Paul Krugman On GOP Opposing Defense Cuts: 'Oh, The Hypocrisy!'

The New York Times:

A few years back Representative Barney Frank coined an apt phrase for many of his colleagues: weaponized Keynesians, defined as those who believe “that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is of course economic salvation.”

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[newleaf]

12:40 AM on 11/02/2011

My friend's son is in the middle east now, working as a contractor, making $180,000. He said his son would like to come back, but would only make about $50,000 here. Why the welfare, people? Why the sickening overpayments? Cut defense now. We can't afford it.

[Papa Swamp]

04:59 PM on 11/01/2011

wait…you are the guy who called for more stimulus…even saying that a defense bubble would be good (prepare for alien invasion).

Which is it? Government spending is needed or not?…because cutting defense spending will result in layoffs. As sad as it is…defense is one of the few high tech industries actually left in the US….most everything else is off-shored (and even some defense is now happening).

[StopMakingSense2]

01:40 PM on 11/01/2011

Lets start with the 50 billion military black budget. Can you imagine the waste when you aren't allowed to know what's in it or where it went. Republicans would hate to have their DOD contractor buddies outed. Wouldn't be good for republicanism inc and reduce the blizzard of campaign cash. In any case the Super Committee is going to fail because as with rubepublicans generally everything is on the table except the stuff they like so let the automatic cuts slash and burn. I bet they cancel the automatic provisions and eat crow instead and we are back to square one again.

[AlfredE69]

08:17 AM on 11/01/2011

Much of the 'defense' budget is used for welfare to other nations. For example, all those military bases not within our border.

[marinatha]

03:51 AM on 11/01/2011

Good article.However I suspect thier is also another reason why some people do not want reductions in the Def. Dept.$$$$.The accounting dept in the Def. Dept do not even know where all our $ are going for.Good way to dip ones hands into the kittie and not be caught.

[BobRobertsFeltRedundant]

08:53 PM on 10/31/2011

lets say a scientist developed a time machine

and used it to bring a couple of cave men here

the GOP would have to spend at LEAST 2 or 3 trillion to defend us against this "new" and "menacing" threat

[econ1]

08:13 PM on 10/31/2011

To be fair, just about anything (like a reduced Federal budget) that causes the government to at least try to be more efficient would be welcome.

[Dosadi]

08:15 PM on 11/01/2011

Our country is huge. We have over 309 million people in it. We cannot cut our governments ability to: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. WE CANNOT DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS WITHOUT MONEY.

[Paintio]

08:26 PM on 11/01/2011

No doubt.

[ruolivert]

04:41 PM on 11/02/2011

Wasted money helps us do none of those things. We spend most of our money inefficiently which means it requires more money to achieve the desired effect. It actually makes it more difficult to defend those things

[econ1]

08:12 PM on 10/31/2011

I absolutely agree that the military is not spending its budget as efficiently as it could (and why do we continue to have bases defending Europe?), but the loss of jobs by cutting the defense budget is only one of the objections being raised. Clearly military spending is supposed to be destructive (at least to the other side), and it is hard to put a value on it...ask the Croats, or Isrealis, or just about anyone who has had folks come attack them.

I assume that Dr. Krugman isn't actually calling for reduced military spending since any spending has such a high multiplier effect that even though you can't commute the IRR on a fighter jet, the money gets spent over and over so it basically is okay. Or that his is calling for more crony capitalism projects like Solyndra, although I guess those dollars got recycled as well.

[Papa Swamp]

05:01 PM on 11/01/2011

Said it much better than I...

[addisonsteele]

07:13 PM on 10/31/2011

Since the end of WWII, the Defense Department budget has been a means of transferring tax dollars to the districts of certain politicians, particularly in the Southwest, including Southern California, and the South. For example, the House district from which Newt Gingrich was elected received the highest federal largesse per capita in the US and just happened to be have a Martin Marietta facility located there. The initial siting of the defense industry in these places is a historical accident, but it has established a long and strong legacy. Given that the core of the Republican base is located in the Southwest and the South, the Republicans cannot and will not allow cuts in the Defense budget, and they will engage in any amount of lies, doubletalk, hypocrisy, and saber rattling to keep the federal dollars flowing into their districts.

[btbamfan]

05:50 PM on 10/31/2011

Why is this not on the top of the front page?

[VillainUs]

04:53 PM on 10/31/2011

Change The Mission

The Pentagon is here to stay. If we wanted to dismantle it, how could we? There is no institution on the planet that controls more money and executive force. It is an unstoppable force.

So point it in a productive direction. Change the Mission. Prepare for disasters and train our troops to be able to respond when (not if!) disasters occur. We should be invading Pakistan with kitchens. We should be repairing ifrastructure that was destroyed by something other than us.

The US Military Industrial Complex IS a jobs program. I know, I used to work for a defense contractor. I have suckled at the Big Breast of steady funding for wacky projects. But if we were to end military spending tomorrow, we would have a replay of Baghdad right here if all the people who are currently employed in the business of killing were suddenly put out of work.

So. Whats to do?

Change the Mission

[Viper]

05:18 PM on 10/31/2011

Just replace the defense jobs with building bridges and dams or closing down most of the 900 foreign militray bases which is money that flows out of the country, a permanent loss of wealth.. let the toops spemnd their money here, get rid of contractors do everything n the bases and retraing the troops for jobs, snce they have higher than normal unemployment.

The WPA parks, stadiums, roads, buildings, dams and universities are still here, not so much for P51s. It is a jobs program, but one with a low multipler effect producing no long terms self funding capital assets, while inrastrcutrue is an extension of economic business assets..

You could spend half the defense budget on infrastrcure and reindustrialization and generate 3-4 times the defense jobs lost with many becoming self funding and not ending like defense and endless stream of government money to keep those jobs.

Regards

[OSCPJ]

09:01 AM on 11/02/2011

You would have to address the Title 10/32 issues. But I think it could work.

[huffingtonsurferdude]

04:52 PM on 10/31/2011

Never take seriously anythng a Republican says. The "leaders" are only serious about dollars going into their crooked criminal pockets, and the blind followers cheer them on, thinking maybe they might get a nickel or penny for their moronic masochism.

[AlfredE69]

08:18 AM on 11/01/2011

I would add to that democrats too.

[huffingtonsurferdude]

02:48 PM on 11/01/2011

Whoopdeedoo

[PublicCitizen21044]

04:51 PM on 10/31/2011

If I spewed as much hate and vitriol at people and bullied the weak and defensless as much as they do I would be scared of being left vulnerable too. The GOP obviously see fear as a sign of respect. The neanderthal mentality of the GOP is astounding. I fell for the small minded and insecure types that make up the base of their party and I wish that they could stop their envy of the rich and cruel masters and start asking them for the JOBS they promised for their votes. Oh I forgot if you do not have a JOB it is either your fault or the Presidents because we all know that he makes jobs and passes Legislation,right?????? Being stupid or willfully ignorant should be a crime in a information rich society like the US.

[l78lancer]

04:14 PM on 10/31/2011

Krugman is correct. It is a case of the right trying to have it both ways. The right howls when the prospects of military spending cuts come up, but they flies in the face of their normal mantra that public sector spending does not create jobs. If that wasn't the case then so many republicans wouldn't scream when bases close in their districts or when military contracts go elsewhere. Upon closer examination it does. And non-military government spending - like infrastructure - is more cost effective and even can be viewed as having a "multiplier effect" (does that term sound familiar?) when compared to military spending. Much (but not all) of military spending is for the production of destructible, consumable or disposable-type items, and single use or short shelf-life items. Those dollars get spent ONCE in that process. Whereas, non-miliatry spending last for years, companies, millitary and citizens get the benefit, and it helps to produce or maximize the production of products which contributes to the overall growth of the economy cycling money through the economy by way of those projects time and time again. Military and Non-military government spending create jobs and generate revenue. It's time the right acknowledges that.

[billw8017]

04:00 PM on 10/31/2011

We are spending as much on our very expensive military as all the rest of the world combined -- and, the result is a military that couldn't handle a couple of the earth's most dysfunctional nations. All right, they won the wars and did the occupation badly: Armies don't make such good police forces. I don't know why we try. We should have left with regime change.

The real advantage of military spending in within the United States. This is US dollars and it returns to US markets. It is meant for internal consumption and more gets lost in the system as time goes on, a mere matter of increasing effectiveness in the actual purpose.

Military spending is relatively inefficient stimulus spending -- we all know stories of the wild extravagance or hundred dollar bolts and nuts. Any one of these would support a poor family for a day and recycle through the economy as they enjoyed meeting their essential needs. Forgetting the money as a symbol of labor and consumption, we are also losing more productive labor from some of our prime workers.