Agreed. The author is an idiot.
He seems to be saying that we don't need a good fighter because our missles will do the job for them. If I'm not mistaken, isn't this the same thing that happened with the F-4? Engineers didn't put a gun on it thinking that our all powerful missles would take care of everything. I probably don't know the whole story behind that, but I heard that it caused problems.
As far as if we need the F-22, I would say yes. Like Pags said, it may be 150% of the solution, but we have to keep up with other nations. If we didn't have the F-22, what can we do to keep up with planes like the Su-35, Eurofighter, or Rafale? (This isn't rhetorical, any ideas?) Russia may not be the old USSR, but it does have an air force.