If you’re a longtime reader of monoblogue, you should recall that back in May I advocated for a particular industry’s expansion because they had the capital to help break our economic slide if they could put that profit to work.
The other day I received an e-mail note which suggested perhaps another approach could be tried, and it actually involves a legitimate function of our federal government. Since a portion of the Preamble to our Constitution is to “provide for the common defense”, certainly maintaining the best military we can rates as a priority. This tip also pointed me to two concurring opinions on the subject, Jeff Emanuel’s piece on Politico.com and another by John Ruberry, who writes for the blog Marathon Pundit.
What they have in common is a bid to save the F-22 stealth fighter jet, a program purportedly on Obama’s chopping block. The writer also noted a Maryland connection:
As you might know, Lockheed Martin, with offices in Bethesda, makes the advanced jet fighter. GE also works on the project at their Germantown location. These facilities will be at risk if the program is not funded. Many other facilities in states across the country will be facing similar uncertainty. By passing over the F-22 fighter project, the nationwide impact risks 95,000 jobs that contribute $12 billion of domestic production to the economy. With the federal government looking to boost economic activity and to stem unemployment, domestic manufacturing and production projects like the F-22 fighter are best suited to deliver maximum results on both fronts.
Living on the Eastern Shore, I actually didn’t know that. What I do know, though, is there are a lot of nations who are looking at the incoming President as one who may be easily manipulated into making a number of defense cuts and weakening our military in a time where they may be needed more than ever. It seems to be a roller coaster of late where Democrats in the White House cut military spending and Republicans have to ramp it back up in order to keep pace with those who threaten us.
Where this policy could more directly affect the Eastern Shore is in space exploration. Over the last few years the Wallops Island facility on the Eastern Shore of Virginia has increased its stature in the national space program, which in turn has helped an economically challenged area with job creation. Trading jobs at Wallops for infrastructure jobs which will be generally targeted for more Democrat-friendly areas will put our economic health at risk. I can see the pattern of pork now; despite what Obama says about earmarks he wouldn’t apply a veto to one of his cherished stimulus programs regardless of what’s thrown into them. True, some aspects of space exploration can be done better through the private sector but the military does have a stake in maintaining a healthy space program.
While the target has shifted over the weeks since his election, Obama has vowed to save or create a huge number of jobs – the latest number I’ve heard is 3 million. As one of a few specifically enumerated tasks given to the federal government by our Constitution, let’s hope that a large number of jobs saved come in maintaining our national defense.
Let’s see–artificially propping up an industry with hugely expensive airplanes (or ships, or missiles, or submarines–pick your product) based on economic rather than military need? Sounds like you are advocating socialism, Michael!
To paraphrase onetime Democrat Senator Zell Miller – what do you want us to defend ourselves with? Spitwads?
As I noted in the article, national defense is a legitimate function of the federal government but the assembly of these items is done by American workers in private-sector American plants (I believe that’s a federal law.) Yes, technically it’s a violation of true free-market principles to do things in this manner but there are times national interest has to trump a free market. It did during World War II, when auto plants were essentially nationalized for the war effort and new cars became unavailable for about four years. But once the war ended, Detroit got back to making autos.
So I think your claim of “artifically propping up an industry” is way off base here whereas my contention about alternative energy being artificially propped up is quite valid because there are less expensive domestic alternatives available but being held from the market by government interference in that market.
I’m all for national defense, but you know as well as I do that the defense industry tends to claim that outdated or unnecessary military equipment is vital to national security, even when the military says they do not need or want the equipment. Then some congressman whose constituents happen to work for the defense industry starts yelling about how we will be weakened if we don’t continue to build whatever is built in their local factory. It has very little to do with military readiness, everything to do with distributing pork. It’s just that nobody wants to call military equipment pork, or its real name: corporate welfare. Look who is lobbying for this, Michael! Lockheed Martin and GE. Hmmmm . . . might they have an economic interest? My understanding is that the stealth fighters have limited use in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and much, much less expensive planes can do the exact same job with no more increased risk to the military. Follow the dollars and apply the same fiscal responsibility you demand for AFDC to what Eisenhower (a good Republican) called the “military industrial complex.”
Well, there’s national defense and then there’s the type of military adventures we’ve been conducting overseas for the past few decades. Any resemblance between the two is pure coincidence.
To some extent, you both bring up good points. However, when it comes to national defense I tend to err on the side of being overprepared. I think Reagan called it, “peace through strength.”
But I’m not sure that this would be coporate welfare because I presume there was a bidding process that Lockheed Martin and GE participated in and won as low bidders. In GE’s case I do find a little irony because I believe they’re also lobbying for the alternative energy industry subsidies since they make turbines too.
As for “military adventures” we have had our share. Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti come to mind from our recent past, and if Obama intercedes in Darfur that would also quaify. At least in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan there was some national interest (as opposed to a strictly humanitarian cause) at stake given the totality of the Long War.
I’d actually be a bit more charitable than you about how many military actions were undertaken to advance our national interest. I think pretty much all of them were, including Haiti and Bosnia. Somalia is probably the only outlier I can think of. But doing something in the national interest is not the same as conducting national defense. Our nation has quite a few interests that extend beyond merely making sure no foreign nations attack us. I don’t see anything in the Constitution that allows us to use our military to undertake anything but national defense, though.
Sure, it’s in our national interest to have a stabe Middle East in order to ensure that our energy needs are not disrupted (which is the only reason we’re involved in the Middle East). It’s also in our interest to have stable governments in the Caribbean and Latin America, which is why we interevened militarily in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Panama. But defending those interests is not the same as defending our nation.
“I presume there was a bidding process that Lockheed Martin and GE participated in and won as low bidders.”
Actually, that rarely happens in defense contracts–in fact, the lowest bidder is in a toss-up for the contract, because political lobbying intervenes irtually every time. You can check it out, it happens over and over, and a lot of the contracts are specifically listed as “no bid contracts.”
That would be “virtually,” not irtually! No irony in teh GE case, tehy are there to make money no matter what–any contradictions are entirely purposeful!
Jeepers, my typing sucks! Sorry.
If I were to make meaningful cuts, perhaps I’d consider that our Defense spending amounts to 4% of the budget,a figure that is way down from what it has been in the past.
Entitlement programs have increased though and show no signs of abating.
Tell you what Final Frontier, I’ll concede that defense spending gets cut, providing we get to bomb entitlement recipients.
What do you say?
Swamp,
Absolutely. Let’s start with the big ticket entitlements, though. Corporate welfare recipients (those who get masssive tax breaks, infrastructure concessions, and health care subsidies that allow them to pay their workers low wages so the gov’t pays their health care), farmers (who get far more gov’t money than AFDC recipients), sports teams (many of whom play in gov’t subsidized stadiums), and developers (more of the aforementioned tax breaks and infrastructure costs). Once we get those under control we can begin looking at the other programs. Deal?