air or on some foreign soil? Did they have time for a curse or a prayer when they saw the muzzle flashes or heard that rushing sound, or when the bomb sent the Humvee into the air?

Go and find a soldier's grave.

You can have that hamburger and beer later, and maybe relax in the hammock and not give a thought to that one whose life span is now an incised line in stone -- that one who represented you, like no Congressman could.

Go and find a soldier's grave.

Remember what duty costs.

Then just bow your head and, as Gen. George S. Patton said, do not mourn that such men died, but thank God that such men lived.

How do you plan on celebrating Memorial Day?

Northrop quit tanker competition because it offered a bad deal, not because of politics

The Politico reports Northrop Grumman’s decision not to bid on the contract for the Air Force’s new refueling tanker as a partisan exercise. “[A] crippling error for Northrop may well have been its decision to bank too long and too heavily on Republicans maintaining control,” writes Jen DiMascio.
 
Politico’s editors may find partisan battles enticing, but the truth of this latest development lies more in the peculiarities of the deal Northrop cut with its European partner EADS/Airbus and less with which party controls key committees in Washington.
 
Northrop had been hinting for months before last week’s announcement that it might not bid on the tanker deal. One of the key reasons Northrop mentioned was that they felt the specifications for the tanker in the RFP were biased in favor of Boeing. Northrop was planning to offer an Airbus plane that was simply too big and ill equipped for what the Air Force needs. Northrop’s French partner actually began a campaign to criticize the U.S. Military for those specs -- something reminiscent (and not in a good way) of the long history of French criticism of U.S. defense policies.

What’s more, the Northrop/Airbus partnership was beginning to unravel under the weight of a preliminary finding by the World Trade Organization that the Airbus plane offer had benefited from illegal EU subsidies, something that would in all likelihood have disqualified the plane from the bidding process when the finding is made permanent in a coming final WTO report.

Is the battle between Boeing and EADS over?  It’s unclear. A shadowy group called Build Them Both –- a group that does not disclose its funding –- is urging President Obama to step in and give each company a piece of the deal. This is an even worse idea for the taxpayers but apparently a viable option for the time being.

Obama Administration defense cuts

Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed the Obama Administration's restructuring of the Pentagon's top weapons priorities.

There was a lot of information thrown out in the Gates press briefing, but the biggest talking points are likely to be the cuts:

• Stop the growth of Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) at 45 versus 48

• Retire 250 of the oldest Air Force tactical fighter aircraft in FY10.

• End production of the F-22 fighter at 187.

• Not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology.

• Reduce the Navy's carrier force to 10 carriers after 2040.

• Delay the CG-X next generation cruiser program.

• Delay amphibious ship and sea-basing programs.

• End the DDG-1000 destroyer program with the third ship.

• "Complete" production of the C-17 airlifter program this fiscal year with the 205 already in the force and currently in production.

• Terminate the VH-71 presidential helicopter program.

• Terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X (CSAR-X) helicopter program.

• Terminate the $26 billion Transformational Satellite (TSAT) program.

• Cancel the planned increase the number of current ground-based interceptors in Alaska.

• Cancel the second airborne laser (ABL) prototype aircraft.

• Terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) program.

• Cancel  the vehicle component of the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.

• Reduce the number of support service contractors from our current 39% to 26% and replace them with as many as 30,000 full-time government employees.

You can read Secretary Gates' Budget Press Briefing below.

Click full screen to make it easier to read.

Gates Budget Press Briefing _Arlington - Free Legal Forms

Jon Stewart on Obama plan for veterans to pay Insurance: ‘that can’t be right’

President Obama's Veterans Affairs Secretary, Eric Shinseki, confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Wednesday night, the White House announced the Obama administration is dropping the idea.

Jon Stewart makes this Obamaination sound as half-baked as it was:

"I guess what the government is saying is that if you still need a little bit of rehab from when you got your leg blown off in Iraq, the government will cover you...unless your wife has a little COBRA left over from her previous substitute teaching gig, in that case, you're going to have to go with her and the deductible and the whole thing."

You can watch Stewart's "that can’t be right" take in the following video:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
That Can't Be Right - Veterans' Health Insurance
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Important Things w/ Demetri Martin Political Humor

Senators urge Obama to buy more F-22s

A bipartisan group of 44 senators -- 25 Democrats and 19 Republicans -- sent President-elect Obama a letter urging Obama to allow the Air Force to continue buying F-22 Raptor fighter jets:

January 16, 2009

The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President-Elect of the United States
The President's Transition Team
Washington, DC 20270

Dear President-elect Obama:

The fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act requires your certification on continued F-22 production by March 1, 2009. We urge your certification of continued production of the F-22 Raptor. The F-22 Raptor is the nation’s most capable fighter and the world’s only operational fifth generation fighter aircraft in full-rate production. The F-22 is a model production line and, since full-rate production began, the unit flyaway cost has decreased 35 percent.

The F-22 is optimized to achieve the air dominance necessary to protect our joint fighting forces in any future conflict. However, a fleet of 183 aircraft, the current program of record, is insufficient to meet potential threats. After accounting for test, training, and maintenance aircraft, only about 100 F-22s would be immediately available for combat at any given time. Even those who don’t support continued production of the F-22 agree that to sustain the currently planned level of combat-coded aircraft over the life of the program will require an additional lot of aircraft. In fact, 30+ air campaign studies completed over the last 15 years have validated a requirement for far more than 183 F-22 Raptors to replace the original force of 800 F-15 A-D Eagles. Some have suggested filling the remaining F-22 requirement with other aircraft, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. However, the F-35 is designed for multi-role strike missions and not optimized for the air dominance missions of the F-22.

Further, we must not overlook the fact that our potential adversaries are increasing their air combat capabilities both in terms of technology and numbers of aircraft. Several have announced that they are developing stealthy, twin-engine, high-altitude, fifth generation fighters that will reach production within the next five to ten years. Additionally, sophisticated and highly lethal air defense systems such as the SA-20, and S-300/400 are proliferating worldwide resulting in the possible requirement to achieve air dominance in multiple theaters simultaneously.

The F-22 program annually provides over $12 billion of economic activity to the national economy, it fulfills a validated Air Force requirement, and it helps to sustain our strong national defense industrial base. If this certification is not provided, layoffs will begin as this critical supplier base shuts down, and it will quickly become expensive or perhaps impossible to reconstitute in the event the Department of Defense chooses to procure additional F-22’s at a later date. Furthermore, certifying continued production by March 2009 will enable production to continue while the Department undertakes a more in-depth analysis of the F-22 requirement in the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

Over 25,000 Americans work for the 1,000+ suppliers in 44 states that manufacture the F-22. Moreover, it is estimated that another 70,000 additional Americans indirectly owe their jobs to this program. As we face one of the most trying economic times in recent history it is critical to preserve existing high paying, specialized jobs that are critical to our nation’s defense.

With these things in mind, we urge you to expeditiously certify that continued production is in the economic and national interest of the United States of America.

The 2009 defense authorization bill requires Obama to decide by March 1 whether to continue the production of the F-22.

Defense spending would provide a better stimulus than the $825 billion boondoggle Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress plans. After seven years of war the nation's military is in need of upgrade and repair. A temporary rise in defense spending on supplies, equipment and manpower could be a significant part of the stimulus the President-elect is seeking.

Defense spending would provide a better stimulus

President-elect Barack Obama engaged in rare, pre-inaugural lobbying on Capitol Hill yesterday, attempting to build support for an $800 billion economic bailout.

Obama spent his first full day in Washington as president-elect huddling separately one-on-one with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid, and meeting with a group of Republican and Democratic lawmakers. By afternoon, shortly before meeting with his economic team, Obama warned that any delays in passing a stimulus bill would further damage a badly ailing economy that is getting worse by the day.

"The economy is very sick," said Obama, who said he hoped to sign a bill shortly after his Jan. 20 inauguration. "We have to act and act now to break the momentum of this recession."

Obama has that his goal of his bailout is to "create or save" jobs. First it was 2.5 Million Jobs. Now it is 3 million jobs. Only 2.4 million of Obama's jobs will be in the private sector, requiring the creation of 600,000 government jobs to meet Obama's goal. Spending $800 billion on Obama's bailout means each job will cost the taxpayers $266,667.

There is a better way for Obama to get a bigger bang for our buck. After seven years of war the nation's military is in need of upgrade and repair. A temporary rise in defense spending on supplies, equipment and manpower could be a significant part of the stimulus the President-elect is seeking:

The increase in government spending needs to be a short-term surge with greater outlays in 2009 and 2010 but then tailing off sharply in 2011 when the economy should be almost back to its prerecession level of activity. Buying military supplies and equipment, including a variety of off-the-shelf dual use items, can easily fit this surge pattern.

One example of how a defense related stimulus would be much more efficient is the F-22A Raptor. Right away Obama could ensure America keeps 95,000 jobs by certifying  that “the procurement of F-22A fighter aircraft is in the national interest of the United States of America." Those jobs, 25,00 direct jobs and 75,000 indirect jobs would be spread out over 1,000 suppliers in 44 states. Production of the F-22A will provide a $12 billion economic impact.

Military suppliers have substantial unused capacity which could quickly be put to use to produce additional supplies and equipment and jobs, creating demand and jobs here at home.

The Air Force can increase the production of fighter planes and transport aircraft without any delays. The Army can accelerate its combat modernization program. The Navy could build additional ships to deal with its increased responsibilities in protecting coastal shipping and in countering terrorism.

Military Veterans Favor McCain

A new Rasmussen poll finds voters who have served in the U.S. military favor McCain over Obama, 56% to 37%.

Another Rasmussen survey found 63% of Americans do not believe Obama's trip to Afghanistan and Iraq made the antiwar Democratic any more qualified to be president.

Less than a third of respondents, (32%), thought Obama learned from his trip to Iraq, and 40% said Obama's mind was already made up about how to deal with the war there.

B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber Crash Video & Technical Report

Watch as a $1.4 billion B-2 Spirit bomber crashes and explodes on takeoff at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, February 23, 2008.

The crash was caused by water in the aircraft's sensors. Moisture in three port transducer units "distorted data introduced by a B-2 Spirit's air data system" which led to flawed information entering the bomber's flight control computers. The aircraft was reacting to inaccurate airspeed and a "perceived" negative angle of attack. This resulted in an "uncommanded 30 degree nose-high pitch-up on takeoff."

Major Ryan Link and Captain Justin Grieve, the aircraft's two pilots, were unable to regain control and safely ejected just as the aircraft stalled and its left wing impacted the ground. Link and Grieve both suffered injuries during ejection, with Grieve suffering compression fractures to his spine.

The report points to the inaccurate readings as contributing factors, adding that ineffective communication of critical information about a technique used to remove moisture from the sensors also contributed. It's possible that all the pilots had to do to avert the accident was turn on the pitot heat prior to performing air data calibrations. But the suggested technique was not part of checklist procedures.

It was the first-ever B-2 crash and followed 75,000 hours of loss-free service.