A big priority for the new Republican majority in the House will hopefully be to dramatically cut government spending. Welfare, waste, and corporate welfare are easy targets. But what about defense spending? Does it need to be cut too?
Libertarians rightfully make a good point that conservatives are being inconsistent when they denounce government spending as wasteful–except when it relates to the Pentagon. Here’s a thoughtful piece from the National Interest which shows how silly this line of argument is for conservatives. They accurately call this reasoning “military Keynesianism.”
The best argument for cutting domestic spending and leaving defense spending alone is quite simple: the constitution makes it the federal government’s responsibility to protect us from threats. Most of domestic spending nothing to do with constitutional responsibilities.
To argue that defense spending is somehow “good” for the economy and “different” from other forms of government spending is silly. Here’s a excerpt that proves the point:
“Republicans may want to examine the plank in their own eyes before casting aspersions on the one in the eyes of Democrats. Military Keynesianism has long been a centerpiece in the Republican platform, and it still is. I have remarked at this phenomenon before on Cato’s blog, noting that Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has railed against all manner of spending except military spending, deeming the latter “good spending.” Perhaps not coincidentally, Virginia has been one of the largest and most disproportionate beneficiaries of military and intelligence spending, with defense spending accounting for 1 in 5 Virginia jobs according to the Washington Post.
An even starker reminder of Republicans’ love of one particular flavor of Big Government was a quote from Texas Governor Rick Perry’s spokeswoman, published in the Dallas Morning News. The author of the article, Dave Michaels, centered the piece on the Texas economy’s dependence on military-related jobs and how cuts in military spending would hurt Texas. Michaels pinged Perry’s office and got this:
Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for Perry, says defense “is different” than other kinds of federal spending. ‘It’s not just throwing money at a problem,’ Nashed said. ‘It’s actually creating jobs, allowing people to make a livelihood.’
By this definition, though, what is ‘just throwing money at a problem?’ Pretty much everything the government does ‘creates jobs’ which ‘allow people to make a livelihood.’ It’s pretty striking that Nashed didn’t even gesture at an argument about the threat environment and make the case that the threat environment justifies the particular military-related jobs in Texas. Instead, military spending is good simply because it’s ‘creating jobs, allowing people to make a livelihood.’ If this sort of thinking reflects the ‘limited government’ faction in American politics, that’s pretty remarkable.”
The issue here is constitutional responsibility. That’s why we spend money on defense. It’s not about “stimulating” the economy with Pentagon contracts.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.