Picking a fight
Elizabeth is concerned that voters don’t link defense spending (or more specifically the cost of the war in Afghanistan) with the large budget deficits the US government is currently running. Elizabeth believes that if voters understood the link better, there would be more pressure to cut defense spending as a way to reduce the budget deficit.
I don’t disagree with Elizabeth’s logic. I disagree with her premise that the budget deficit is a bad thing at the moment. Rather, I think this is a good thing because the only way out of our slump at the moment is through government spending. The logic is straightforward. Consumers aren’t going to start spending more until they have paid down their debts. As a result, private sector demand – and hence employment – is stagnant. One way to create jobs and thus help consumers to pay down their debts is through government spending. As a result, budget deficits are a good thing given the current state of the economy. (For the wonks who care about rising debt levels, what would be worse is for the government to do nothing. This would cause deflation and hence rising debts in real terms. Within reasonable limits, more government spending would not make us worse off compared to allowing deflation.)
Now my preference would be for the government to spend on infrastructure, education, and innovation, but Congress doesn’t want to do that. Thus, we need to find spending that Congress would support. I’ve been thinking about that and I’ve come up with an answer: war. I’m not advocating that we invade anyone new, but I think that the Obama administration could wage a PR campaign that says DoD needs more money. To those who would fight the administration on more defense spending, the response is simple: Don’t you support the troops? Why do you hate America?
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Sign up for our mailing list
Posts by Region
Posts by Topic
Recent Comments
Archives
- May 2012 (3)
- April 2012 (9)
- March 2012 (16)
- February 2012 (20)
- January 2012 (13)
- December 2011 (10)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (25)
- August 2011 (10)
- July 2011 (16)
- June 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (14)
- April 2011 (16)
- March 2011 (20)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (24)
- October 2010 (27)
- September 2010 (17)
- August 2010 (42)
- July 2010 (40)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (72)
- April 2010 (38)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (32)
- January 2010 (46)
- December 2009 (45)
- November 2009 (38)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (24)
- August 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (1)
Who we like
- AfPak Channel
- CIPE Blog
- Countries at the Crossroads
- Cyrus Samii
- Democracy Arsenal
- Democracy Dialogue
- Democracy Digest
- Democracy Resource Center
- EITI Blog
- ElectionGuide.org
- Fruits and Votes
- Global Voices Online
- One Blog
- Open Budgets Blog
- Open Democracy
- Policy and Power
- Progressive Realist
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Blogs
- Space for Transparency
- The Coming Prosperity
- The Democratic Piece
- The International Jurist
- The Kaufmann Governance Post
- United Nations Democracy Fund
- Zunia.org
i think Barak’s point is that government spending can invigorate US economy and ‘at this moment’ war is the option, unfortunately. actually, it’s true that military spending , especially war, is the best way to creates more jobs and money. it may bring budget deficit for the first time, but it is probably a necessary evil for vitalizing economy for a long-term( i don’t know anything about economics , though….) it creates a new market and encourage various actors and states to exchange their resources. throught the mankind history, huge economic and social changes followed after war. in particular, US can create the world economic order which is conducive for US itself through war. so , strictly speaking, American people do not need to require to stop the war. also, since the military spending of US always has been so huge, i don’t think American people link military spending and domstic economy. but , the problem is that Afghan war doesn’t seem to vitalize US economy. this is the reason American voters need to require the administration to change the way of spending or stop the war. (but, regardless of the issue of US domestic economy, the reason why we–others, except the US government–don’t like ’this Afgan’ war is that it seems suspicious whether US government is able to achieve the ultimate political goal–building democracy. I think some people did support war because they really believe that US can build democracy there and it will bring benefits for all in terms of politics and economy.)
I want to be clear: I think the war is a mistake. The point I was making is that Congress is against more domestic spending, even though we need it to get our economy working again. However, Congress seems OK with Defense spending, so perhaps the best way for the Obama administration to get Congress to spend more is to say the money is for the Department of Defense.