Military Spending

    *I had written this for an internship and I just thought it was pretty solid so I thought I'd share it. I would include a link but you have to be a subscriber to The New Republic to read it all.  Though if you have access to it I'd suggest reading it.

            Gregg Easterbrook’s article within the November 10^th issue of The New Republic, “Waste Land,” is quite timely considering the current atmosphere of professed austerity.  With the coming plans from Republicans, Democrats, and various commissions detailing how best to tackle the gap between spending and revenues, it is useful that such an article detailing the exorbitant amount of money that goes into defense programs of questionable use was published.  Though it is the case that exorbitant spending on the military diverts funding that could go towards other programs, as well as diverts a great deal of taxpayer money towards programs of suspect merit, it raises an interesting question about cutting government programs during an economic downturn.

            When discussing where to cut back on government largesse, the programs that have received the most attention for curtailing seem to be social programs that are intended to help middle and lower class individuals.  Programs like unemployment insurance, libraries, spending on education, health, and other areas have been targeted for cuts.  Many have argued that cuts in these programs would actually worsen the economic situation without substantially helping the deficit.  Bearing that in mind, why not look to a bloated defense budget that has nine carrier strike forces where the rest of the world has none, where jets meant to fight Soviet fighters are still being developed?  A question that arises while reading this article is what kind of impact defense cuts might have on the economy.  Think about it for a moment: many of these programs are constructed and designed throughout the United States employing various workers from highly skilled engineers to less skilled laborers.  While it may be the case that an aeronautical engineer could get a comparable job in the private sector, it would likely be harder for the assembly line worker making an M1 tank to get a job making cars given the current economic situation.  Is that not the same argument that has been made with regards to other government employees in different fields?  Is military spending, in fact, the last refuge of Keynesian economics, though hardly called such by those who support it?

            Admittedly, Easterbrook does not discuss how such massive spending could be an example of Keynesian economic policy, in part because he himself may be opposed to such policies.  Easterbrook is largely against the wasting of tax-payer money and likely considers the notion that wasteful military spending may have a beneficial economic impact highly dubious.  Many of these programs make no military sense and the largest economic benefit is likely to be felt by the handful of companies, the contractors hired, and top military brass who go on to work for the latter two beneficiaries.  However, there are still people lower on the totem pole who do benefit from these programs.  These are the individual workers on an assembly line, construction workers building the various headquarters for the expanding national security bureaucracy, the staff that will be required to take care of these new facilities, and so on and so forth.  These people will, in turn, be paying for groceries, their rent, and nights out with their families and friends, all of which is supposed to increase demand and improve the economy, whether it is a janitor for a school or a janitor for a Northrop-Grumman plant.  The same argument used to support New Deal style work programs could be employed to defend this military spending, to an extent. 

A final critique of this article is the lack of blame to be cast at the feet of constituents.  Easterbrook doles out much of the blame to military brass, to the companies themselves, and to Congressmen who are always looking for a photo-op next to an F-35.  It is fair to say that a lion’s share of the blame should be shouldered by these groups, but constituents have a role to play in this problem as well.  An area in which this military money is spent has a vested interest in keeping the money coming as it directly benefits them.  Just as towns where bases are located heavily resist the removal of that base, so too will towns where new nuclear powered carriers are being built resist any threat to their funding being cut off.  Though many will decry the deficit and the bloated budget, they will not be as much in favor of it when their own economic well-being is at stake.  These individuals have a large interest in massive military spending alongside those who Easterbrook mentions.