With importance on aerospace and defense work, why is economy struggling?

Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and U.S. Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.). In his e-mail in submitting this letter, the author shared: “My rant could have been more extensive, and I do not anticipate anything other than BS in response from Congressman Kinzinger and Congresswoman Bustos.”

Considering what is currently passing as governance from the gang of 500, emanating from Washington, D.C., I would appreciate a more direct and concise response to what is the justification for this type of continuing expenditures described by Greg Moncroft in the below recap.

Considering how often Rockford is mentioned concerning its importance in aerospace and defense work, I find it difficult to understand — considering the following described expenditures — why the local economy is suffering so.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was prescient in his warning, but it is obvious his message was ignored then and continues to be ignored.


An online article from International Business Times, Friday, Jan. 10, 2014, as of 9 a.m. Eastern, “The U.S. Military Industrial Complex In 3 Simple Charts,” by Greg Morcroft (Jan. 6, 2014, 1:43 p.m.).

The below is just one of the charts the author describes as a running leader board of the top-grossing names in the defense business as it pertains to the United States military. The author states that the totals are based on the amount of total contracts since tracking began in Oct. 31, 2006.

Lockheed Martin Corporation — $209,320,250,065

The Boeing Company — $151,647,439,671

Northrop Grumman Corporation — $76,186,711,247

The Raytheon Company — $67,731,467,131

General Dynamics — $52,580,205,909

BAe Systems — $49,614,069,735

Richard Kanak
Cherry Valley, Ill.

From the March 19-25, 2014, issue

You might also like