If Pearl Harbor Were Attacked Today Could We Afford to Defend Ourselves?

If Pearl Harbor were attacked today as it was on Dec. 7, 1941, would the government have the money to defend the country? This question was answered 70 years ago. In 1939 opponents of Roosevelt and the New Deal were wringing their hands about budget deficits in exactly the words they use today. They argued that FDR was bankrupting the country and that the Federal deficit had to be reduced. Then suddenly money stopped being a problem: we had plenty of it.

Hitler struck Poland in September 1939 and two years later the U.S. was at war. The American government found billions to pour into war-related industries and the U.S. economy became the "arsenal of democracy." The conventional wisdom had said that the country did not have even a few billion dollars to end unemployment and fight the Depression, and it was completely wrong. In fact the government had access to all the money it needed to put idle resources to work to fight a world war and support a civilian recovery that raised living standards enormously. Government spending, far from being the economic disaster conservatives predicted, made the economy boom and was completely manageable.

How robust was the U.S. economy during World War II? It grew over 17 percent a year in 1941, 1942, and 1943, and 8 percent in 1944. Unemployment disappeared. Millions of men and women, said by conservatives to be unemployable during the Depression (remember The Grapes of Wrath), were pulled into the workforce and the armed services. The country built hundreds of thousands of fighters, bombers, and military vehicles and launched millions of tons of shipping. It supported 16 million people in the armed forces, the equivalent of 36 million today. It built new plants to produce aluminum, dams to power the new factories and much more. It paid for this with what, in effect, was printed money that the anti-New Dealers had said would be catastrophic. Talk about being wrong.

This history is 100 percent relevant in 2009. Almost 15 million Americans are out work and millions more are working part time involuntarily. Our factories and offices are on short hours, states are laying off teachers. Consumers and businesses are saving, not spending. Our dependence on foreign oil is dangerous and has been for 60 years, and our public works are in shambles. Republicans, having learned absolutely nothing from history, say more government spending to address these problems would break the bank. They ignore the experience of World War II when the government found the money to finance a huge war when Republicans had argued that it was broke.

Are Republicans just ignorant? I doubt it. Many of them know this "deficits will kill us" stuff is bull. Former Vice-President Cheney famously told then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." His wife, Lynne Cheney has written at least six books aimed at teaching history to American children, a goal which I share. But the Republicans dismiss history when it serves them, and the economic history of World War II is clearly history they want to dismiss.

The truth is that Republicans spread fear about the deficit because they do not want Democrats and the government to get credit for dealing with unemployment, health care, the need to "green" our economy, and to modernize our educational systems and public infrastructure. When they had a congressional majority they did not wait a year to blow the Clinton budget surpluses to smithereens by giving tax reductions to the wealthiest Americans. Unfazed by deficits, they never had the political guts to propose taxes to fight the unpopular Iraq War, or to pay for earmarks that served their political purposes. The feckless George W. Bush and the Republican Congress doubled the national debt on their watch and refused to take responsibility -- that is ask voters to pay for -- their actions. Republicans don't care about deficits. They talk about deficits now because it fools people, and they see that as good politics.

The country can afford to spend money to put Americans back to work, modernize our infrastructure, green our economy, and improve our educational systems just as surely as it could afford to spend money to fight World War II. To do otherwise is to ignore American history. Write a book about this Ms. Cheney.

Comments

[yappnmutt]

americans should be talking to old brits to understand how to weather a fallen empire.

the usa doesn't have the proverbial pot to........­in

[olephart]

“If Pearl Harbor were attacked today as it was on Dec. 7, 1941, would the government have the money to defend the country?”

What, and take our eyes off of Iraq and Afghanistan? What an absurd question. We must maintain our gains in Iraq and must pour more troops into Afghanistan to assure victory. It’s not a matter of money it’s a matter of priorities. Even though there were never any Al Queada terrorists in Iraq before the invasion we kicked over the apple cart and caused vast enmity against us. It is this that we must continue to quell. In Afghanistan we invaded an entire Nation to get a handful of bad guys. These bad guys are now in Pakistan which is all the more reason to increase our presence in Afghanistan.

So if Pearl Harbor were attacked today we’d have to cut our losses and keep our eyes on fighting those who fight us because we are in their lands. Sorry about that Hawaii we’ll just have to go with 49 States.

[Smegbot100]

WELL SAID !!!

It is about time that people started pointing out that with huge parts of the economy idle that the government can spend without causing inflation.

May I also suggest that since this is one of those rare moments when we can print money, that we could print enough to pay off the national debt and free the country from its debt payments?

For what it is worth : http://corporate-statesmen.net/images/FAST_2009_NATIONAL_DEBT_SOLUTION.pdf

It is nice to have a real Democrat President.

[therealredstateblues]

We would have serious trouble building the material for war

so much production capacity has been offshored and/or sold to foreign interest

we don't even have the capability to make our own shoes and clothes, let along the tanks, guns, planes, jeeps etc the material capabilities that allowed us to win two world wars

[LMPE]

Even if the right-wing claims to worry about deficits, they helped Reagan and Bush pass tax cuts. The GOP is supposedly the fiscally conservative party, but they long since abandoned that.

[Aaror]

If we experienced another Pearl Harbor, we could ignore it and let our Debtor's defend us. Japan and China already own everything over here, having some other nation take it from them wouldn't affect us much.
Just remember, first two hands up to greet the folks with guns, then one hand up and wave, then go back to business as usual.

[econ1]

Like most things...i­t depends.

It depends on what you are going into debt for. Borrowing to invest in productive, long term improvements (within limits) is a valid way to better oneself or the country. One could argue that defending the nation is perhaps job one in that regard (or we would have forfeited all our assets to the Japanese). Building the interstate highway system, rural electrification would also qualify.

The issue today is that much of the borrowing is really spending. $100 billion to keep old form car companies afloat, half a trillion to prop up real estate values, billions to expand and install today's uneconomic solar technology rather than research and produce tomorrow's economic version, getting people to buy new cars before they need to. None of that is going to pay back the borrowing cost.

And, perhaps most disturbing, is that prior deficits were financed by borrowing from ourselves (and a little paper money printing), while today we are borrowing abroad....­in essence selling our assets.

[Aaror]

You forget the Trillions of dollars for the Iraq and Afganistan wars...
With apologies to President Jefferson, "Millions for defense, but not one penny for schools!"

[mikefina]

Did we have a multi-Trillion dollar entitlement time-bomb ticking down all the while we ramped up our military-industrial production in 1942? What was the anticipated, unfunded Social Security liability in 1943?

[noaxe397]

Not a good comparison. The SS trust fund was built up from 1935 to 1940 with no one taking anything out.

Of course there was a surplus there in 1943.

What do you think would happen today if we stopped issuing SS checks for 5 years while everyone keeps paying in? Surplus or defecit.

The answer to the SS funding issue today is the Reagan-Greenspan solution that saved SS in 1983. Make the payroll tax cover 90% of the wage base. Today, due to rising salaries, it covers only 80% of the wage base.

Follow the Reagan solution and the unfunded liability goes away for 50-75 years. As it did when this solution was enacted by Reagan in 1983, with bipartisan support.

And it's fair. As the value of the SS benefit goes up every year due to inflation, so should (either gradually or in broader steps) the premium. Just like any other type of insurance policy would do.
The premium on my homeowners policy goes up 5-10% every year not because I file claims but because it is more expensive to rebuild my house.

[mikefina]

Your reply confirms the skeptical note in my original post. The ominous cloud of the unfunded liability WASN'T in the calculus of the WWII response to Pearl Harbor. That is not a luxury we can enjoy today.

WIthout structural changes in how we address our long-term unfunded liabilities, we would be unable to 'fund' another war.

We agree, for national security and national solvency, that the SS coffers must be replenished.

I like your proposal. Thanks for it.

[Conk]

Pearl Harbor: False flag operation.

[confidance government]

There is a big difference, the USA funded a large part of their debt by selling war bonds to US citizens, and Americans no longer have the jobs or money to buy these bonds. Who is going to buy our government's debt?

Also the idea that going to war, burning Europe & Asia to the ground, and the death of 60 million people (overwhelmingly civilians), was a net gain to society is ludicrous. Yes, our GDP expanded but only through the construction of items which where geared to war, yet WWII was a time of extreme austerity with rationing and shortages in the USA and famine elsewhere in the world.

The consumer economy, dealing in things people actually want to buy and consume, only recovered after the war, the rest was just the influence of pouring our nations wealth into arms manufacturing.

[noaxe397]

Didn't we try selling war bonds in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Or was that just a proposal.

Anyway, I couldn't buy them, too busy funding my own retirement and keeping up with health care premiums.

[dadw5boys]

THE PUBLIC OPTION IS A DEFENSIVE MOVE FOR AMERICANS AGAINST THE BANKS.

Play Defense America !!!

[janeycat]

noaxe397---no were not screwed...­basic training would take enough weight off of people so they would be able to serve and be healthy.th­en when the rest of us had those jobs we could provide for our famlies.
if another Pearl Harbour happened you would see a country come together just like happened back then.....r­epublician­s would just have to shut up and go to work like the rest of people.
factories would open back up...farms would plant instean of being paid not to..

we would survive and regrow our country because..W­e are Americans and that is what we do....
i'm proud to be american..­and when i see what i did today out of our senators ( Baucus ) it made me mad...woul­d he deny his family a choice in anything ?

i can tell you this...one day he will have to answer for all the greed and underhanded things he has done...and when he does dont be anywhere near..unle­ss you can dodge lightening bolts
we reap what we sow

[noaxe397]

Just repeal the Reagan tax cuts. We ALL know who's got the money.

A bigger question is "could we field an army?" Of the first 18 million conscripts called up for WWII, 5 million were rejected outright for medical or dental reasons.

I believe the same would happen today if we ever needed an army the size of the one we had in WWII (20 million men and women in uniform.)
Considering how many kids and adults are obese today? Plus, back then a greater percentage of people worked with their hands. Today, heavy lifting on the job is repostioning the keyboard of your computer or adjusting the height of your office chair.

Plus, helicopter parents would do all they could to keep THEIR kid from doing his or her fair share.

Another issue would be: "Could we manufacture the armaments we need to fight a war of such scale?"

Guaranteed Republicans today would look for a free market approach to building bombers and tanks. The idea of the Commander in Chief converting whole industries to wartime production would draw cries of "socialism" as we have seen already.

As it is we've already had to buy bullets from Israel to use in the two smaller wars we are in right now.

Another Pearl Harbor? Nope. We're screwed.

[mbaty]

What we need is some kind of Anti-"False flag" event that would lead us into peace. We obviously have more than enough money to bail out the banks and the ever increasing defense budget. And since we know money is simply a creation of the Fed that we then, inexplicably, pay interest on, essentially, there's no end to the money/debt that can be created. In fact, without debt there would be no money. So I say we take all of our endless debt money and put it to good use. Give every American a stipend to pay for housing, food, transportation, and health care. Chalk it up to "national defense" or "security," or some other kind of super important expenditure. Aside from that we can start building really good public transportation, and we can implement renewable technologies everywhere under the guise of making things "terrorist proof." Water from the air. Energy from nothing. Let's use our resouces wisely--and we can call it the "Sustainable Living Anti-terrorist Project," or SLAP. Headlines will read, "Americans get a much needed S.L.A.P."

[JoeBlough]

Not as much worth defending as we had 65 years ago.