POGO’s Propaganda Circus: F-35’s “aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time”

A Case Study in How the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) Demagogues Against National Defense Programs.

I’ve considered something similar to what you are about to read many times, but I never pulled the trigger because I hadn’t yet figured out how to cover it without either making most people’s eyes glaze over from too much psychological exposition on the one end of the spectrum, or oversimplifying to the point that the explanation does violence to the phenomenon on the other end. I was at a symposium this week that I believe provided me with a way to reach the middle ground I’ve been seeking. One of our Keynote Speakers (yes, there were several) spoke on the subject of how we humans ‘Innovate’ and how organizations and individuals can overcome barriers to innovation.

The speaker presented us with four fundamental characteristics of the human psyche that affect our ability to (among other things) be “insightful” and “innovate”. She also reviewed how those characteristics are inhibited or disrupted by outside influences. It occurred to me at the time, that what she was describing was, among other things, a pretty good explanation as to how propagandists are also able to manipulate public attitudes. Shortly afterward, I realized it would be helpful in achieving my goal of getting a substantial explanation as to how POGO/Winslow Wheeler and crew operate. By showing how POGO and fellow travelers manipulate the elements of Perception, Attention, Context, and Emotion (PACE) we are able to adequately grasp the manner in which they exploit human nature to further their agenda of subverting national defense acquisition programs.

P.A.C.E: A Tour Inside POGO’s Meme Machine

Winslow Wheeler and POGO have provided any number of examples of what I’m about to cover, but their latest machinations concerning the recent “F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Readiness for Training Operational Utility Evaluation” report is as perfect an example as any to use for this discussion.
The report in question was issued by DoD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, J. Michael Gilmore, and is as close to being more of a political document than a technical one as any I’ve seen issued from that office (but that is another topic for another time). But the most interesting aspect to the report was in how it was apparently leaked to POGO/Winslow Wheeler ahead of the public release, and the ONE thing POGO/Winslow Wheeler chose to lift from that report to propagate was a statement by an evaluation pilot that the F-35’s “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time”. That ‘money quote’ was then repeated throughout the mainstream media before anyone had the chance to really digest the contents of the report in their entirety.

POGO,Winslow Wheeler and “Perception”

In this example, POGO and Winslow Wheeler were continuing the long-standing practice of ‘poisoning the well’ against any positive perception that might arise from any public reporting on the F-35. In this case, the ‘report’ in its totality is remarkably unsurprising. What the OT&E evaluators found concerning the training program after a limited exposure to early configuration F-35s is pretty much what one would expect. But in highlighting a single comment in the report POGO made the report about the F-35 itself and not the status and readiness of the training program. The Director of OT&E was an enabler (codependent?) in this development due to the report’s excessive regurgitation of ‘old news’ that didn’t belong in this report, but POGO is the ‘perp’ that picked the forbidden fruit.
When each of us perceives something, it is estimated that only 20% of that perception is based upon what we actually sense as new, and 80% of the perception is due to what we’ve already experienced in life. As most people have little or no working knowledge of what it takes to field advanced technology and designs, that makes their ‘80% experience’ base highly vulnerable to any manipulation of the ‘20% new’ information. POGO selected and amplified a quote concerning how a pilot felt about rear visibility in a plane that does not yet have the key technology installed that makes such rear visibility concerns moot. That pilot brought his experience and training to a new aircraft and applied his old knowledge to a new situation. Without his experiencing what is the baseline F-35 EODAS and HMD capabilities that were yet to be delivered, his comments should have been noted in the backup data. But in an objective document this never would have been a feature in the report.
In cherry-picking the “get gunned every time” quote, POGO and Winslow Wheeler exploit the general ignorance of the public as to how the jets and training program are still in development, how the F-35 program is structured and how capabilities are scheduled to be brought on line by deliberately injecting into the public’s consciousness the misperception that the F-35s now being used for initial type training are representative of the capability that define the baseline F-35. This is only the latest in a long series of flagrant misrepresentations of F-35 truths, in effect LIES, committed by POGO, and the F-35 is only the latest in a long line of weapon systems to receive that special POGO/Winslow Wheeler ‘touch’. We can expect nothing but more of the same from POGO and Winslow Wheeler because they dare not let any positive or neutral development concerning the F-35 go without preemptory and presumptive criticism, as the façade of failure that they work so hard to build up from nothing requires constant maintenance to prevent it from crumbling around their ears.

POGO, Winslow Wheeler and “Attention”

Long-time observers of POGO, Winslow Wheeler and other so-called ‘reformers’ will note that the ‘get gunned every time’ sound bite will be dropped fairly quickly and something else concerning the F-35 will be targeted as a ‘failure’, ‘mistake’ or ‘criminally negligent’ decision/design feature/performance characteristic, perhaps from the same report, or from one to come later. This is because POGO et al are acutely aware that an extended exchange or dialog with anyone who disagrees with them will expose the misdirection they (POGO et al) endeavor to sustain. POGO and Wheeler go for the sound bite to plant negativity into the public’s consciousness knowing that the general public’s attention span is short. By the time anyone dives deep into a POGO/Wheeler claim and cries “Hey! Wait a minute!” the public has moved on to other circuses. Such ‘Hit and Run’ tactics, along with their careful cultivation of media enablers, allow POGO/Wheeler relief from ever having their methods, biases and motives undergo serious public scrutiny. This is classic guerrilla warfare of the information domain.
Once the initial ‘buzz’ is past, if the ‘get gunned every time’ line is ever again referenced by POGO/Wheeler, it will be as only one item in a litany of similar perversions of reality in support of some general condemnation of the F-35 or as an introduction to the next misdirection issued by POGO/Wheeler. It is a clear testimony to POGO’s and Wheeler’s confidence in the public’s inability to critically examine information POGO/Wheeler spoon feed the media, that POGO and Wheeler have felt comfortable posting the source documents which they pervert at their own websites.

POGO, Winslow Wheeler and “Context”

If there is a hallmark to POGO/Wheeler PR announcements, it is that whatever is being decried or derided will be framed in as little context as possible. What context that is provided, will be selectively added to support the official POGO/Wheeler meme du jour. In this instance, the “get gunned every time” comment is highlighted without any reference to the inconvenient (to POGO and Wheeler) fact that the F-35s EODAS and Helmet are still being developed, the software releases to exploit these systems were not sold off for the aircraft used for the training readiness evaluation, or that if later version aircraft that are now flying had been available, the ‘get gunned’ claim would probably never have been uttered.
As individuals, we perceive reality in terms of context. When we see two circles, one drawn within the other, depending upon where our heads are at the time, or depending upon what else is drawn beside the circles determines whether we view the circles as representing a bagel, a wheel, a ring, or any number of other similarly- shaped objects. Stripping the context from the ‘get gunned’ comment allows POGO/Wheeler to insert their own meaning and relevance: a constructed perversion for consumption by the uninformed and only marginally-interested public.

POGO, Winslow Wheeler and “Emotion”

Indignation and inflammatory statements about defense acquisition programs are the stock and trade of POGO and Winslow Wheeler. Consider how in the original ‘story’ at TIME Winslow Wheeler attempts to paint a ‘horror story’:

Perhaps the biggest horror story is the poor showing of the Lockheed plane’s complicated, expensive helmet-mounted display system that distorts and obscures – rather than enhancing — the pilot’s vision and awareness of the outside world.

Wheeler seeks to elicit the reader's emotion by making an assertion that the F-35’s HMD’s performance is deficient (oh woe is us!), by obliquely referring to much (at least two years) earlier technical development challenges as if they were still current and relevant. Yet Winslow Wheeler, if he was honest when asked about the HMD, would have to acknowledge that the F-35 program is fairly confident in the current state of HMD performance and sees no ‘show-stoppers’ in delivering the desired capability. Lockheed Martin was discussing positive HMD developments nearly a year ago. It is notable that the latest GAO report did not highlight any definitive problems with the HMD system, only the usual ‘concerns’. When the ‘alternative’ just-in-case helmet being developed in parallel is cancelled (possibly this year), don’t expect any surrender from POGO or Wheeler on this point: “DOOM!” will always be just around the corner.
Using our neurons takes considerable (relatively) energy and it is estimated that we can only have about 2 ½ % of our brain active at any one time. When we are irate, our limbic system/amygdala can compromise, to varying degrees, our reason and judgment. Thus, when POGO, Winslow Wheeler, or others appeal to our emotions (Waste! Corruption! Conspiracy! War Mongering Military-Industrial Complex!) they are really attempting to subvert our ability to see through the flawed logic that binds whatever nonsense they are peddling at the moment.

Know Your Reformer Bonus Content: About Winslow Wheeler’s Move to POGO

I still consider Winslow’s move under POGO a positive development. In May of last year I noted the move from the Center for Defense Information (CDI) to POGO and as I also noted, I like it when targets bunch up. The tendency of radical activism to date has been to splinter and re-label itself when caught in the daylight. This may be a consolidation for survival (one can only hope).
CDI had been slipping for years but was often extremely entertaining to watch – it was like a zoo for disillusioned and misunderstood ‘military geniuses’ founded by possibly the biggest crackpot ever to reach ‘flag’ rank.
At the time, I didn’t know that the ‘Strauss Military Reform Project’ moved with Wheeler to POGO, so the same ‘photographer’ cum ‘radical chic’ trust-fund baby must still be paying Wheeler’s salary. The ‘Strauss Military Reform Project’ is little more than a one-job program for Winslow Wheeler. Strauss, when he isn’t producing forgettable photography, or financing disgruntled, ex-Congressional staffers’ caterwauling and rabble rousing, is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of that iconic bastion of American culture (/sarc) “Mother Jones”. How cliché can you get?

Happy 2013!

Hope Springs Eternal...

Smacking Down Gun-Grabber's (Cough) 'Reasons' (Cough)

Hat-tip to Instapundit (who is bumping this story to keep it in view).

Larry Correia.  Source

The author Larry Correia got his start in writing by 'self-publishing' a young adult fantasy best-seller that got the attention of mainstream publishing. But before that, he was firmly established in firearms and law enforcement circles. He's got a GREAT summary of all the intellectually effete 'anti-gun' crowd's so-called 'arguments' once again being trotted out in the wake of the latest mass murder of innocent children and teachers at Sandy Hook elementary.


Correia's blog post can be read in its entirety here, but here's his conclusion: 

In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.  

If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.  

They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to ending mass shootings in schools, let’s try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus? 

Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids.  

If you are serious about actually stopping school shootings, contact your state representative and tell them to look into allowing someone at your kid’s school to be armed. It is time to install some speed bumps.

As 'they' say, go to the link and read it all.

Canada Cancels F-35?

Canadian Liberal Politicians and Their 'Operatives with Bylines' are Headhunting

Libs in the Great White North, who are no doubt just as brain dead as their south of the border brethren, seem to have a target painted on the F-35. Only the F-35 isn't really what they're going after: they're after the politicians who backed it.

This latest round seems to be an attempt to manufacture outrage over 'estimated' life-cycle sustainment costs.

One Big 'L' Liberal rag reports their wet dream come true:
"Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase"

Other outlets, including ones who should know better, report what the Big L Liberal rag reported. They did so with varying degrees of scepticism or enthusiasm (you can guess which reports what with alarming predictability),

But wait!

 Now it is reported the initial report was wrong, in an article full of leftard political ranting no less.

The Conservative government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but it now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered. 

The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week.

Even Reuters didn't over-commit on this meme (yet). It doesn't matter. The "STORY" is really about sliming the people who made the decision to sole source the F-35 vs. compete it against a bunch of 4th Generation targets. Not because of the decision really, but just because they can (think Scorpion and the Frog)  

If the Canadian Government does decide to reopen the issue with a 'competition' (which won't surprise me either way) it will be for one reason only: politics. If a competition is held and the F-35 isn't selected it will be for one reason only: politics. No 'story' there.

BTW, I note the offending paper 'who cried wolf' is the same rag that created the "Spitfire vs. F-35" fairy tale I eviscerated earlier. A**hats.

     

GO VOTE!



Election 'After Battle' Report: 

It 'Aint Over'-The job just got a whole lot tougher.

 

With the exception of the usual brain dead zones (including Moscow on the Brazos), and the usual NAACP illegalities in Houston, Texas pretty much did what it could against the Rise of the "Loser Nationtm" . Too bad about much of the rest of the country. Expect more polarization at the state level as the sentient beings who can cut their strings with the 'Blue' states move to where Makers outnumber the Takers. Welcome! -- just leave any silly ideas at the state line. Concealed Carry permit applications are first door on the right.

 



Image Courtesey of the Chicago Boyz

"Barack Obama Told the Nation"



This was sent to me by a friend who is also in the 'Defense Industry'. Given the latest news on the Defense Sequestration found here, and here  for examples– I thought it apropos.

Barack Obama told the nation:
Have no fear of sequestration!
From EVERYONE, a Corp-o-ration ROBS!
Though I cannot say ‘twas really smart
RIF hundred thousands? - Just a start!
To ‘save’ Americans from... their jobs?

Now a homeless shelter resident
I oft’ wonder ‘bout the President,
Yeah I know Barack, he ‘loves’ me so.
Yet how sadly I remember
Way back yonder in November,
When he said my job would “never go”

Barack Obama told the nation
Have no fear of sequestration!
From EVERYONE, a Corp-o-ration ROBS!
Though I cannot say ‘twas really smart
RIF hundred thousands? - Just a start!
To ‘save’ Americans from... their jobs!!!!!?
 
C'mon and SING it!

NO apologies to JUST another aging Hippie that I’m waiting for to die off and who wrote the original "Lyndon Johnson told the Nation"

And then-- the 'idjiit' updated it with this:

Dooooooosh.

 

Introducing Suzie Dershowitz Part 4

‘Provoking Accountability’…Of the ‘Unaccountable’ 

Or,

Defusing CATO’s “Precisely Guided Analytical Bomb”

Back to Part 3

POGO's Banner Carrier, Suzie Dershowitz. (Source: POGO)
Hopefully, this is the LAST time we'll be seeing her, but don't bet on it.

(To make each segment better as a ‘standalone’, I'm getting a little repetitive at the start of each post. If you’ve been following the segments all along, you may proceed to the subheading “CATO/POGO: Fuller Multiplier is an Outlier!” without missing the heart of the post.

Major Ploy Du Jour #2 (Continued):

“This Proves/Refutes Our POV/Their POV” (In this case both). Only.... it doesn't. Hint: You could lay all the economists in the world end to end and you still wouldn't be able to reach a conclusion.
 
As we noted in Part 3:  

“…for this exercise we will focus on problematic areas of the CATO analysis (because it is not a study, but is merely an analysis that is critical of the Fuller study) where Ms. Dershowitz unwisely attempts to use in support of her assertion that ‘left, right, and center’ agree with POGO: that there will not be the kind of damage that the industry-sponsored study warns us will happen.”
 As we also noted in Part 3, there are two aspects of the CATO analysis upon which POGO relied as evidence ‘supporting their position’. These perceived points of ‘support’, unfortunately for POGO do NOT provide the support they claim. 

We exposed POGO/CATO’s Fatal Flaw #1 in Part 3 by illustrating CATOs critique of the Fuller study’s methodology amounted to no more than a pique over academic taste. The CATO complaint over the Fuller Study not going further than it was designed to do, and not doing anything other than that needed to achieve its intended explicit objective was rather sad. Claiming the Fuller study should have been burdened with additional layers of abstraction to answer a question different from the question asked, with the claim rationalized by the unsupported assertion that it would have been more meaningful, all without adequately describing the specific controls (ground rules and assumptions), modeling, or processes involved, seems to be rather self-serving caviling.

In closing Part 3 and in preparation for this segment, I asserted:          
I believe the CATO players fully understand the notion of ‘usefulness’, and that it wasn’t enough to claim their study was more useful, when at best it is perhaps useful in a different way, and at the worst less than helpful through introduction of excessive ambiguity. What MAY explain why CATO went to great lengths to employ (and POGO parroted) the complaint that the Fuller study ‘didn’t go far enough’ is that they sought to use it as a smokescreen to cover their more ‘tangible’ complaint that Fuller overstates the net economic ‘multiplier’ of defense acquisition spending. Strip away the ‘Fuller didn’t take into consideration X,Y,and Z’ obfuscation and CATO’s weak attempt to ‘sell’ the idea that Fuller’s multiplier was outside some ‘economics mainstream’ not only looks even weaker, but intentionally contrived (more on that later).   
By using CATO's own references, I will show how CATO not only does not show the Fuller multiplier lies outside some contrived norm, but they actually lend support to idea that the Fuller multiplier is possibly more appropriate than either the Economic Aesthetes at CATO or the Progressive Proles at POGO would have us believe.
 
Thus, on this adventure, we will cover Fatally-Flawed POGO/CATO Point #2.

2. Dershowitz/POGO relies on CATO claims (and claimed ‘evidence’) that the Fuller study overstates the net economic ‘multiplier’ of defense acquisition spending.

 CATO/POGO claim: Fuller Multiplier for Defense Spending is an Outlier!

CATO asserts, and POGO’s Dershowitz promotes the notion that the Fuller study used an inflated ‘multiplier’ for arriving at the economic impact values for reduced defense spending. 

CATO Analysis:

 The Fuller analysis summarized above suggests a GDP multiplier effect of 1.92 for 2013 as a result of a $45 billion reduction in defense procurement. The modern scholarly literature on the GDP effect of government spending growth casts significant doubt on any multiplier effect of that magnitude, even under the assumption that the concept of a multiplier effect is consistent with sound economic analysis. 

POGO’s Dershowitz claim: Fuller Is (Gasp) “Overblowing”!

POGO’s Dershowitz applies a blatantly biased spin on the CATO claims: Thus, it appears that Fuller is overblowing the impact of defense spending on GDP by almost twice as much as other estimates. The table in Zycher's analysis (reproduced below) provides a visual representation demonstrating just how out of sync Fuller's study is…

Ms. Dershowitz was kind enough to replicate the CATO table involved:

Author	Estimate	Notes
Fuller	1.92	defense procurement
Cogan et al.	0.65	large stimulus
Mountford and Uhlig	0.65	spending "shock"
Barro and Redlick	0.6-0.9	increases in defense spending
Ramey (2011)	0.6-0.8	defense spending after WW2
Hall	0.7-1.0	all government purchases
Parlow	0	defense spending
Ramey (2012)	0.5	all government spending

Let’s look at these comparative references just a little closer, to see “how out of sync Fuller's study is” shall we?

The Cogan, Et Al. Paper

The first reference we’ll look at is Cogan, Et Al. The title, “New Keynesian versus Old Keynesian Government Spending Multipliers”, gives us a fairly good indicator the paper itself presents.
From the abstract of the paper, we see that the thrust of the analysis is not only just about “New vs. Old” Keynesian modeling, but also about how those models apply to estimating the effects of one of the recent, large, so-called “Economic Stimulus” packages (You know – the ‘stimulus’ packages…that weren’t):

Renewed interest in fiscal policy has increased the use of quantitative models to evaluate policy. Because of modelling uncertainty, it is essential that policy evaluations be robust to alternative assumptions. We find that models currently being used in practice to evaluate fiscal policy stimulus proposals are not robust. Government spending multipliers in an alternative empirically-estimated and widely-cited new Keynesian model are much smaller than in these old Keynesian models; the estimated stimulus is extremely small with GDP and employment effects only one-sixth as large and with private sector employment impacts likely to be even smaller.

If that isn’t bad enough, the ONLY place the .65 ‘multiplier’ figure of merit proffered by CATO and repeated by POGO has nothing to do with defense spending:

 In any case, by assuming that the impact on consumption of the extra 1 percent discretionary increase in the deficit is .3 percent of GDP and using the above mentioned multiplier of .63 the impact will be to increase GDP by an additional .19 percent. If we add this to the .46 percent GDP increase from purchases, the total impact will be to increase GDP by.65 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010 compared to what it would otherwise be (P.17).

In fact, the words ‘defense’, military, or even ‘durable goods’ appear nowhere in the paper. It is a Keynesian modeling love-fest that lumps all government spending in one bucket from what I can tell. Interestingly, the focus is on the impact of adding new generic government spending with all sorts of multiplying effects versus estimating the negative impact (shock and long term) of suddenly withdrawing funds which would impact innumerable and ongoing economic activities. This point is even acknowledged in the text of the CATO paper (p.6):

”Cogan et al. estimate an effect of only about 0.65 in the quarter with the highest impact of a large government “stimulus” policy, which obviously differs from a change in defense spending alone”. 

How typical of POGO to NOT mention that little quirk behind the entry in the nice shiny ‘table’ they hold up as an example. 

BTW: If you like the back and forth of Keynesian economic model arguments (I don’t) you can always pull this thread and see where it takes you.

 
The Mountford and Uhlig Paper 

In  the Mountford and Uhlig reference CATO is again forthcoming in the text about what the .65 multiplier means (p.6):

“Mountford and Uhlig, employing a different type of economic model, arrive at a very similar finding of 0.65 in the first quarter of a spending shock financed with debt.”

 More specifically, the Mountford and Uhlig source document reveals the .65 figure in a table, and in the note below that table we find:

 “This table shows the present value multipliers for a deficit financed tax cut policy scenario and for a deficit spending fiscal policy scenario.” 

The entire thrust of the Mountford and Uhlig study is to characterize the effects of deficit spending overall – NOT what is the economic impact of defense spending. At least the Mountford and Uhlig study indicates that ‘Defense’ spending was accounted for in the overall lump of government spending (p.26), but we have no way of knowing whether or not the multiplier of defense spending alone is above or below the ‘.65 average’ modeled for ALL spending.

The Barro and Redlick Paper

At least this academic exercise in economics attempts to deal with the defense outlays, but by its own internal observations acknowledges several problematic aspects that call into question any direct comparison with the Fuller study. The two largest IMHO:
 
1. The authors state from their review it is their opinion that “It seems unlikely that there is enough information in the variations in defense outlays after 1954 to get an accurate reading on the defense-spending multiplier” (pg 4). Unless the CATO authors assert that there is no material differences between the economy of today and the US economy prior to the Korean War, which would be wrong, (see my post on the 50th anniversary of Eisenhower’s now-mythic Military-Industrial Complex speech ) this would seem to automatically preclude relying on this study to evaluate the Fuller report, even if it agreed with the Fuller defense multiplier.

2. The author’s abstract contains the assertion: “For U.S. annual data that include WWII, the estimated multiplier for defense spending is 0.6-0.7 at the median unemployment rate. There is some evidence that this multiplier rises with the extent of economic slack and reaches 1.0 when the unemployment rate is around 12%.” Since the paper’s median unemployment rate is 5.57% (pg.18), and we are in fact experiencing much higher unemployment rates at the moment (as high as 14.9% if you counted unemployment like we did back in the years this study analyzed)  , the question becomes would the authors’ assertions that the defense multiplier would cap at ‘1’ hold in today’s economy?

Answer: We don’t know from the data presented.

The Ramey(2008)and Ramey(2011)Papers

All we (the Public) have to go on concerning Ramey’s 2008 paper is the abstract which claims:

The implied government spending multipliers range from 0.6 to 1.1. 

…and the CATO Analysis observation within the text which claims Ramey(2008) “finds a defense multiplier effect of 0.6 to 0.8 for the period after World War II”.
That last bit is interesting. I wonder how that statement is reconciled with Barro and Redlick’s observation above—the point that being able to determine the multiplier after 1954 was ‘unlikely’?

By now, the reader should have gotten the idea that with models and the right ground rules, these studies will find whatever the authors want them to find. 

The CATO analysis claims Ramey(2011) “finds a GDP multiplier from all government spending of about 0.5”. Well, we’ve already covered the point that ‘all government’ spending does not equal ‘defense spending’, so what is CATO’s point other than attempting to ‘pile on’?
 
In reviewing the papers we’ve covered to this point, I’ve even found reference to dominating influences of state and local government spending in the ‘all government’ spending equation after the middle of the last century (No, I’m not going to reread them all again to find it for a link). That aspect muddies the waters even more.

The Parlow (Ahem) Paper

When I first read this paper my first thought was: WTFO? But the author apparently isn’t a functional illiterate, but instead a German studying for his Econ PhD in the US. Apparently no one proofreads his work. Once you get past the poor grammar, you find little more than a ‘this is how I used the models and made them work using fake expenditures and wars’ discussion.
The author claims that his analysis, using quarterly data vs. annual data, is a ‘better’ approach than the norm. Apparently the author is unfamiliar with how long it takes to invoke a change in defense acquisition or see the impacts thereof.
The author, as noted in the CATO/POGO table, claims ZERO economic effect from defense spending. There is no account provided for how the author actually handled the “all other things held constant” economic variables. But if I knew more about this paper, I would probably encourage the reader to also take a look: for it reeks of classic GIGO. As it stands, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, and it makes me wonder if CATO was THAT desperate to come up with a longer table for their pagination and printing purposes rather than content.
With the claim of ZERO impact from defense spending (the only one in the list), what makes this Parlow paper NOT the outlier compared to all others in CATO’s eyes?

Finally, The Hall Paper

This is another one that the web provides only the abstract on this side of firewalls [bold emphasis mine]:

During World War II and the Korean War, real GDP grew by about half the amount of the increase in government purchases. With allowance for other factors holding back GDP growth during those wars, the multiplier linking government purchases to GDP may be in the range of 0.7 to 1.0, a range generally supported by research based on vector autoregressions that control for other determinants, but higher values are not ruled out. New Keynesian macro models have multipliers in that range as well. On the other hand, neoclassical models have a much lower multiplier, because they predict that consumption falls when purchases rise. The key features of a model that delivers a higher multiplier are (1) the decline in the markup ratio of price over cost that occurs in those models when output rises, and (2) the elastic response of employment to an increase in demand. These features alone deliver a fairly high multiplier and they are complementary to another feature associated with Keynes, the linkage of consumption to current income. Multipliers are higher—perhaps around 1 .7—when the nominal interest rate is at its lower bound of zero, as it was during 2009. 

In fairness, the CATO analysis mentions Hall’s reference to the multiplier moving to the higher end of the range as interest rates approach zero included (pgs 6-7). POGO’s Dershowitz conveniently omits that fact in her little hit-piece. If one would care to review the current rate at which the Government can borrow, one would find it much closer to zero than I think any other time I’ve seen in my adulthood (.25%--a quarter of one percent at this time). Which brings us to observe, that even without necking down the dollars in Hall’s paper to just Defense spending, the Hall paper’s findings are not very far apart from the Fuller report’s multiplier.

By CATO’s own reference to Hall, they prove that while Fuller may be on one side of a range of modeled results, the Fuller Report is NOT an ‘outlier’ by any means.

Summary

The assortment of studies that the CATO authors rounded up and how they applied them reeks every bit of the sort of advocacy research that they attempt to claim is a fault of the Fuller report. For about the last decade and a half (or so), when I read this sort of advocacy masquerading as analysis I mentally file it under a category named for the first half of the title of a favorite paper: A Precisely Guided Analytical Bomb.
 

Introducing Suzie Dershowitz Part 3

Still ‘Provoking Accountability’….Of the ‘Unaccountable’

POGO's Suzie Dershowittz, Source: POGO

Back to Part 2

Major Ploy Du Jour #2: “This Proves/Refutes Our POV/Their POV” (In this case both). Only.... it doesn't. Hint: You could lay all the economists in the world end to end and you still wouldn't be able to reach a conclusion.

Ms. Dershowitz’s cogitative effluence attempts to use the CATO ‘study’ as evidence (may I say ‘proof’?) that one particular defense industry economic impact study, which we shall refer to as the “Fuller study”, and one that points to destructive effects from an imminent and abrupt downturn in defense acquisition spending, is not to be trusted and is also out of the ‘mainstream’ of economic thought. Now, I have many problems with using the CATO ‘study’ in this manner (as I would for any study used in the same way). BUT… for this exercise we will focus on problematic areas of the CATO analysis (because as much as POGO might like to think it is a study-- it is not a study, but is merely an analysis that is critical of the Fuller study) where Ms. Dershowitz unwisely attempts to use in support of her assertion that ‘left, right, and center’ agree with POGO: that there will not be the kind of damage that the industry-sponsored study warns us will happen.

The key points that POGO is relying on and promoting in the Dershowitz piece are twofold:

1. Dershowitz/POGO relies on the CATO claims that the Fuller study overstates the adverse impact of lost defense acquisition programs because it does not take into account the impact of applying freed resources in the economy elsewhere.
2. Dershowitz/POGO relies on CATO claims (and claimed ‘evidence’) that the Fuller study overstates the net economic ‘multiplier’ of defense acquisition spending.

Fatally-Flawed POGO/CATO Point #1

The CATO claim of Fuller overstating the adverse impact of defense cuts by not taking into account the redirection of resources for other purposes is relayed to us by POGO/Dershowitz as follows:

What's more, Zycher explains that redirecting resources (such as labor and capital) to more productive uses can yield long-term benefits for the economy as a whole:
The process of allowing market forces to redirect resource use increases aggregate output and wealth, thus making virtually all individuals better off over time on net. The movement of resources from less to more profitable sectors increases the aggregate productivity of the economy.

The first problem with this complaint is how it is framed. What Dershowitz fails to mention is that the CATO author’s problem with the Fuller study is a ‘problem’ he has with all such studies. In the notes of the CATO analysis we find (pg 15): 

I criticize the Fuller analysis here not because it is necessarily more flawed than most such analyses, but instead because it is quite typical of that body of literature, and is the most recent that I have found. 

What exactly is the CATO author referring to? The CATO author’s complaint is that the Fuller study ONLY deals with the jobs and economic activity lost in the defense sector and NOT what the impact is when resources get reallocated as a result. The implication from the POGO piece is that this is a deficiency. In fact, it is a design OBJECTIVE.

Fuller’s methodology was designed to estimate the direct adverse economic impact of a rapid contraction in defense acquisition activity on the defense industry, and this was clearly expressed on Page 4 in Fuller’s report “The U.S. Economic Impact of Approved and Projected DOD Spending Reductions on Equipment in 2013: Summary of Research Findings”. –No more, no less.

Academic Slap Fight

That the author of the CATO paper found sufficient ‘fault’ with Fuller’s limiting the scope of his study to prompt CATO to in effect, pick a prissy academic ‘slap fight’ over Fuller conducting the study such that it is more relevant to current events and the population at large, rather than making it more relevant to ivory tower academics, is more indicative of contrivance on CATO’s part to promote their agenda than any by Fuller and the Aerospace Industries Association who sponsored the Fuller study. I believe I can state this without fear of cogent disagreement or recrimination because it can be shown that there are clearly sufficient reasons to NOT include speculation on downstream effects as advocated by the author of the CATO paper. Before we get to those reasons, it will be helpful to spend a paragraph or two on what really drives 1) any economic impact study, 2) what data is analyzed and 3) how it is interpreted when conducting and reporting the study.

Models Drive Studies and Ground Rules and Assumptions Shape the Models.

It must be remembered that economic impact studies are to varying extents “model-driven”. On some of my projects, I work with an Operations Research colleague (big ‘Shout Out’ to Doctor Dave) who is fond of opening any conference or meeting where we will be presenting study findings developed using model driven data on a cautionary note. Doctor Dave will begin by paraphrasing a quote attributed to statistician George Box. “Remember, ALL models are ‘wrong’, but some are useful.”.

For best illustrative purpose on our topic, I think one of Box’s more complete expressions of the point is even better:"Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." Given this ground truth, by extension we can safely observe:

Remember: All model-driven studies are wrong; the practical question is -- how wrong do the models have to be for the study to not be useful?

A study that would resemble what the CATO analysis advocates cannot be compared to the Fuller study. The CATO analysis advocates introducing additional assumptions and caveats and carries the analysis further than just determining the negative impact on the defense industry. Some examples:

…This shift of resources, including labor, across economic sectors is an example of what economists call “structural unemployment.” It is the result of changes in the underlying economic conditions of demand and supply that yield shifts in the relative price signals inducing resources to flow toward and away from various sectors. In other words, as demand and supply conditions change, the “structure” of the economy changes as well: some industries grow while others decline, either absolutely or in a relative sense. Structural unemployment is a fundamental feature of any dynamic economy driven by constant changes in individual preferences, individual choices, technological shifts, and a myriad other factors. Any owner of an input, including workers suffering from unemployment caused by a change in market conditions, is worse off, at least temporarily. But the process of allowing market forces to redirect resource use increases aggregate output and wealth, thus making virtually all individuals better off over time on net. The movement of resources from less to more profitable sectors increases the aggregate productivity of the economy...

…A change in the aggregate demand for defense services is more difficult to measure (or to perceive) than is the case for goods and services traded in the private sector—value in the public sector is a good deal murkier—and public decision makers may have weaker incentives to respond to such changes in demand conditions...

All true and interesting in an academic sense, but how much faith may one place in an academic exercise to confidently make major policy decisions? How well would such information benefit a decision maker with our current economic environment and problem? Both the Fuller and a CATOesque study would ‘inform’, but is a CATOesque study as ‘useful’ as the Fuller study, since a CATOesque study involves the modeling (how well done, i.e. realistic?) of a “dynamic economy driven by constant changes in individual preferences, individual choices, technological shifts, and a myriad other factors”? Would a CATOesque study effectively capture the inner workings and outcomes of a “process of allowing market forces to redirect resource use increases aggregate output and wealth” over the 10 year period affected by the looming sequestration debacle? How well would a CATOesque study quantify a relative value lost or gained, if “value in the public sector is a good deal murkier”? How long will it take for “virtually all individuals” to be “better off over time”, how bad will it be for them in the interim, and WHO exactly isn’t part of the ‘virtually all” in the picking of winners and losers?
Sidebar: I notice that the CATO analysis studiously refers to Defense Service costs and values instead of the Defense Acquisition costs that the Fuller study examines. What are the differences between the two definitions, if any? I suspect the CATO analysis is referring to services as well as acquisition of material defense products.

Coming Up: Part 4

I believe CATO understands the weakness of the argument that the Fuller study ‘doesn’t go far enough’ (and POGO doesn’t care: with POGO it is all about whether or not a vehicle can be used to peddle their noise). I believe CATO fully understands the notion of ‘usefulness’ and that it wasn’t enough to claim the sort of study they advocate would be more useful. At best it would be perhaps useful in a different way, and more likely it would be less than helpful through introduction of uncertainty via likely errors of assumption and deduction. This MAY be why CATO went to some lengths to employ (and POGO parroted) the additional complaint that the Fuller study somehow overstates the net economic ‘multiplier’ of defense acquisition spending in arriving at the results Fuller did find, and IMHO it used rather questionable methodology and tautology in attempting to ‘sell’ the idea that Fuller was out of the economics mainstream in employing the multiplier that he did.
By using CATO's own references, I will show how the Fuller multiplier is probably more appropriate than the Economic Aesthetes at CATO or the Progressive Proles at POGO would like us to believe. I will provide those arguments supporting my assertions on this point in the final part, Part 4, of “Introducing Suzie Dershowitz”.


Part 4

Introducing Suzie Dershowitz Part 2

Today we will be ‘Provoking Accountability’….Of the ‘Unaccountable’



Smiling Suzie Dershowitz, with an incredibly hybris-ridden slogan. Source: POGO
(and why does this reminded me of a Jonah Goldberg book?)

POGO Major Ploy Du Jour #1: False Non-Political/Partisanship claims. Hint: Libertarian is NOT Conservative.

A Continuation From Part 1

Ms. Dershowitz opened her 'piece' (see part 1) by offering a title and a couple of paragraphs intimating POGO's position on reducing defense spending has broad support:

A recent study by Benjamin Zycher from the libertarian think tank the CATO Institute reaffirms what we've been saying all along: Cutting Pentagon spending will not cause the economic nightmare or job loss catastrophe the defense industry wants us to fear.

In addition to CATO, other right-leaning analysts, advocates, and politicians have also been vocally challenging the narrative that defense spending must not be decreased. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, recently pledged to fight any efforts to divert tax reform revenues toward an increase in Pentagon spending or avoiding across-the-board budget cuts, known as sequestration. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), a senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, has called for a national dialogue on sequestration, recognizing that "the average American out there, by big percentages, wants to cut defense by twice the sequester amount."

Got that? The 'spectrum' of support includes:

1. ‘Big L’ Libertarian CATO which thinks of terms of Republic OR Empire, and that if you're not all at home, well then you must be an Empire. 
2. A Cult of Personality ‘small government’ activist of the extreme self-serving more than tax-cut ilk, AKA Grover Norquist, and
3. ONE Republican Congressional dinosaur who just happens to be in a fight to keep his seat: the sole Republican House Seat in a district that has been redrawn to his disadvantage since the last election.

Who in that group would today be likely to place a priority on defense spending compared to their other interests?

Answer: None of them.

 

 About ‘Big L’ CATO and Defense  

‘Big L’ CATO has a Pollyanna view of world affairs that lives under the delusion that the US can afford to downsize the military because THEY don’t see the ‘threat’ which, combined with a somewhat more ‘passive isolationist’ vision of the United States’ role in world affairs versus the current (and faded under Obama) role as the benevolent and last remaining Superpower. This is perfectly acceptable, if CATO would then make statements that were qualified with the caveat “In CATO’s opinion, view, vision, we believe X”. But they don’t qualify. They flatly assert we need to reduce our defense spending and our involvement in the world’s affairs, that there is no ‘threat’ that warrants defense spending levels, etc (see this video which could have been the germ for the POGO regurgitation) . In doing so they look right past the point that if the United States does not ensure its interests are taken care of around the globe, someone else will take care of them for us in the manner of their choosing. The focus on visible ‘threats’ conveniently prevents them having to recognize: 

• The positive economic effects of close defense relationships with our allies, 
• The deterrent effects to those who would seek to cause us indirect as well as direct harm, economic or otherwise, 
• The advantages of having ‘friends’ and forces in place for any emergency (most likely unforeseen) no matter where on the globe that emergency might appear. 

 

As I’ve always said: I would be a Libertarian, if they had a frickin’ clue when it comes to defense, but then if they did, they would be good Conservatives. Here’s a tip for CATO.

If POGO and PDA are on your side—you are on the wrong side.

As it is, your defense ‘work’ just gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Sad.

BTW: Notice between the CATO ‘study’ and the CATO video, there is a conflation of the topics of ‘defense reductions’ in general and ‘defense sequestration’ specifically? This serves to abstract the issue and make it more ‘feely’ than ‘factual’. We’ll work on that later.
 

Part 3
Part 4

Introducing POGO's Suzie Dershowitz

Know Your Reformers: Training Wheels Edition

The left-wing 'reform' group (they claim to be non-partisan, but their funding stream, especially as it relates to defense topics, tell a different story) Project on Government Oversight, aka POGO, has a budding young 'Public Policy Expert' named Suzie Dershowitz. Ms Dershowitz seems to have been given the opportunity to editorialize on defense spending in the relatively safe harbor of the Huffington Post with an 'article' titled: Right, Left and Middle Agree: Reshaping the Pentagon Budget Won't Hurt the Economy. Now, the Beta and Omega PuffHo's that haunt the joint should be considered 'training wheels' for young Suzie: You can float 'defense' turds all day long in that fever swamp with nary a complaint.
The reason I'm pointing Dershowitz's piece is twofold. First, I'm going to use it as another example to illustrate the sort of ploys POGO et al are far too comfortable in thinking they can pass off as 'thoughtful' on the unsuspecting public. Second, I'm using this as a sort of test to see if a typical POGO pattern emerges: POGO drops the turd, and the 'usual suspect' pseudo-news sites picks it up and passes it around (Eewww --the Imagery!).

The Major Ploys Du Jour

I'll just list them tonight, and expand on them later (Hey,it's late and I'm tired!) but I'm sure the reader can explain them once they're pointed out as well as I can.
1. False Non-Political/Partisanship claims. Hint: Libertarian is NOT Conservative.
2. This Proves/Refutes Our POV/Their POV (In this case both). Only.... it doesn't. Hint: You could lay all the economists in the world end to end and you still wouldn't be able to reach a conclusion.

The Pattern

Let's see who (if anyone) picks the POGO piece up and promotes it. (I'm running a risk here of tipping my hand, but I'm counting on the major site's tendency to focus on cranking out the pre-written memes instead of producing original journalism.

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

F-22: Journalism vs. Punk Journalism

Is David Axe a ‘Punk’?

If only ‘Punks’ practice ‘Punk Journalism’, we would have to say… yes. Otherwise?

Before you answer the question, let us first illustrate some of the key differences between ‘Journalism’ and ‘Punk Journalism’ to perhaps help you make up your mind.

(Note: all bold emphasis and brackets ‘[]’ are mine)

Journalism Title: “IN FOCUS: German Eurofighters impress during Red Flag debut”

Punk Journalism Title: “How to Defeat the Air Force’s Powerful Stealth Fighter”

F-22 Raptor (Source ACC)

Journalism is an attempt to provide a balanced story:

As part of the Distant Frontier exercise, F-22s from the USAF's 525th Fighter Squadron faced off against the German fighters in visual-range basic fighter manoeuvres (BFM) combat training... 

While Grune [Luftwaffe] does not directly say that the Eurofighters emerged as the overall victors, he strongly implies it. "I put out some whiskey. If they come back with some good performances, and if you know what the goal is from a BFM setup, and you achieve that, then I will pay you whiskey," he says. "And I paid quite a lot of whiskey."... 

That account, however, is strongly disputed by USAF sources flying the F-22. "It sounds as though we have very different recollections as to the outcomes of the BFM engagements that were fought," one Raptor pilot says….  

USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmanoeuvre the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of he F-22. "We ended up with numerous gunshots," another USAF pilot says….  

Regardless of their differing accounts, the USAF was grateful for the chance to train with the Luftwaffe. "We optimise the opportunities we get to participate in dissimilar air combat training, as those opportunities are all too rare," says Lt Col Paul Moga, commander of the 525th Fighter Squadron. "Our recent BFM hops with the German air force Typhoons were outstanding….

‘Punk Journalism’ tries to sell you a single POV that supports a predetermined meme:

In mid-June, 150 German airmen and eight twin-engine, non-stealthy Typhoons arrived at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska for an American-led Red Flag exercise involving more than 100 aircraft from Germany, the U.S. Air Force and Army, NATO, Japan, Australia and Poland. Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate a close-range dogfight....  

The results were a surprise to the Germans and presumably the Americans, too. “We were evenly matched,” Maj. Marc Gruene told Combat Aircraft’s Jamie Hunter. The key, Gruene said, is to get as close as possible to the F-22 … and stay there. “They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively.” ... 

Gruene said the Raptor excels at fighting from beyond visual range with its high speed and altitude, sophisticated radar and long-range AMRAAM missiles. But in a slower, close-range tangle — which pilots call a “merge” — the bigger and heavier F-22 is at a disadvantage. “As soon as you get to the merge … the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22,” Gruene said. ... 

This is not supposed to be the sort of reaction the F-22 inspires. For years the Air Force has billed the Raptor as an unparalleled aerial combatant. Even former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who in 2009 famously cut F-22 production to just 187 copies, called the stealth jet “far and away the best air-to-air fighter ever produced” and predicted “it will ensure U.S. command of the skies for the next generation.”

Eurofighter Typhoon (Source: Wikipedia)

Journalism will present valuable information to help the reader understand the story in the larger context:

While certain uncontrollable factors such as weather and manoeuvring limitations did not allow for full-up engagements, it is suffice to say that there was much learning across the board. The details of each set-up are privy only to the pilots that flew them, as that is the sacred standard among fighter pilots... 

"Its [F-22’s] unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat," [Commander of JG74, Colonel] Pfeiffer says. "But once you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area the Typhoon doesn't have to fear the F-22 in all aspects."...

The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and slicked off as much as possible before the encounter with the Raptors, says Grune, who adds that in that configuration, the Typhoon is an "animal". [How ‘slick’ is still a feasible Air-to-Air configuration?]

Punk Journalism will contain known falsehoods when it is believed it will advance the meme:

And it’s [F-22 is] slowly getting taken off the probation it incurred after seemingly suffocating pilots... [Combat Edge Flight Ensemble has been determined to be the problem and (wait for it)….it is NOT part of the F-22]  

Despite the historical facts, there persists in Air Force circles “a hypothetical vision of ultra-long range, radar-based, air-to-air combat,” to quote air power skeptic Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the brute-simple F-16 and A-10 warplanes. [Sprey is not a co-designer of either the A-10 or F-16. He participated in the development of the initial REQUIREMENTS. BTW: This is called a “fallacious appeal to authority”.]

I now put it to the reader: How ‘Punk’ does the ‘Journalism’ have to be before it can only be written by a punk? Or perhaps David Axe is just phoning in POGO talking points these days?

Double-0 POGO and the F-35: Update 2

Mr. Smallwood (Eventually) Responded

Lt. Col. Eric Smith (left) congratulates Lt. Col. Lee Kloos on becoming the latest qualified joint strike fighter pilot and DOD’s first non-developmental test pilot to qualify, May 31 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. After completing his flight, is now a qualified instructor pilot for the F-35 Lightning II. Smith, the director of operations with the 58th FS and the first Air Force qualified pilot, served as Kloos' flight evaluator. (U.S. Air Force photo/Maj. Karen Roganov)

And the response was pretty much as expected:

“Your comments seem to suggest the F-35 has actually been completely tested and is fully ready for combat. Since it isn’t even halfway there, I’ll take your comments — barely legible as they were — with a healthy dose of skepticism. Further, since you have openly suggested on your website that I’m working for POGO itself I will go ahead and play turnabout: You strike me as nothing more than a front for the defense industry — the kind of guy paid-off to act like an independent and fill the debate with tripe to make people think twice about what is obvious. What is obvious: the plane is an overpriced piece of crap, and will never be a staple of the American Air Force. Your boys at Lockheed are on borrowed time using the Pentagon as a marketer and purchaser all at once because America is broke. Best invest that money elsewhere.” (screen capture to left)

Notice the lack of any real attempt to engage on the validity of the ‘debunking’ itself? I must say I find the notion that I’m a sort of paid secret ‘front’ for the defense industry (I’m a ‘highly-compensated’ engineer/analyst, bucko!) scouring the web for evil-doers on the behalf of the F-35 for bounty….hilariously conspiratorial.  I do the scouring for free! I suspect Mr. Smallwood probably also operates under the delusion that there actually IS a ‘Military-Industrial Complex’.

My comments “seem to suggest the F-35 “has actually been completely tested”? No. I cited an expert operator from outside the acquisition/development program who is now fully qualified to fly and instruct other pilots in the F-35. HE says the F-35 is as maneuverable as an F-16 (or better). HIS  statements are an overmatching counter-weight to the tired old claims made by ignorant activist ‘reformers'.
Alas, I fear Mr. Smallwood’s insufficient language skills may be a barrier to meaningful communication, as he also asserts that I “ have openly suggested on" (my) "website that I’m working for POGO itself”.
No Mr. Smallwood. Perhaps you missed the part in my initial post where I wrote: “I’ve noticed a marked uptick in the foreign blog and online alternative newspapers containing references to POGO’s pet ‘expert’ commentators. POGO ‘special operators/fellow travelers’ seem to be most active in F-35 Partner nations where economic conditions are tightest and in countries that represent existing or emerging markets for F-35 Foreign Military Sales (FMS).” What I openly asserted is that Mr. Smallwood was spoon-fed the drivel he regurgitated, and I also suggested that Mr. Smallwood was furthering POGO’s aims: a 'de facto' agent at the very least. I left open the issue as to whether or not they also further his own interests until now. Hence the “a special operator/fellow traveler” reference.
Mr. Smallwood then uses this mischaracterization to then postulate he could also view me “as nothing more than a front for the defense industry — the kind of guy paid-off to act like an independent and fill the debate with tripe to make people think twice about what is obvious” ?
Assuming Mr. Smallwood is a principled man (why not?), I can only conclude from this statement that he has never been exposed to disciplines that are based upon consequential knowledge and the application thereof. Otherwise, would he not have been able to attach proper value to claims made by competent experts in their field (forget nameless ‘me’, what about Lt Col. Kloos)? And could he then not shrug off the political machinations of agent provocateurs who are paid by an anti-defense Non-State Actor that is funded largely by left-wing foundations and aging hippies--however sympathetic he might be to their flawed ideologies?
Sigh~I suppose for some, it would be far easier to shrug off the fact that the ever-increasingly larger circle of people with ACTUAL F-35 experience typically speak very highly of it than change any preconceived or ill-informed decision. 'They' would rather cling to the shrill prevarications of outside critics with no relevant or insufficient expertise and experience, all in order to preserve some philosophical blind spot.

Kudos to ‘SpudmanWP’,  a visitor who is also a “SNAFU!” regular, for attempting to reach out further to Smallwood in the comment thread...and for engaging on behalf of evidence and logic. I’d take more of an interest myself, if I thought there was any hope. As I see it, Smallwood’s just an outlet for the real troublemakers. I want to keep my 'eyes on the prize'.

In Closing: By "barely legible", should we assume he meant my debunking was ‘barely intelligible’? Aside from an "it's/its" typo that got by me I didn't find anything too egregious. I ask, because I thought ‘dumbed it down’ as far as I dared without doing violence to the meaning within: