Lawrence Korb, who obviously sees defense as the budget cutting device that can save other spending programs, opens his POLITICO piece with this:
Defense is not now — nor was it ever intended to be — a jobs program.
So when an Aerospace Industries Association study — supported, unfortunately, by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) — attempts to warn Congress and the American people that cutting projected defense spending by as much as $1 trillion over the next decade, which might happen if sequestration takes effect, could cost 1 million jobs, the appropriate response is that this is irrelevant.
Actually, it’s not irrelevant in the least. Not when you have an administration trying to spend more money on “infrastructure jobs” and touting jobs it has “saved or created.” Not when you have a president who is claiming the national priority is jobs, jobs, jobs.
It isn’t irrelevant at all.
I agree with his essential point and made it myself yesterday. Defense isn’t a “jobs program.” And no one is arguing it is. That doesn’t make the impact of cuts to this particular sector less “relevant.” Again, a million jobs in the middle of a deep recession means more trouble—not less. So Korb’s cavalier dismissal of that impact as irrelevant is, well, irrelevant. It’s a false premise.
This isn’t about the jobs, necessarily (although they are important); it is about the future of our national security. As the Air Force generals I quoted yesterday emphasized, the decisions made today will have a profound effect in 20 to 30 years. If we cut major defense programs now, we will suffer their consequences then. Sure, we’ll see a million jobs go down the drain now. But the short-sightedness of huge cuts now really doesn’t have anything to do with jobs. It has to do with a degraded and less capable national defense in the future.
Korb attempts to use this false premise to sell a trillion dollars in cuts to defense programs and then promises vapor jobs in return:
That $1 trillion can be used to lower our federal debt, which Adm. Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the greatest threat to our national security.
Or it could be used to create at least 2 million new jobs — to replace the 600,000 that could be lost.
Note that Korb claims, with no basis for his claim (after supposedly taking apart the argument that a million jobs will be lost with sequestration cuts) and then blithely hand waves “at least” two million new jobs into existence by doing . . . what?
Spending that trillion dollars. That’s worked so well for us in the past three years, hasn’t it?
And his desire to “create at least 2 million new jobs” to replace those lost to deep defense cuts tells you what?
That those lost if the cuts to defense are made aren’t irrelevant at all—are they, Mr. Korb?
Jake Janzen on November 17, 2011 at 7:01 pm said:
The fact remains that our military budget drives our strategy, rather than strategy driving the budget. The industry that profits from fighting bad guys is actively working to ensure there is a steady supply of bad guys. If we focused on our own problems, and sought peace with other nations, we wouldn’t have to spend so much to defend ourselves and our troops. The current military budget is seven times more than any other country spends, and is equivalent to a “stimulus bill” every year. Talk about a spending problem! We’ve got lots of room for discretion with our “non-discretionary” funding. Our country will be better prepared to fight a war 20 years from now if we have a strong infrastructure, we don’t depend on foreign oil, and we aren’t trillions of dollars in debt.
Starless on November 18, 2011 at 9:38 am said:
Maybe you can explain to us how “the industry that profits from fighting bad guys is actively working to ensure there is a steady supply of bad guys”. Is General Dynamics egging on the mullahs? Did Raytheon tell Gaddafi that he should violently oppress his own people and the English and the French that they should demand NATO participation in a military response? How about Boeing? Have they got internal memos saying, “We’ve got a sh*tload of JDAMs to move, so how about we get those al Qaeda guys to fly some of our airplanes into American buildings”? I imagine there’s also a paper trail from Lockheed-Martin to Beijing explaining how they need to ensure F-35 sales, so could the Chinese pretty please develop the J-20?
The fact remains that there is, and will be for the foreseeable future, a self-generating stream of bad guys without The Industry having to “ensure there is a steady supply” of them.
Jake Janzen on November 18, 2011 at 10:31 am said:
Starless,
Here’s how: James Jay Carafano writes columns for the Washington Examiner. He advocates attacking Iran and North Korea, and he insists that the federal government should never miss an opportunity to buy more missiles, jets, and ships. He is listed as a national security expert with the Heritage Foundation. But guess what? That foundation receives large donations from military contractors. That money trail is hard to follow, because those corporations benefit by hiding it.
The stream of bad guys is NOT self-generating, and we need to be asking why America is hated so much. Maybe it is because we armed the Iraqis to fight Iran, and we armed the Afghans to fight the Russians… Just to name a couple of possibilities.
At any rate, if we are going to spend that money for the Dept of Offense, job creation shouldn’t be part of the argument. And the government should raise taxes to pay for the costs rather then just borrow money and hide the consequnces from the public.
Starless on November 18, 2011 at 11:18 am said:
So some guy writes for the Heritage Foundation advocating a vigorous foreign policy and a strong defense department, the Heritage Foundation is alleged funded by military contractors, therefore those military contractors are “actively working to ensure there is a steady supply of bad guys”. Here’s a similar chain of logic for you: 1) Steal underpants 2) ??? 3) Profit!
You have no actual proof, all you have is assertions based on a reversal of cause and effect. That through editorials and engaging with the rest of the world, The Military Industrial Complex (just say it! You know you want to!) is able to induce attacks on America and her interests. That radical Islamists’ clearly stated and demonstrated hatred of Western culture is not the main reason they do things like chop the heads off of American businessmen and journalists. That their diametrically opposed worldview is merely incidental.
But why stop with American when placing the blame for radical Islam’s war with the West? And why limit yourself to the last few decades? How about including England, France and Russia? If Western meddling is the reason they hate us, then you’re being irresponsible if you insist on ignoring the fallout from WW2 in post-War/post-Colonial Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia.
Jake Janzen on November 18, 2011 at 1:44 pm said:
I enjoyed the South Park reference, but the funding from The Heritage Foundation is not a conspiracy theory. Besides, it is just one example. It does not include all of the politicians that receive large campaign donations from these same corporations.
I don’t exclude other Western countries from responsibility for the current state of affairs. In fact, I was thrilled when France took the top of the “most hated” list by banning burkahs and leading the fight in Libya. At least it wasn’t us for once.
I’m not ignoring the fallout from the past… why do Islamists hate the West? Again, just one example: I read recently that Iraq was created out of the Ottoman empire after the first World War. Britain negotiated with France for rights to the country, and it was just assumed that one of the Allies would control the new state. They set in place a king who fought against the Ottoman regime, but the guy wasn’t even from Iraq. The people of that land have been ruled by a puppet government for the last 100 years!
But we digress. The point of the article is that job losses aren’t a justification for the military budget. In times of peace, we should pay off our debts, and put people to work building infrastructure. We’d be better prepared for the next war if we did that.
We’ve got a lot of room for discretion in our “non-discretionary” budget. Any politician who is willing to write a blank check to the Pentagon just isn’t being financially responsible.
Starless on November 18, 2011 at 4:51 pm said:
Digress? I don’t think so. Your argument is based on a wag-the-dog theory–”budget drives our strategy”, “the industry that profits…is actively working to ensure there is a steady supply of bad guys”, and “politicians that receive large campaign donations from these same corporations”. If we mind our own business, everyone else will mind theirs (b/c there’s so much historical precedence proving that that ever works). Therefore, slashing a million jobs is fine b/c the justification for them is a fiction created by the Military Industrial Complex.
Don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll get your wish and DoD will take it in the shorts. Never mind that the Air Force will end up flying airframes designed in ’70s well into the third decade of the 21st century.
Jake Janzen on November 19, 2011 at 6:55 am said:
Starless,
In terms of minding our own business, there is a big difference between defending our country, and defending American interests… especially when Americans are interested in $2/gallon gasoline.
Now look, I’m not saying that the jobs justification was a fiction during the time we were fighting two wars, but it shouldn’t be a justification moving forward.
The first round of cuts took $35 billion per year from the Pentagon; the automatic trigger from the super committee (if it ever happens) would take another $50 billion. That brings us down to spending $615 billion per year. That’s not a doomsday mechanism, nor does it constitute “taking it in the shorts”… especially if you consider that the Pentagon budget was somewhere around $300 billion in 2003.
As far as airframes designed in the ’70s, I’m not sure that is a bad thing. The last time I visited the WV Air National Guard, they were flying C130s built in the ’60s; and I was told that there was nothing wrong with that. If ’70s era airframes are such a problem, why hasn’t the Air Force updated their planes with the blank check budget they have had over the last several years?
Besides, if war came in 2030, why shouldn’t the Air Force have planes built in 2030? I found this info on http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/WWII_Industry/Aero7.htm
“From 1939, when fewer than 6,000 planes a year were being produced, the industry doubled production in 1940 and doubled it again in 1941 and 1942. In the first half of 1941, it produced 7,433 aircraft, more than had been produced in all of 1940. From January 1, 1940, until V-J Day on August 14, 1945, more than 300,000 military aircraft were produced for the U.S. military and the Allies—with almost 275,000 after Pearl Harbor. In the peak production month of March 1944, more than 9,000 aircraft came off the assembly lines. By the spring of 1944, more aircraft were being built than could be used and production began to be curtailed.”
That kind of production was based on two things that I’m not sure we have today:
1. America had the infrastructure and manufacturing base necessary
2. When the U.S. government claimed to pay for those planes, people actually believed them.
Joy McCann on November 19, 2011 at 8:43 am said:
For us to be using decades-old technology while other industrialized nations are using state-of-the-art hardware is not smart at all.
And in no way has the Air Force has a “blank check” over the past several years—if it had, production of the F-22 wouldn’t have been cut back so drastically.
Starless on November 19, 2011 at 9:13 am said:
Indeed. Though additional F-22s was in the “nice to have” column. My concern is that even though they claim they’re not going to target the program the “guns or butter” congress-critters will start looking greedily at the F-35.
Joy McCann on November 19, 2011 at 2:02 pm said:
Ditto.
Starless on November 19, 2011 at 2:56 pm said:
Sorry, I couldn’t pass up this opportunity.
Joy McCann on November 20, 2011 at 7:27 pm said:
Ha!
Starless on November 19, 2011 at 10:07 am said:
Let’s get something clear: “no blood for oil” is a nice fantasy and makes for a succinct slogan on a protest sign, but the fact remains that blood has always been spilled for high-demand natural resources and I can’t see anything that will change that in the foreseeable future.
AFA as the ’130 is concerned, there’s a big difference in requirements between an analog aircraft designed for cargo transport and a digital strike aircraft. If you wanted to make a comparison to bolster your argument you’d be better off pointing to the B-52 and A-10, but even so those two aircraft are the exception, not the rule–from the development of those two aircraft to now, aviation history is littered with the corpses of legions of other aircraft. And at that, both the B-52 and A-10 have survived only because of significant weapons technology upgrades. I admire those three aircraft for their simplicity and longevity, but none of them are very fast or stealthy and can only come into play once other more advanced aircraft have made it safe for them to do so.
It’s funny that you should bring up WW2. You seem to have forgotten one obvious point: our entry into that war occurred because the Japanese were emboldened by our apparent military weakness. Not to mention that our actual military weakness made for tough going in the Pacific at the start of the war. We went from having a presence as far east as the Philippines to having to slug our way from Hawaii all the way back across the Pacific.
It’s repeated ad nauseum, but it is true that “peace through strength” works. That was one of biggest the lessons of WW2 and if we keep trying to ignore that lesson, we’ll keep paying the price.
I’d agree that our manufacturing base is not what it was and that that’s not a good thing. OTOH, it’s not 1940 anymore. The US has changed significantly, as has the defense industry, and even more significantly, the global economic environment has changed massively. Stability in that environment–a direct and extremely important US interest, BTW–depends to no small extent on the US carrying a Big Stick. Also, I’d like to know: are the feds supposed to be the ones to build our manufacturing base back to WW2 levels? If so, let’s have a look at what a bang-up job they’ve done so far in the auto and green energy industries.
You say that it’s a mere $35 billion here and $50 billion there. Okay, fine. But considering that the DoD is so often seen as a nice fat piggy bank there to be raided to finance “butter” programs. That kind of slope can get very slippery very quickly (See: Bill and Hillary! Clinton).
Jake Janzen on November 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm said:
Ms. McCann,
At $700 billion per year for the Pentagon, we are currently spending seven times more military money than any other country. That leaves a whole lot of room for cuts, without getting anywhere close to falling behind.
Starless,
I don’t think the lesson of “peace through strength” has been ignored. I concede that mutual assured destruction is a deterrent for war between nations, but it cannot prevent terrorist attacks from suicidal fanatics. As long as we continue to shed blood for high-demand natural resources, there will be more and more of those kind of attacks. Just because people have always killed each other for resources doesn’t mean WE have to be the aggressor going forward. And people need to recognize the true costs of those resources… it is a hell of a lot higher than $2/gallon.
But, you both have valid points. Maintaining a technology edge and achieving peace through strength are strategies that should be considered as we determine the military budget. The number of jobs that might be lost in the districts of Jeb Hensarling and Patty Murray should NOT be a part of the equation, and the Aerospace Industries Association has lost sight of that. Their report is evidence that they will say whatever they can to keep dollars coming their way.
The National Security debate coming up this Tuesday night will be a good opportunity to see which candidates can keep a perspective on the interests of ALL Americans, not just the big campaign contributors.
(So far I am diggin’ Ron Paul)
Joy McCann on November 20, 2011 at 7:32 pm said:
The reason that we spend more than other nations is that we have more responsibility than other nations: we provide a sort of “safety umbrella” to many, many countries in different corners of the globe.
We can certainly play that role in a less costly way. For instance, it might not make sense to have quite as many of our military personnel in Germany right now as we do.
But if we abdicate our role as a global peacekeeper, we will place more people in peril around the world, and create a dangerous power vacuum.
Starless on November 21, 2011 at 8:52 am said:
We also spend more because we, as a people, believe in bending over backwards to fight as efficiently and humanely as possible. If our goal was merely to be the biggest kid on the block, our military would be much less expensive (a thousand of these probably would have been much less expensive than 20 B-2s but would have brought more destruction to the battlefield). We also believe, and were among the first to do so, in fixing what we’ve broken in enemy territory and not plundering spoils of war.
Starless on November 21, 2011 at 8:41 am said:
For one thing, we’ve long given up any sort of MAD strategy so that’s a non-starter, for another, everyone has always fought over high-demand resources. If we suddenly decide we’re going to take the high road it’s not as though bully-boys are going to respect our decision or that our friends are going to thank us for it and be understanding. Every time we, or our interests, have been attacked, one of the pre-existing conditions has been a perception among our enemies that we were weak and/or unwilling to fight.
You want to debate whether it was wise or worth the expense to fight in Iraq? Fine–I think it’s certainly debatable. OTOH, that’s all water under the bridge at this point and really quite academic.
The funny thing about the accusation that something the feds do or pay for is a “jobs program” all hinges on where you’re coming from politically. Personally, I believe very strongly in the importance of a national space program and ever since I can remember, that program has been accused of being a jobs program. The Left has long maintained that it’s “White Collar Welfare” and recently some people who say they’re conservative or libertarian *cough*RandSimberg*cough* have started to make the same accusation. The Shuttle program ended (that was about 35k jobs) and then Obama voluntarily chopped the head off of Constellation, which made for another loss of thousands, to possibly tens of thousands, of jobs. You can act as though you’re an uncompromising pragmatist and that those job losses are just how the cookie crumbles, but these are well-paying jobs in an economy which is sucking wind which the administration is going out of its way to kill.
If we simply can’t afford it, then we can’t afford it. That’s a compelling enough argument all by itself and there’s no need to hash over old and moldy arguments about “jobs programs”, the Military Industrial Complex, and complaints about foreign adventurism. There’s also no need for the administration to double-down on stupid by claiming to be working night and day to boost employment while not only killing jobs in the public defense and aerospace sectors, but also in large, profitable private sectors (see: Keystone XL).
Jake Janzen on November 21, 2011 at 10:40 am said:
Providing a “safety umbrella” for many countries? That’s mighty generous for a country that has a 9% unemployment rate and $15 trillion worth of debt. But it is really just a thinly veiled excuse for the fight over high-demand resources.
But again, if the “power vacuum” concern is driving the argument, that would be one thing. The AIA is making their case based on jobs, which shouldn’t be the issue.
The other critical thing, which Mr. Korb points out, is that if we are going to be spending taxpayer dollars on jobs programs, we can get a lot more jobs investing in infrastructure than we can get by continuing to spend on aerospace weapons. Also, construction jobs would create higher consumer demand to spur the economy, because 20 builders buying F150s would do more than one engineer buying a Porsche. Plus, that infrastructure can make doing business in the U.S. more attractive; and, if we are smart about it, we can create an infrastructure than decreases demand on resources that we have to kill people in order to get.
How about if we put those aerospace engineers to work creating that infrastructure? I like the idea of High Speed trains that run on electricity that can be produced in the U.S. But, if you think that is a pie in the sky, how about the air traffic control system I have heard about, which would decrease the distances that planes have to fly? Or how about the “smart grid” which would decrease the amount of electricity that gets wasted?
I agree with Starless that “if we can’t afford it, we can’t afford it.” But that argument has to apply, at least to an extent, to the military budget. It cannot be seen as “non-discretionary”.
Hey, as long as we are posting fun videos, check this one out:
http://biggeekdad.com/2010/11/turbo-encabulator/
Starless on November 21, 2011 at 5:36 pm said:
Also, construction jobs would create higher consumer demand to spur the economy, because 20 builders buying F150s would do more than one engineer buying a Porsche.
But if we’re talking a loss of a million (or even “just” 600k) jobs, we’re not talking about engineers, we’re talking about assemblers, technicians, and a lot of other working-class type positions–the same types of positions “infrastructure” work requires. IOW, not just the guys in skinny ties with pocket protectors who drive Porsches, but the guys in dungarees who drive F-150s.
How about if we put those aerospace engineers to work creating that infrastructure?
You know, when they pink-slipped everybody in Shuttle and Constellation, the Obama administration waved their arms around and claimed that all of those workers would find positions in aerospace and, more specifically, the NewSpace companies like SpaceX, Armadillo, Bigelow, et al., but I have yet to hear that that actually happened.
I don’t know exactly what you mean when you say that defense money is going to end up being spent on infrastructure. If you mean the feds are supposed to handle it, then no thank you. You know all of that stimulus money that was supposed to go to shovel-ready jobs? In my county, number of stimulus-funded infrastructure projects: two (very small ones). Number of jobs saved or created: zero. IMO, any talk of taking from defense to pay for supposedly more worthy non-defense work is, as they used to say, balloon juice.
When I said, ““if we can’t afford it, we can’t afford it,” I didn’t mean “if we can’t afford it, we can’t afford, but we can still spend the same money elsewhere”. If we can’t afford it, then we don’t spend the money. Period.
Jake Janzen on November 22, 2011 at 8:08 am said:
I don’t have any problem with the NASA engineers that are taking up space (haha! get it?). My problem is with paying finance charges of 42 cents on every tax dollar. Therefore, I couldn’t agree more that if we don’t have it, don’t spend it.
The question is, who has the leadership to make the cuts that need to be made without leaving a destructive gap in the economy? Any politician that tries to do this but declares the Pentagon to be untouchable, just isn’t going to get there.
It is infuriating to me that Panetta would call the U.S. military a “paper tiger”. He should be forced to resign.