The youngest B-52 bomber rolled off the assembly line 50 years ago. Remarkably, it’s still flying.

Like many of the aircraft still used by the U.S. military, the B-52 is telltale example of America’s geriatric aviation force. At a time when our military is asked to do more with less, fiscal constraints have hampered its modernization and recapitalization strategy. Heritage is highlighting these challenges as part of Protect America Month and a three-part America at Risk video series.

The B-52 might be among the Air Force’s most recognizable planes. Its maiden flight was in April 1952 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower occupied the White House and the Cold War posed the greatest threat to America’s security. Today it is still flying out of Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota.

It’s not the military’s only aging aircraft, however. Along with tankers and fighters, America’s aviation force today is jeopardy of sacrificing dominance in the air environment that came with advancements in the 1960s and 1970s. Simply modernizing and updating those aircraft won’t provide the same edge.

David A. Deptula, a retired three-star general, has witnessed this “geriatric aviation force” firsthand. He earned his wings and flew an F-15 for the first time in 1977. Thirty years later, another Deptula boarded the aircraft. His son, Lt. David A. Deptula II, flew the same F-15 at Kadena Air Force Base in Japan.

The Wall Street Journal documented the amazing father-son story last fall to illustrate the challenges facing the aging force. The elder Deptula recounted for Heritage how the fighter was originally designed for a 4,000-hour service life. That was later extended to 8,000 hours.

“We have really flown these aircraft well beyond what originally would be believed as their replacement lifetime,” Deptula said of the F-15s. “And now, because of some of the fiscal constraints that are being imposed on the Department of Defense, there is consideration being given to extending the lifetime even further.”

Before retiring from the Air Force in 2010 as a lieutenant general, Deptula traveled to Kadena for a high-aspect mission with his son. He flew the F-15 and saw firsthand some of its deficiencies compared to newer aircraft like the F-22 and F-35.

He knows the risks associated with flying an older aircraft as well. While serving as the joint task force commander in 1998 and 1999 for Operation Northern Watch, he flew 82 combat missions over Iraq. On one mission, as he was headed to a tanker to refuel, the master caution light came on, revealing a problem with the plane. His fuel gauge went to zero. Meanwhile, he was 500 miles away from his base. Fortunately, he was able to land safely.

“The insulation was so old it simply had deteriorated to the extent where it came off and all of the wiring shorted out,” Deptula explained. “Those are the kinds of things that happen when airplanes get to certain ages.”

While his aircraft was grounded, another set of airplanes traveled from Kadena Air Force Base in Japan, on other side of the world, to replace the one that was being repaired.

In the years that followed, the Air Force was forced to ground its entire F-15 fleet after one fighter disintegrated during a training mission in Missouri in 2007.

Deptula worries that fiscal constraints imposed on the military — including $492 billion of mandatory defense cuts on the horizon — will result in future challenges.

“I hear people talk about, well you know, the U.S. military spends more money than the next 17 nations combined,” Deptula said. “Well, the next 17 nations combined are not committed to maintaining peace and stability around the world. We are.”

Heritage’s James Jay Carafano, an expert on defense and national security issues, worries that under the Obama administration, the military will continue to suffer from ill-advised budgeting.

“Today’s air forces are the oldest in the history of U.S. air forces,” Carafano explained. “Replacing old airframes and ensuring the U.S. maintains its superiority over potential adversaries is a national security priority. Yet Obama has done little to show he takes the challenge of modernizing the air fleets seriously.”

This is the second of a three-part series on the risks of budget cuts to America’s military. It was produced and directed by Will Lamborn. Brandon Stewart and Alison Meyer assisted with production. For more videos from Heritage, subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Following through on President Obama’s announcement last month in Cartagena that the U.S.–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement will take effect on May 15, 2012, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack made the following statement:

Beginning today, U.S. agricultural exporters receive duty-free access on more than half of the products we currently export to Colombia, and virtually all remaining tariffs will be eliminated within 15 years. Estimates show that the tariff reductions in the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (FTA) will expand total U.S. exports by more than $1.1 billion, supporting thousands of additional American jobs while increasing U.S. GDP by $2.5 billion.

While this is good news for American workers and the U.S. economy, what the Obama Administration failed to mention was that it had joined with its allies in Congress to block approval of the FTA with Colombia for nearly half a decade. House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Kevin Brady (R–TX) noted that fact in his congratulatory announcement last fall that passage had been “nearly five years in the making.” In that time, the U.S. lost its competitive advantage on billions of dollars of sales to Colombia that U.S. competitors were happy to make up.

The U.S.-based Latin America Trade Coalition reported in September 2011 that, in the years after the U.S.–Colombia agreement was signed in November 2006 until it was finally approved in October 2011, U.S. exporters had to pay over $6 billion in tariffs to the Colombian government that would have been eliminated upon full implementation of the FTA.

In any case, the FTA has finally been implemented, and that must be a good thing, since the far-left guerillas in Colombia chose to “celebrate” the occasion by trying to kill one of former President Alvaro Uribe’s ministers today in a deadly car bombing in Bogotá.

With the FTA now in place, Colombia and the U.S. can look together to ever stronger ties and greater certainty that open markets and freer movements of goods, services, and investments will cement the two democratic nations together. That is reason to celebrate.

Each semester, we bring together more than 60 young leaders from across the country to participate in our internship program in DC. They are given the opportunity of practical experience working on policy research, marketing, and business, to training on marketing, blogging, and public speaking.  Combine trips to the Pentagon, National Archives, and Mount Vernon with each intern’s individual talents and passion, and each Young Leaders Program graduate will leave Heritage equipped for success.

This semester, we challenged each member in the class to submit a personal story, and bring conservative principles to life.  The second piece, written by Danielle Hanson, is the runner-up of all submissions this semester. Stay tuned for the winner.

Killing the Family Farm—One Regulation at a Time

by Danielle Hanson

Growing up in rural South Dakota, many of my fondest memories revolve around helping out on the ranch—be in my family’s or neighbor’s. In ranching communities, like the one I grew up in, cattle drives and brandings are more than just part of the job, they are community and neighborhood gatherings—a time for friends and family to gather, share a meal and perform a necessary ranching task that would be impossible for one family to complete on their own. I only hope that my 14-year-old sister and 11-year-old brother will be able to continue to have the same valuable experiences that I had growing up. Their opportunity to participate in essential chores like these has been placed in jeopardy, however, by new regulations proposed by the Department of Labor.

These regulations include prohibiting certain teens under 16 from:

• working on a farm in a yard, pen, or stall occupied by an intact (not castrated) male equine, porcine, bovine, or bison older than six months, a sow with suckling pigs, or cow with new born calf (with umbilical cord present);
• engaging or assisting in animal husbandry practices that inflict pain upon the animal and/or are likely to result in unpredictable animal behavior such as, but not limited to, branding, breeding, dehorning, vaccinating, castrating, and treating sick or injured animals;
• Herding animals in confined spaces such as feed lots or corrals, or on horseback, or using motorized vehicles such as trucks or all terrain vehicles.
• Operating power driven machines, such as riding lawn mowers.

The actual impact of these regulations is that neither my brother nor sister can participate, for pay, in those very experiences that I found so beneficial as a young teen growing up in a rural community. While my siblings can work, for pay, for my parents on their ranch under the family farm exemption, my siblings cannot perform any of the above tasks (and many more) for pay on other ranches, including ranches belonging to my extended family members. For example, under these regulations, my brother cannot help my grandfather vaccinate calves, if my grandfather wants to pay him for his labor. And my sister cannot mow the neighbor’s lawn on the riding lawn mower for some extra spending money. My parents cannot even sign a waiver to allow them to do these things.

These regulations will not only adversely affect teens, like my siblings, who want to work on a family member’s ranch or neighboring property. It will also prevent some children from working on their own parent’s ranch. As the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has pointed out,

“[O]ne of the most disturbing aspects of the rule with so many family farms being incorporated or in LLC’s, the family farm exemption does not apply as universally as implied by this part of the new law: “Where the ownership or operation of the farm is vested in persons other than the parent, such as a business entity, corporation or partnership (unless wholly owned by the parent(s)), the exemption would not apply.” I wonder how many farms will actually be considered family farms since I know a lot of them that are incorporated, in partnership or LLC which would then by that definition kick them out of the exemption for their own kids to work on their farm.”

These regulations have been proposed under the guise of protecting children from injuries. And while that is a worthy undertaking, that will not be the cumulative effect of these new regulations. The cumulative effect will be denying generations of future farmers and ranchers opportunities to learn how to safely navigate many of the essentials of farming and ranching by working alongside family members, friends and neighbors. As any farmer or rancher, including my dad and my grandfather, will tell you, safety is the number one priority in doing any job. But in order to learn how to do that job safely, you have to do it. This is not something you can sit on the sidelines and learn by osmosis. If the Department of Labor is really serious about ensuring children’s safety, they will abandon these restrictive regulations and allow parents to teach their children safety in a manner that is most applicable to their unique situation.

“Americans are tired of carrying the burden of foreign obligations, frequently unappreciated by others and always costly in blood and treasure,” lamented Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ) last week, as he gave the annual Jesse Helms lecture at The Heritage Foundation. The Senator, who spoke powerfully in favor of engagement and a strong defense, was absolutely right. The fact is that Americans have made huge sacrifices to prosecute the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, and they are weary. However, the world with its multitude of challenges will not go away. Somehow, Americans will have to find the determination to lead and to remain engaged.

A powerful illustration of the popular sentiment described by Senator Kyl was provided on Monday by the public opinion research firm Rasmussen Reports. In addition to crippling defense cuts inflicted by the Obama Administration, Americans themselves are expressing fatigue.

Nearly two out of three likely U.S. voters (63 percent) surveyed by Rasmussen agree with Samuel Huntington that we are in the midst of a clash of civilizations between the West and the Islamic countries. This echoes a finding by Rasmussen from the last week of April that the vast majority of American voters (79 percent) do not believe that the war on terrorism is over. Yet—stunningly—Rasmussen also reported that “most also think the United States should leave the Islamic world alone.” This attitude is known as sticking your head in the sand, and it will not serve us well.

As Kyl also noted, taking a moral stand in addition to keeping a strong military makes a difference.

Unfortunately, we do not usually have the luxury of choosing when and where we must confront evil in the world. The point is this: It is likely America will need to act in the future somewhere in the world for our own security purposes, even though we cannot today predict where or when. We cannot retreat behind a Maginot Line of our east and west coast. We can expect to be engaged beyond our borders.

Alabama has joined a growing number of states opposing the Common Core national education standards.

Last week, the state senate adopted a resolution to “encourage the State Board of Education to take all steps it deems appropriate, including revocation of the adoption of the initiative’s standards if necessary, to retain complete control over Alabama’s academic standards, curriculum, instruction, and testing system.”

This comes at the same time other states are backing away from the standards. Education Week reported earlier this month:

Utah has been surfing the waves of common-standards controversy lately. Now it appears that the standards aren’t the only thing the state is uneasy about. It’s also uneasy about the tests being designed for them.

We are getting word that Utah plans to downgrade its membership in one of the assessment consortia from “governing” to “advisory.” Governing states have voting power on key policy and design questions. They also are committed to using the tests.… Advisory states can sit in on discussions, but have no voting power and do not have to promise to use the tests.

Colorado seems to be similarly queasy. In the last couple of weeks the state board of education rejected a proposal that would have made Colorado a governing partner of one of the consortia developing the Common Core assessments.

And back in February legislators in South Carolina introduced a measure to pull their state out of the Common Core national standards. Governor Nikki Haley likewise publicly expressed her opposition to the standards.

States have every reason to be concerned about the centralization education standards. The federally backed national education standards push represents an unprecedented overreach of state and local educational authority. States should also be concerned with the significant cost of implementing these standards. The Pioneer Institute estimates that implementation will put state taxpayers on the hook for some $16 billion in new spending.

Across the country, states are moving to empower parents with greater control over their children’s education through policies like school choice. These types of policies, not centralization of academic standards, are those that best meet the unique needs of students.

Recently, Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina, both of the Arms Control Association, criticized the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) for taking hostage the implementations of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (New START) in order to provide necessary funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration. The article misrepresents facts.

New START mandates U.S. unilateral reductions and does not serve U.S. interests. Both authors assert that if the National Defense Authorization Act passes in its entirety—that is, including provisions tying the treaty’s implementation funding with funding for the nuclear weapons complex—Russia would be allowed to rebuild “its nuclear forces above the treaty ceiling of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and increase the number of nuclear weapons aimed at the U.S.” This is just not so.

The State Department’s own data exchanges indicate that Russia was under New START’s limits when the treaty entered into force and built above its limits while the U.S. keeps unilaterally reducing its nuclear arsenal. Russia intends to build up to New START’s limits regardless how much the U.S. spends on modernization of its nuclear weapons complex. The treaty’s degraded verification regime does not provide for the strategic insight that the U.S. needs, given that Moscow launched the most robust nuclear modernization program since the end of the Cold War after the treaty entered into force.

Kimball and Collina complain about levels of spending for the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. In fact, this complex has been under-funded for years. Even the Obama Administration acknowledged the importance of this funding. It committed to request funding for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility, the very facility Kimball and Collina criticize as too expensive and of little value. Indeed, the Administration’s enduring commitment has not endured for a year since the treaty entered into force.

Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. nuclear weapons have contributed to global stability and prevented attacks on the U.S. homeland, forward-deployed troops, and U.S. allies. It is essential that the U.S. provides funding for its nuclear weapons complex and avoids “disarmament by atrophy.” As the numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons go down, other countries will be incentivized to develop their own capabilities or build up nuclear weapons to achieve “parity” with the U.S.

Instead of unilaterally disarming, the U.S. should move toward a “protect and defend” strategy combining offensive, defensive, conventional, and nuclear weapons. This is the best way the U.S. could respond to the challenges of today’s environment.

Leaving the drama surrounding Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng behind in China, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Bangladesh last week with plans to advocate trade, democracy, increased security, and human rights.

Clinton is the first Secretary of State to visit Bangladesh since 2003—a move that further underscores the U.S.’s priority for greater involvement in the Indo-Pacific region.

Clinton’s visit coincided with mounting unrest in Bangladesh surrounding the mysterious disappearance of politician Ilyas Ali in mid-April. Clinton met with both Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed and her opposition rival, Begum Khaleda Zia of the Awami League Party. Both have accused each other of involvement in Ali’s disappearance. Five people have been killed in subsequent riots between protestors and police. Clinton condemned the recent rioting and killing, adding that the unrest would lead to further unhappiness for Bangladesh by deterring investors and halting development.

Talks between Clinton and Foreign Minister Dipu Moni focused on Bangladesh’s potential to become an economic powerhouse. Goldman Sachs has listed Bangladesh among its “Next 11” countries that have potential to become major economies. Moni urged Clinton to assist them in lowering U.S. tariffs on Bangladeshi imports while they explored a long-term trade and investment agreement. Clinton expressed hope that this visit will illustrate the U.S.’s commitment to Bangladesh’s transition to a peaceful democracy.

Clinton’s meeting with Grameen Bank founder and Nobel Laureate Muhammed Yunus was not surprising, since Clinton has long been an admirer of Yunus and Grameen’s program of issuing small loans to the poor. Clinton called Yunus a “tremendous model for the developing world.” The Grameen model earned Yunus a Nobel Prize in 2006. The bank has lent money to more than 9 million people, the majority of them women.

Washington has been frustrated with the Hasina government’s treatment of Yunus and Grameen over the last 18 months. The Bangladeshi government forced Yunus to retire in 2011 on the grounds that he was beyond the legal retirement age. Some Yunus supporters accuse Hasina’s move as being politically motivated by her desire to bar him from challenging her in future elections. In 2007, when the country was under a state of emergency and Hasina herself was behind bars, Yunus attempted to form his own political party.

The Hasina administration has threatened investigations into Grameen to probe links with independent businesses. A government-appointed investigation last year deemed these affiliations a breach of the bank’s charter, since they were made without bank board approval. Yunus asserts that the government is trying to interfere with Grameen’s operations. Clinton waded into the issue and advocated for “non-interference,” urging the Bangladesh government not to hamper the internal operations of the bank.

According to Heritage’s Lisa Curtis:

The Grameen Bank issue has become somewhat of a thorn in the side of the U.S.–Bangladesh relationship despite cooperation across a broad range of other issues, such as on counterterrorism, trade and investment, and maritime issues. If the Grameen Bank issue had not arisen, it’s likely Clinton would have visited Bangladesh much earlier in her tenure and that she would have devoted much more of her time as Secretary of State to building the relationship. In some ways, it was a lost opportunity for Dhaka since the next Secretary of State is unlikely to have the same kind of personal ties to Bangladesh as Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s careful attention to the situation in Bangladesh illustrates the U.S.’s willingness to work with Bangladesh and assist in its transition to democracy. The Bangladeshi government should focus on bolstering the success of its institutions, such as the Grameen Bank, in order to pave the way for national stability and prosperity.

Kudos to the House Appropriations Committee for protecting U.S. international broadcasting against the eviscerating cuts in language services and personnel contained in the President’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget. If the budget passes—a big “if,” of course—it could reverse a direction that can only be described as self-defeating for American foreign policy and public diplomacy.

In its newly released draft of the FY 2013 budget, the House Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee gave the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) about $26.98 million more than it asked for. In the Operations account, BBG asked for $711.56 million and got $740.10 million. In the Improvement account, BBG asked for $8.59 million and got $7.03 million.

The proposed cuts extend across Voice of America’s (VOA) language services:

• 70-plus positions from broadcasting in English and the English newsroom, which will result in the elimination of Worldwide English, turning it into an Internet and social media feed.
• Total elimination of the Cantonese service, which takes the VOA out of the political and information arena in big chunk of China. This is at a savings of only $965,000.
• Cuts of 10 positions in Dari and Pashto, the primary languages in Afghanistan.
• Cuts of a major part of the Tibetan service, which will signal to the Chinese that the U.S. has effectively abandoned Tibet.
• Cuts in Turkish, which at this point is operating only on the Internet.
• Cuts in Georgian, a major buffer region and a country that Russia invaded in 2008. This is also at this time an Internet-only operation.
• Cuts in Azeri, which at this point is Internet-only.
• Major cuts in Spanish, affecting both the Latin Service of VOA and Radio Marti, which is likewise owned by the U.S. government but is located in Miami, broadcasting to Cuba and federally funded. This comes at a time when Iran is extending its broadcasting throughout the region.
• Cuts in the Bangladeshi service, part of a region that remains highly volatile.

VOA Director David Ensor now has the opportunity to revisit the issue of the targeted language services. As a veteran journalist, formerly with CNN, Ensor knows the importance of protecting VOA’s most important assets, its seasoned reporting and editing staff. The Broadcasting Board of Governors must allow him to do so.

 
Later this week the U.S. Senate will consider a budget resolution introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) that cuts the size of the federal government in half by 2025 and achieves a balanced budget by 2017. It’s among the boldest plans presented in Congress.

Lee’s budget is based on the reforms outlined by The Heritage Foundation in its Saving the American Dream plan. With the Senate nearing a vote on his plan, Lee will visit Heritage for a preview at The Bloggers Briefing today at noon ET.

Under the direction of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the chamber has failed to pass a budget for more than 1,100 days. In sharp contrast to proposals offered by President Obama and other liberals, Lee’s plan tackles the major fiscal problems facing America.

“Americans deserve to define their own financial future,” he said last week. “Today, we have a government that mandates, regulates, and controls almost everything we do. As a result, we have an unsustainable debt, less prosperity, and less economic freedom.”

Lee’s budget empowers individuals, not government, to have greater control over their future. It encourages savings, investment and health care choices. It also puts in place the reforms for Social Security and Medicaid that most politicians in Washington would rather ignore.

Following Lee’s remarks, The Bloggers Briefing will welcome Mark Stevens, chief executive at MSCO. The successful businessman and bestselling author came under attack from liberals for his company’s ads on Rush Limbaugh’s show. In a campaign orchestrated by Media Matters, Stevens’ employees endured threatening and hostile messages that were designed to intimidate.

Rather than retreat, Stevens doubled down. He started speaking out and received an outpouring of support from Americans. “The battle for American values is beginning and we will win,” he wrote in an email about the episode.

In a subsequent profile for The American Spectator, Stevens recounted how standing up in America today was “like being an outspoken critic of the government under a totalitarian regime.” That attitude now extends beyond the professional left all the way to the White House, where President Obama maintains an “enemies list” that evokes memories of the Nixon years.

Popular opinion demonizes the U.S. for importing more goods than it exports, or running a “trade deficit.” This view maintains that the trade deficit is costing jobs and slowing economic growth. “The $600 billion annual deficit is the most significant barrier to achieving a robust economic recovery and creating jobs,” charges a recent column. Yet this popular understanding, which is based on an incomplete assessment of the trade equation, is wrong.

The prevailing view assumes that exchangingU.S.currency for foreign goods leaks money out of circulation. The reason for this confusion is that gross domestic product (GDP)—the total value of everything produced in the U.S.—is determined by removing imports from the final calculation. This is merely because imports aren’t produced within theU.S., but it does not mean that money exchanged for imported goods drops out of the economy.

Money channeled abroad must circulate back to the U.S.economy. If the dollars are not quickly spent on U.S. goods and services, they are invested in U.S. assets such as Treasuries, corporate bonds and stocks, and bank deposits. The balance of payments balances. As Heritage’s Bryan Riley reports, in 2011, the “overall U.S. international transactions deficit was $0. That means the number of dollars leaving the country and the number of dollars entering the country in 2011 balance out.”

Furthermore, far from hollowing out economic growth, trade gives Americans purchasing power, as the cheapest goods are available to them. More income is left for other investments and purchases as a result. Besides, money sent abroad that is invested back into theU.S.improves our productive capacity. It’s a win-win for growth.

The proof: “Since 1980, real U.S. GDP has grown at an annualized rate of 3.6 percent during those periods of rising trade deficits, compared to a sluggish 1.0 percent during periods of shrinking deficits,” according to the Cato Institute.

The words “trade deficit” may carry a negative connotation, which is what many politicians and talking heads would like us to believe. Slicing through the talking points and unearthing the full economic picture shows this view is too narrow-minded.