Many Democrats, including President-elect Obama, took the Bush administration to task -- and rightfully so -- for failing, in some cases, to provide our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan with the most modern, up-to-date supplies, equipment and ordnance.
Now that they're firmly in power on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, Democrats are in position to put their money where their mouths are.
But so far, much of the talk about Obama's planned stimulus package, expected to be somewhere between $700 billion and $900 billion over the next two years, has centered on infrastructure -- building and repairing the nation's roads, bridges, sewers, schools and other public works projects.
Few people would argue there's not a need for this kind of domestic infrastructure spending -- so long as Congress doesn't turn it into a pork feeding frenzy.
But what about infrastructure spending on the military? There's a need for that too, yet there's been very little talk about it since the election.
In fact, some on the left want to pay for part of the nation's domestic needs by taking it out of the defense budget.
That would not only indicate Democrats' talk about improving troops' combat readiness was just so much empty campaign rhetoric, but it would also deprive the economy of the kind of shot in the arm that would do it the most good.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Harvard economics professor and former chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economics Advisers Martin Feldstein, wrote, "The increase in government spending needs to be a short-term surge with greater outlays in 2009 and 2010, but then tailing off sharply in 2011 when the economy should be almost back to its pre-recession level of activity. Buying military supplies and equipment ... can easily fit this surge pattern."
Feldstein points out that a 10 percent increase in defense outlays for research and procurement coupled with a 5 percent boost in operation and maintenance spending would add $10 billion to the Pentagon's budget. Those billions, says Feldstein, would create about 300,000 jobs -- and, according to Obama, jobs are what his stimulus package is supposed to be all about. Military recruitment would also be raised by 15 percent, providing another 30,000 jobs for the nation's young men and women.
Another important advantage to military infrastructure spending is that almost all of the equipment and supplies are made in the good, old U.S.A. -- and that, too, boosts domestic employment.
At some point Democratic leaders in Washington should remember their criticisms of the Bush administration's sometimes benign neglect of the military's infrastructure needs -- and move to remedy them.
Talk about a two-fer. The remedy could save U.S. lives in combat and help bring about economic recovery.
It's also the patriotic thing to do.
Comments
That is because a great deal of the left (not all, but a great deal) have absolutely NO respect for the military. They hold the very people who secure their freedom in utter contempt. I won't mention any names, but a good example has the initials of JRHC.
Before we spend more on the military, they need to become fiscally responsible. No more outrageous prices for common items that can be acquired for pennies at a local Lowes.....actually, this needs to be done across the board in government.
Funding the military will not only protect our troops by supplying them with advanced equipment not only for their military "intell" but for their safety and well-being...The opening of bases that were closed without any regard for the civilian personnel would open the doors for mass employment...Clinton as well as other Presidents had a habit of closing these bases which not only put people out of jobs but weakened this nation's defenses...
Let's see, Bush did not fund the military, and Obama is not yet President, but Obama is now being blamed for the lack of military funding. Great logic.
The problem with our military is that they are too concerned about providing cushy, civilian jobs to soldiers getting ready to retire ... whether or not they are qualified for a specific position. These jobs are being denied to qualified civilians. Once in place the retirees expect (and get) a job that requires lots of pay for very little effort and the operation suffers. Its why contractors were brought in years ago. Granted some contractors have sucked and caused a bad name but most do the work better and cost the government less. Cut out the "fat" and there is plenty of money for the needed infrastructure. The military, just like the government, has never been run as a professional organization ... its a club!
Shamrock, the "fat" lies in all levels of our government. How about the fat butts who sit around getting welfare and do no work other than producing more fat butts to get on welfare? Most military are hard working, honest people who put service to our country ahead of their own needs and the needs of their families. It might need an overhaul, but our entire government needs an overhaul, especially congress! Now there is a wasteful group. And, it's your money their wasting. You think things will change just because Obama is president? Not with this congress. They don't like anybody telling them how they can spend your money!
CH ... I said nothing about Obama making a change ... in fact I seriously doubt it in this area. I also said nothing about military putting their country first. Please read what I said and not what you thought I said. Retirees or former military are given some nice benefits. Giving civilian jobs to the unqualified person over qualified just because they had military service should not be one of those benefits no matter how you slice and dice it. Before you jump to conclusions I DO have prior military service giving me a distinct advantage over those who don't when applying for civilian jobs at Ft. Gordon.
Shamrock, I haven't jumped to anything. If you had read my post carefully, you would have seen that I even agreed that the military needs a financial overhaul. I just stated what you didn't, that the entire system of government needs an overhaul, especially congress. I also have prior military experience, but hardly consider myself an expert.
I think Sis Abubba is sick in the head with her comments. I think the minority of the left belong in the catagory that you are desrcibing. It's always been the squeaky wheel gets the most grease. All of my Democratic friends are probably more Patriotic than you would even know how to feel. Most, not all of us in my circle are Veterans and we certainly care about the creature comforts to the absolute needs of the military and want them to have every thing they need and then some. Just because a person doesn't agree with the cause does not make us unpatriotic or anti military, but most Repubs can't under stand that. You need to pull your out in the daylight and talk to the folks around you because I'm quite sure if you have any friends at all some of them are Dems, albiet closet Dems. Have a very Happy New Year in spite of yourself.
The country's financial, public, and military infrastructure have been decimated by Bush and the CONServatives. Who is it again that holds this country in "utter contempt"?
SJGRACI, if this administration has such contempt for the military, why is there a record number of reenlistments? The opposite was true when your lapdog Clinton was in office.
GAC, again blabbing about somethng you know little or nothng about. Those special tools some times required for a specific piece of equipment, thus are expensive, certainly can't be bought at Lowes. You have no idea as to how complicated modern military systems are.
Shivas, I realize you a have a severe reading comprehension problem, but I saw nothing in this article that comes close to your statement. Inanity is your hall mark. Strange how you leftists have whined about the money Bush has spent on our military, but now say he didn't give them what they needed. Which is it ?
Shamrock, those military retirees are hired specifically because civilians don't have the knowledge and skills that those retirees learned while IN the military. If they want jobs, tell them to join the military, spend 20 or more years, retire, then get a good paying job with the military or military contractor. Most of those retirees are contractors themselves and SAVE the military money because they are NOT furnished medical benefits, no retirement, or other government benefits. I love making a bigger fool out of clueless fools like you.
Great posts, Jack. Don't expect to get a sensible answer to your question though. Libs hate being confronted with a silly things like facts.
CH, I am one of thoe retirees that worked at Ft Gordon (and retired again). I worked my [filtered word] off daily, put iin a lot of over time without pay, and when Reagan was in office, lived out of s suit case taking care of the needs of current and future military communicators.
Jack, thank you for your service to our country. I wish every American appreciated the sacrifices servicemen and servicewomen have made and continue to make for this country.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
