The Death Of Fiscal Conservatism

04SCTLS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
7
Location
Lockport
The Triumph Of The Neocons, And The Death Of Fiscal Conservatism

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-triumph-of-the-neocons-and-the-death-of-fiscal-conservatism/

Contrasting himself with Haley Barbour, who said in Iowa this week that the GOP needed to accept the fact that defense cutbacks will have to be on the table in future budget negotiations, Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty is taking the opposite tack:
AIKEN, S.C. — A day after Haley Barbour called for cuts in defense spending, Tim Pawlenty went the other way.
“I don’t think we should be talking about cutting the Pentagon’s budget,” the former Minnesota governor told POLITICO after a speech at the Aiken Republican Club here. “I think we should be talking about looking for those areas where we might some efficiencies or redeploying money spent on defense to higher-priority areas within defense. In other words keep the defense budget intact, but if we find some efficiencies, some ways to redeploy money we should do that.”
The contrast between the two presidential hopefuls emerged as fissure over defense spending has begun to open within the conservative movement, with some viewing the outlays as sacrosanct and others arguing that no deficit reduction efforts can be credible.
Pawlenty, siding with the defense hawks in his first trip to the Palmetto State this cycle, reiterated his past support for a defense budget that “continues to grow,” but added that it should grow “perhaps a little more slowly.”
Pawlenty has also cast his lot with other potential Republican candidates for President who have once again taken up the flag of interventionism in the face of this year’s foreign policy crises:
When former President George W. Bush left office in 2009, liberal Democrats and a fair number of moderate, traditional Republicans proclaimed the good news: The GOP neo-cons were dead, chased from Washington in disgrace.
But as Republican presidential hopefuls begin developing foreign policy platforms, a clear and surprising pattern has emerged: They’re back and, so far, winning the fight for the direction of the party.
In spite of the tarnished reputation of the neo-cons and the movement by many in the tea party wing toward a more isolationist foreign policy that is open to real cuts in defense spending, all but one of the leading 2012 candidates — in early speeches and campaign books — appear to be toeing a hawkish, interventionist line and promising increased spending on the Pentagon.
When Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour abruptly broke with that consensus Tuesday in Iowa, he set himself apart from the field and positioned himself to fill a potentially significant opening in the 2012 GOP debate. Former Govs. Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, have differed largely only in their attempts to outdo one another in committing to what Bush called the “freedom agenda.”
“They’re all basically mainstream in their agreement about the [Obama] administration being too friendly toward enemies and too harsh toward allies,” said Randy Scheunemann, who was John McCain’s top foreign policy hand in 2008, has worked for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and has informally advised other contenders.
No where is this neo-con unity more apparent than the line that most GOP politicians are taking with regard to the ongoing crisis in Libya:
Pawlenty recently blasted Obama for an “incoherent” response and said he supports a no-fly zone.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum echoed that sentiment, calling for airstrikes and telling a Des Moines, Iowa, radio host that Reagan bombed Libya. “If you want to be Reaganesque, it seems the path is pretty clear,” said Santorum.
Romney was more cautious but echoed the theme that Obama has failed to show leadership.
“The president and his team look like deer in the headlights. Instead of leading the world, the president has been tiptoeing behind the Europeans,” Romney said in New Hampshire earlier this month.
Gingrich, Palin and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also joined the chorus for imposing a no-fly zone on the troubled North African country and took aim at the Obama administration’s handling of the situation.
There’s been no discussion by these prospective candidates about the costs of such a mission, or the fact that that a establishing a no-fly zone has the potential to drag American forces into a wider conflict. Instead, it seems to be little more than a simplistic repetition of the same rhetoric we heard from the Bush Administration in the wake of 9/11,when we were told that “democratizing” the Middle East would some how make the world safer. We’ve seen how that has turned out.
There’s simply no way you can claim to be serious about reducing Federal spending if you’re going to exempt the defense budget, which accounts for approximately 25% of the total budget, from any consideration when it comes times to make cuts. Sarah Palin made much the same argument as Pawlenty last year when she was telling Tea Party activists that their zeal for spending cuts should not be applied to the defense budget. At that time, I noted:
If we are going rein in Federal spending and make a serious move toward cutting the budget deficit, then there is no area that can be completely off the table, including a $ 700 billion defense budget. To say otherwise while claiming the mantle of fiscal conservatism is to be a complete hypocrite and, if Palin is serious about her comment that defense spending is untouchable, and similarly serious about her previous comments that tax increases are out of the question, then she is demonstrate an astounding amount of economic illiteracy.
You can’t pay for something with nothing, Mrs. Palin, and you can’t call yourself a fiscal conservative if you’re not really serious about spending cuts. And your comments demonstrate a distinct lack of seriousness.
The same goes for Tim Pawlenty, or any other Republican who thinks they can claim to be serious about fiscal responsibility while at the same time favoring a bloated defense budget, and a foreign policy that requires vast deployments all around the world, is kidding themselves.

_______________________________________________________________

The problem is the Defence Dept is run by government workers who are easy prey for ruthless private government contractors who play them like a violin.
The 20 billion that disappeared in Iraq and can't be accounted for is a stark example of the problems we have with cheats and scoundrels feeding off defense spending.
All the waste, redundancy, overcharging, fanciful sophisticated weapon systems of dubious effectiveness or even usefulness, and overbuilding in general add up to IMO a full 1/3rd of the annual 700 billion dollar defense budget which could be better spent on the infrastructure of the country and provide more money for unemployment which is spent instantly into the economy by recipients.
 
...which could be better spent on the infrastructure of the country and provide more money for unemployment which is spent instantly into the economy by recipients.

Contrary to Keynsian orthodoxy, the government cannot "top off" investment and consumption doesn't drive the economy.
 
Contrary to Keynsian orthodoxy, the government cannot "top off" investment and consumption doesn't drive the economy.

We're a consumer economy:p and people who get unemployment spend it immediately for living expenses.
The respending factor of this money being spent lubes the economy.
If we weren't spending the kind of money we do on the military we would have more money for infrastructure rehab programs funded by taxpayer funds but done by private contractors and wouldn't have to borrow money to extend unemployment benefits(which we did) and could more confidently make the Bush tax cuts(3 trillion over 10 years) permanent.

We're neurotic about the way we spend money for the defense.
We just don't need all this expensive redundant hardware that costs too much and provides dubious benefits other than to defense contractors.

The military industrial complex looks after itself first and the american people second.

If we're actually going to do something about out debt it can't be done without cutting some military funding and using the rest of the funding more effectively on things that work.
The Soviet Union may have collapsed but their philosophy of elegantly simply designed weapons like the AK-47 which works well under extreme conditions and doesn't jam from sand and dirt should have taught us a few things about what's most important in a weapon that even an illiterate can use and maintain.
Technology is good but technology fetish not so much.
There's practical and political limits to what you can do unless you want to ruthlessly kill everybody no matter how much allegedly awesome hardware you have.
Shock and Awe didn't quite turn out as billed.
 
We're a consumer economy:p and people who get unemployment spend it immediately for living expenses.

The notion that consumption drives the economy is the basis for most of Kenysian thought. Unfortunately for Keynes, his ideas have been discredited.

Keynes simply ignored an idea that far predates his ideas has been verified throughout history; Say's Law. As Jean Baptiste Say spelled it out;
It is worthwhile to remark that a product is no sooner created than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value. When the producer has put the finishing hand to his product, he is most anxious to sell it immediately, lest its value should diminish in his hands. Nor is he less anxious to dispose of the money he may get for it; for the value of money is also perishable. But the only way of getting rid of money is in the purchase of some product or other. Thus the mere circumstance of creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products.
More simply put, supply creates demand. It is production that drives the economy, not consumption.

This is why unemployment benefits do not stimulate the economy. No new wealth is created, it is simply redistributed. Unemployment "stimulus" is a zero-sum game.

This is also why tax "refunds" or tax "credits" do not stimulate the economy but tax cuts do. Tax cuts, result in more private sector investment and production which creates more wealth and more demand.

Government "investment" (which is what "infrastructure" spending is) only crowds out private investment and maldistributes funds in the economy.
 
The notion that consumption drives the economy is the basis for most of Kenysian thought. Unfortunately for Keynes, his ideas have been discredited.

Keynes simply ignored an idea that far predates his ideas has been verified throughout history; Say's Law. As Jean Baptiste Say spelled it out;
It is worthwhile to remark that a product is no sooner created than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value. When the producer has put the finishing hand to his product, he is most anxious to sell it immediately, lest its value should diminish in his hands. Nor is he less anxious to dispose of the money he may get for it; for the value of money is also perishable. But the only way of getting rid of money is in the purchase of some product or other. Thus the mere circumstance of creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products.
More simply put, supply creates demand. It is production that drives the economy, not consumption.

This is why unemployment benefits do not stimulate the economy. No new wealth is created, it is simply redistributed. Unemployment "stimulus" is a zero-sum game.

This is also why tax "refunds" or tax "credits" do not stimulate the economy but tax cuts do. Tax cuts, result in more private sector investment and production which creates more wealth and more demand.

Government "investment" (which is what "infrastructure" spending is) only crowds out private investment and maldistributes funds in the economy.

Unemployment insurance is not meant to last forever although sometimes it seems that way.
If there is supply then money is needed in order to demand it.
What new wealth for society does defense spending at 25% of the budget create?
Unless you use your military for booty and conquest the way the Brits and Spaniards did it's a net drain on the economy.
My main point is IMO the military is overdone and overspent for the value it provides to America.
I say put that that money to more valuable use for education hospitals and building up the country for everybody.
It's really a matter of simple pride because it's easy for people to assume big cuts in defense spending are a further symptom of the decline of America as a world power even though that relative decline is inevitable with the emergence of China and the money and knowledge we have given them purchasing their goods and giving them a 8% annual growth rate.
The Soviets ultimately put themselves into bankruptcy with their military spending out of proportion to their economic strength and although we're nowhere near that if we don't get our spending on defense more in order
to what we need instead of what we want we risk proving my father's contention about a human being as a contradiction :D

The money we seem to not thoughtfully overspend on defense spent on the country itself would be a real step to lessening and helping fix the human contradiction :p of being seemingly able to run growing defecits as perpetuities. It was the fall of 1962 when Kennedy launched the whole running deficits against the future to fund big government programs. It's been almost 50 years and we haven't crashed permanently yet....
 
Unemployment insurance is not meant to last forever although sometimes it seems that way.

I am not arguing that unemployment insurance is wrong or that benefits should not be paid out. I am simply pointing out that it is not economically stimulative.

If there is supply then money is needed in order to demand it.
Money performs but a momentary function in this double exchange; and when the transaction is finally closed, it will always be found, that one kind of commodity has been exchanged for another.
-Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832)
"Money" is simply a piece of paper. It is wealth that matters and it is wealth from which money derives any value. In fact more money actually reduces wealth (inflation).

What new wealth for society does defense spending at 25% of the budget create?

It doesn't.

It is a necessary trade off.

Economic efficiency is not the ultimate goal of society and certain other priorities take precedent over it in certain circumstances.

Whether or not that trade off has gone too far is a very valid question.

I suppose that there could be an argument made that, due to the uniquely disciplined military culture, defense spending may be an exception to the fact that government spending creates economic inefficiency, but I am not making that argument (my sister could).

My main point is IMO the military is overdone and overspent for the value it provides to America.

I would say that is the case for ALL government spending, not simply defense spending.

I say put that that money to more valuable use for education hospitals and building up the country for everybody.

If it is left in the hands of the private sector to make those determinations, there would be much better "bang for the buck".

However, I would question whether the trade off is worth it. Is economic efficiency more important then safety and international stability? If not, how do you know where that balance is?
 
I am not arguing that unemployment insurance is wrong or that benefits should not be paid out. I am simply pointing out that it is not economically stimulative.

Money performs but a momentary function in this double exchange; and when the transaction is finally closed, it will always be found, that one kind of commodity has been exchanged for another.
-Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832)
"Money" is simply a piece of paper. It is wealth that matters and it is wealth from which money derives any value. In fact more money actually reduces wealth (inflation).



It doesn't.

It is a necessary trade off.

Economic efficiency is not the ultimate goal of society and certain other priorities take precedent over it in certain circumstances.

Whether or not that trade off has gone too far is a very valid question.

I suppose that there could be an argument made that, due to the uniquely disciplined military culture, defense spending may be an exception to the fact that government spending creates economic inefficiency, but I am not making that argument (my sister could).



I would say that is the case for ALL government spending, not simply defense spending.



If it is left in the hands of the private sector to make those determinations, there would be much better "bang for the buck".

However, I would question whether the trade off is worth it. Is economic efficiency more important then safety and international stability? If not, how do you know where that balance is?


Well if I didn't know you better I would say you are making the argument for government economic inefficiency because some things are more important than economics.

Plus you posit that any reduction in defense spending will lead to danger and instability.
I don't believe the two are statically tied.
The balance would be found by reducing defence spending and seeing how much of what we need to do militarily is possible with what we have.
Start with the most expensive least practically useful programs first and work your way down.
Obama and the Republicans in a rare unison cancelled a 4 billion dollar second jet engine that no one really needed or even wanted but there's plenty more stuff that is just not cost effective.
defense spending may be an exception to the fact that government spending creates economic inefficiency
They spend tons of money on the equipment but not so much on the soldiers who have stuff bought for them by their families like body armor.
Efficiency of wages only.

Needlessly wasting money is not a nessesary tradeoff we should just accept.
 
Well if I didn't know you better I would say you are making the argument for government economic inefficiency because some things are more important than economics.

Essentially, yes.

Economic efficiency is important, but certain concerns in certain circumstances override that need for economic efficiency. To argue otherwise is, ultimately, to argue for no government; anarchy.

Plus you posit that any reduction in defense spending will lead to danger and instability.
I don't believe the two are statically tied.

I never said they were statistically tied. I said there is a trade off involved between the two. Those are different arguments.

The balance would be found by reducing defense spending and seeing how much of what we need to do militarily is possible with what we have.

There are certain arenas where the typical means of cost control simply do not work and defense spending is one of them. If you are too aggressive in cost cutting in business you will get lower profits, ultimately. With defense, you don't measure in lack of profits but in loss of liberty and loss of life.

That is a huge risk and once that cost is realized it cannot be adjusted for.

Start with the most expensive least practically useful programs first and work your way down.

That is not the way to reduce spending in government unless you want to create a whole host of unintended consequences that are proportionally greater then the problem they are meant to solve.

You start with principle; what is the focus and role of government. You cut back programs that go outside that focus and look to create as little inefficiency as possible inside that focus.

Unfortunately, since there are such drastically different views on what the role of government should be, it is easier to simply avoid that discussion and say that everything should be cut, starting with the biggest expenses. But that is a discussion that we need to be having for anything productive to be done.
 
I see your fear of the loss of liberty as a red herring since we are a continent apart from where we are "defending" our country on foreign soil.
The fight is not on our soil and neither is the loss of life which is there because we put ourselves in harms way.

We're not even fighting standing armies anymore which is what our military is set up and equipped for.
Look at how well the Iraq invasion and war has gone and we're the most powerful military force in the world.
Do you think we're ever going to fight the Russians or the Chinese in some kind of conventional war?
A good part of military spending is a form of corporate and social welfare.
We already have 11 carrier groups roaming the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group
Do you really think we need another one on top of that as some are proposing.
For a country with no natural land enemies and 4% of the world population we have the largest military in the world.
It is my opinion that we would be just as safe here in America as we are now if we cut the defense budget by 1/3 but that is not going to happen.
 
I see your fear of the loss of liberty as a red herring since we are a continent apart from where we are "defending" our country on foreign soil.
The fight is not on our soil and neither is the loss of life which is there because we put ourselves in harms way.

I think you have had that discussion with Cal before and I really see no need to rehash it here. It is sufficient to point out that, with the interdependent, international economy and default world system with America as it's head, the whole notion of our greatest defense being our geographic isolation from Europe, Asia and the Middle East is a bit dated.

I have to wonder how many lives would have been saved had Obama took more immediate action against Quadaffi instead of waiting for the UN. Given how quickly Quadaffi seems to have caved, a lot of misery could have been saved.

I would agree with our need to reorganize toward fighting terrorism instead of more traditional forces, but that is precisely what we are doing. It may not be going as fast as it should, and there are certainly set backs, but I don't see that as an argument for less defense spending.

Isn't there an old saying about always fighting the last war? Our military was geared around the Cold War and is slowly adjusting. Once we (hopefully) conquer Islamic terrorism we will be in a waiting game until the next threat comes along.
 
Well alright
I guess I'm done poking the bear here.:p
I think we could solve a lot of our social economic problems without raising taxes by taking an axe to the defence department and suffer no loss in security but that's not going to happen.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top