Bill Keller has a good opinion piece today, called "Honey, I Shrunk the Pentagon." It should be clear by now that much of what we spend on defense is really a combination of corporate welfare and a joint public/private jobs program. It has long been curious to me when conservatives defend defense spending because cutting it would cost jobs in their districts, but will turn right around and vote against a stimulus bill with the argument that the government has never created a single job. We have Defense Department Socialism.
Has everyone by now seen the report on the tank refurbishing program that the Army told Congress it did not want, because it wasn't needed, but which Congress refused to cut? Why, if the Army said it was a waste of money? Because key committee congressmen get a lot of money from General Dynamics, the holder of the contract, and because of the jobs that would be lost if the refurbishing didn't continue. Oh yeah, and because it's cheaper to spend the hundreds of millions now rather than shut down the plants and have to get them up and running in a hurry because of some future emergency that called for refurbished tanks. Anyone remember how fast American industry redirected its production from civilian to military ends after Pearl Harbor? Ok, me neither; I'm not that freaking old. But I've read about it.
There are 2 or 3000 tanks sitting in a lot in the California desert that were functioning perfectly at the time they were shut down and parked there because they weren't needed. No doubt General Dynamics is counting on them all needing another half billion dollars worth of work by the time they have finished the first refurbishing cycle and sent the tanks back out to bake in the Mojave desert sun.
If the the money we waste on these kinds of pork-barrel defense contracts were spent on public infrastructure projects, we would at least have something to show for it at the end of the day besides a ludicrous number of expensive and unneeded tanks waiting for the day when we finally admit that they're just scrap metal.
This is a good example of the point made in Eugene Jarecki's 2005 documentary, "Why We Fight." It is virtually impossible to kill defense projects, as we have seen time and time again, because they are deliberately designed by those with a vested interest in them to be spread across the widest possible geographical area, in as many states and congressional districts as is possible. Too many people have an interest in the projects for them to be evaluated honestly on the basis of need or cost effectiveness. We are living the reality that Einsenhower warned against in his final address, and which is the starting point for Jarecki's documentary.
Yes, I know that cutting "defense" spending to a sensible level (instead of more than the next 14 countries combined...and that doesn't include what the Energy Dept spends on nuclear weapons) is not in itself an answer to the long-term debt questions. But if Romney can talk about Big Bird, I can talk about General Dynamics, General Electric, McDonnell, Grumman, Lockheed, Raytheon ad infinitum, and ad nauseam too.
No comments:
Post a Comment