Research: Publications

Promising the Sky: Pork Barrel Politics and the F-35 Combat Aircraft

January 22, 2014 | Report

By William D. Hartung

Download PDF | HTML Version

Lockheed Martin claims that the development and construction of the F-35 combat aircraft sustains 125,000 jobs in 46 states. The company describes the F-35 as “the single largest job creator in the Department of Defense program.” Lockheed Martin’s numbers have been routinely reported in the media, and have become a mainstay of the debate over the fate of the F-35 program.

There’s just one problem with Lockheed Martin’s assertions about F-35 job creation. They are greatly exaggerated, as documented in this report.

According to William D. Hartung, the report's author, Lockheed Martin’s claim of 125,000 F-35-related jobs is roughly double the likely number of jobs sustained by the program. The real figure, based on standard estimating procedures used in other studies in the field, should be on the order of 50,000 to 60,000 jobs.

Similarly, the company’s claim that there is significant work being done on the F-35 in 46 states does not hold up to scrutiny. Even by Lockheed Martin’s own estimates just two states – Texas and California – account for over half of the jobs generated by the F-35. The top five states, which include Florida, Connecticut and New Hampshire – account for 70% of the jobs.

Given the uncertainties surrounding the F-35 program, which has been identified as a possible budget-cutting target by a wide range of non-governmental and governmental bodies, it makes sense for communities that are looking to the F-35 as an important part of their economic futures to develop fallback plans that can be implemented in the event of the cancellation or scaling back of the F-35 program.


Report in the Press

Bloomberg Politiics

Dallas Business Journal

Reuters

Standard Examiner

Politico

DefenseNews

Los Angeles Times

Politico

The Hill

Foreign Policy

O'Dwyer's

NewsMax

The American Prospect

Fort Worth Business Press

US News

National Review

Reuters

AntiWar.blog

The Fiscal Times

iPolitics

Law360

Download PDF | HTML Version

CIP in the Press
  • RSPO Recertifies IOI Group, But NGOs Have Yet to See ‘Real Action on the Ground’

    CIP quoted

    Sustainable Brands, 08-09-16

    Less than five months after the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) suspended Malaysian palm oil producer IOI Group’s certification, that suspension has been lifted – much to the dismay of NGO campaigners. While the RSPO’s Complaints Panel has said it is “satisfied that IOI has met the conditions set out in its letter to IOI,” Greenpeace Indonesia and the Center for International Policy says they have yet to see any real action on the ground...Read More »

  • Think Tanks and their Corporate Funders: Who’s Selling What?

    Bill Goodfellow quoted

    Nonprofit Quarterly, 08-09-16

    The article concedes that much of Brookings’ work appears unconnected, at least on the surface, to corporate interests. Still, as Bill Goodfellow, the executive director of the Center for International Policy, another think tank, said, “People think of think tanks as do-gooders, uncompromised and not bought like others in the political class. But it’s absurd to suggest that donors don’t have influence. The danger is we in the think tank world are being corrupted in the same way as the political world. And all of us should be worried about it.”—Ruth McCambridge...Read More »

  • Thousands of Pages of Confidential Think Tank Documents Detail Corporate Ties

    Bill Goodfellow quoted

    DESMOG, 08-09-16

    “People think of think tanks as do-gooders, uncompromised and not bought like others in the political class,” Bill Goodfellow, executive director of one think tank, the Center for International Policy, told The New York Times. “The danger is we in the think tank world are being corrupted in the same way as the political world. And all of us should be worried about it.”...Read More »