There is a very interesting article in the NY Times on line, by Bruce Bartlett, whose conservative credentials are indisputable. He's worked for Reagan, Bush Sr., Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. The article is called "Stimulus Even Republicans Can Support."
It is actually a well-written and thoughtful article in which he accepts the Keynsean argument that government spending does stimulate the economy and, in some cases directly and others indirectly, contribute to GDP.
From the bi-partisan position that cuts in defense spending will mean a loss of jobs, he make the obvious point that defense spending created those jobs. And obviously other government spending also creates jobs and contributes to GDP.
I'll boil it down to his final two or three paragraphs: call public infrastructure programs and education military spending. Because, of course, Republicans love military spending.
There would be a rational military reason for doing so in both cases. National Security was one of the justifications (maybe the main one) for the construction of the interstate highway system under Eisenhower, and for other infrastructure spending earlier under FDR.
4 comments:
I'm not quite there yet in my reading of the Smith biography of Eisenhower, but I have always understood that the interstate highway system was inspired by Ike's admiration for the German Autobahn and that he was well aware of its significance to the country in the time after WWII when everyone was certain that another depression like the 30's was inevitable since the stimulus of the war years was no longer there.
Did FDR do a lot of military infrastructure? Up to the time of the US entry into the war, wasn't military spending pretty sparse?
Interesting.
Bob - You didn't read the article, did you?
The autobahn may have been Eisenhower's inspiration for the interstate system and he may have been concerned about a post-war economic downturn, but he had to sell it as at least partially a national security issue. Do you think he could have been successful offering it as a proactive Keynesian stimulus program?
According to Bartlett, FDR also signed a national highway infrastructure act that had been sold as a national security issue.
It isn't that FDR was spending a lot for military infrastructure. The point is that you can pass infrastructure programs if you emphasize their importance to national security. (Even if, in the pre-WWII case, "real" military spending was very little.)
Of course, you are absolutely correct that Ike sold the highway system with the military spin. That has always been clear, especially with his "x miles of straight road for runway" business. Clever, especially for a Republican.
I was unaware of FDR's national highway act, and no, I didn't read the article.
I depend on you, after all, for a distillation of the wisdom.
I am wondering, on another subject, why Mitt's religion is a subject of concern and Rev Wright isn't? Saw another bumper sticker today that I liked: "I am in favor of separation of church and hate."
Bob - I'd like to riff on the reason some people still get so agitated by Rev. Wright, and just what that all signifies. But one would have to go deeply into the subject of race and race history, and that is too much work, in a hopeless cause. To me, it is less than a non-issue, especially after all this time.
But instead, I will just say that I don't buy your premise. Romney's religion was never made an official topic in the primaries, nor will it be in the general. Some people will vote against Romney because he's a Mormon and some people will vote against Obama because of Wright. It's a push.
Post a Comment