LA Times: Why don't deficit hawks care about the cost of military adventurism?

[lpetrich]

Why don't deficit hawks care about the cost of military adventurism? - LA Times

Crippling deficits and a nightmarish national debt are popular, recurring tropes in American politics: Every few months, politicians and the pundit class seem to recall that we’re broke. While some are no doubt sincere in their concern, our pocketbook cops are wildly inconsistent. They complain that America is running out of money when it comes to helping the poor, people of color, the disabled and the elderly. Their worries miraculously disappear whenever the military wants to start a new war.

Thus, single-payer healthcare, free college tuition, Social Security, Medicare, and the like are considered intolerably expensive, while wars and military procurements costing trillions of dollars are not. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over $5 trillion, with Iraq costing $2 trillion, and development of the way over-budget F-35 fighter plane costing $1.35 trillion.


I've collected such professional-pennypincher arguments and applied them to military and police forces. Here goes:

End protection welfare!

Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

• Let the market decide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people will become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will inevitably be superior to government ones.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.

 

[Valjean]

Some thoughts:

Isn't the purpose of a state run justice system the prevention of vigilantism and vendetta?

The military-industrial complex has become a major part of the economy, it creates jobs and generates tremendous wealth for the billionaire class, which owns congress. "The business of America is... warfare!" -- with apologies to Coolidge.

The latest development has been the incorporation of private subcontractors, which not only make a lot more money doing what the soldiers used to do themselves, but put an added burden on the soldiers to protect them in case of attack.

The Military-industrial complex has expanded into a massive Rube Goldberg, with arms reaching into every corner of the economy. It seems like everyone's got a piece of the action. It's a hugely inefficient waste of money, but who's going to be willing to give up their piece of the pie first?

I generally agree with the thread's premise. The military creates the very terrorists it purports to protect us from. It generates hatred abroad and fear, poverty and violence at home.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why don't deficit hawks care about the cost of military adventurism? - LA Times

Crippling deficits and a nightmarish national debt are popular, recurring tropes in American politics: Every few months, politicians and the pundit class seem to recall that we’re broke. While some are no doubt sincere in their concern, our pocketbook cops are wildly inconsistent. They complain that America is running out of money when it comes to helping the poor, people of color, the disabled and the elderly. Their worries miraculously disappear whenever the military wants to start a new war.

Thus, single-payer healthcare, free college tuition, Social Security, Medicare, and the like are considered intolerably expensive, while wars and military procurements costing trillions of dollars are not. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over $5 trillion, with Iraq costing $2 trillion, and development of the way over-budget F-35 fighter plane costing $1.35 trillion.


I've collected such professional-pennypincher arguments and applied them to military and police forces. Here goes:

End protection welfare!

Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

• Let the market decide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people will become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will inevitably be superior to government ones.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.

We have governments like this. One or rather three are in Libya, thanks to US contributions to the area.
The US however is spending far in excess of its Military needs by creating wars when then mean more military spending to deal with the reverberations arising out of its action.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, they're Americans. Paying large multinational corporations to build bombs to blow up defenseless brown people is kind of their thing. Asking them to scale it back is like asking a Frenchman to cut down on the amount of cheese he eats or telling a Canadian that maybe he shouldn't apologize quite so much.

It doesn't really matter what the cost is because they're expressing themselves as a nation and you can't put a price on that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, they'd have to actually be deficit hawks instead of being Democrat hawks.

 

[Toni]

Military contractors and suppliers make big bucks. Enormously big bucks. They don't need privatization and in fact, do better in the current set up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They ask the question but I see basically nothing of an answer.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

At the base of it present day Americans are a fearful people. It didn't used to be that way, but it sure is now. That is why you see such demand for guns and wars. There is constant scare mongering and terror, even though comparatively the USA is one of the safest places on earth. The change needs to start with a culture shift I think Because yes, if you cut back just a bit on the military adventurism, you could fund all of the social programs you need. The money is there. It is simply priorities that are all wrong.

 

[J842P]

At the base of it present day Americans are a fearful people. It didn't used to be that way, but it sure is now. That is why you see such demand for guns and wars. There is constant scare mongering and terror, even though comparatively the USA is one of the safest places on earth. The change needs to start with a culture shift I think Because yes, if you cut back just a bit on the military adventurism, you could fund all of the social programs you need. The money is there. It is simply priorities that are all wrong.

Buddy, this isn't something new. The US has essentially been in a state of constant war for a century. But at least with the WW1, WW2, and the Cold War Hotspots, there was perhaps a sort of reluctance. The last two decades we've seen the rise of the Neoconservatives and the New Left (i.e. The Clinton Left, The Third Way, the Democratic Leadership Council). Both these seemingly opposite sides of the political spectrum fundamentally agree that American interests and values need to be aggressively pursued and spread by force if necessary. The New Left is always changing their name, but the people are the same. The current manifestation is The Progressive Policy Institute. If you go to their website, their tagline is Radically Pragmatic (I'm sure they paid some Beltway consultants a small fortune for that one). But don't be fooled. They are not pragmatic, but deeply ideological.

Here is a pretty good article on the subject:

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna.../how-perpetual-war-became-us-ideology/238600/

 

[TV and credit cards]

At the base of it present day Americans are a fearful people. It didn't used to be that way, but it sure is now. That is why you see such demand for guns and wars. There is constant scare mongering and terror, even though comparatively the USA is one of the safest places on earth. The change needs to start with a culture shift I think Because yes, if you cut back just a bit on the military adventurism, you could fund all of the social programs you need. The money is there. It is simply priorities that are all wrong.

I wonder what percentage of congressional districts have contractors that feed the DoD? DoD funding is a bipartisan lovefest.
Isn't fear in the American people largely dictated by the media?
I don't think the USA is one of the safest places on earth when we consider that fear and the demand for guns has created a self-sustaining presence.

 

[lpetrich]

I wonder what percentage of congressional districts have contractors that feed the DoD?

Someone may already have researched this issue, and I would not be surprised if it is a large fraction. That way, military contracting has plenty of pork-barrel value.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder what percentage of congressional districts have contractors that feed the DoD?

Someone may already have researched this issue, and I would not be surprised if it is a large fraction. That way, military contracting has plenty of pork-barrel value.

Might look at the Citizens Against Government Waste.
https://www.cagw.org/
DOD spending is just one of the things they pay attention to.

I think the answer to the question in the OP is kind of obvious. It's not the military that goes looking to start wars. The civilians above the military are the ones that want to impress voters with sexy military adventurism. So to question military spending, they'd be questioning themselves.

Right now, the military is trying to get another round of base closings started. But that would reduce DOD spending in some districts, so they're not going to get it very easily from Congress.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't think the USA is one of the safest places on earth when we consider that fear and the demand for guns has created a self-sustaining presence.

I do feel far safer in Toronto than I would in New York or LA, but USA has at least not seen a war on its soil, since what? 1812? And that was us, when we burned the White House down

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I've collected such professional-pennypincher arguments and applied them to military and police forces. Here goes:

End protection welfare!

Abolish all government military and police forces! They must all be turned into private companies or else disbanded.

• Let the market decide. If soldiers' and cops' services have any value, people will hire them, or else people will become vigilantes. Government coercion is unnecessary.
• Government protection is one-size-fits-all. Vigilantism, hired guards, and mercenaries can be adjusted to individuals' protection needs and desires, while government protection cannot.
• Government involvement in protection crowds out private investment in protection solutions, solutions that will inevitably be superior to government ones.
• People who refuse to protect themselves deserve to be conquered and beaten up and stolen from and extorted from and raped and enslaved and murdered and whatever other crimes that they might suffer. Protection laziness ought to have consequences, and government protection protects people from the consequences of their actions.
• Crime victims are really crime enablers, and they deserve to suffer the consequences of their crime enabling.
• Self-protectors should not have to protect non-self-protectors by the government stealing from them to do so. Government protection is governments robbing Peter to protect Paul.
• Individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments. Therefore, government protection is unnecessary and people should not be stolen from to pay for it.
• If there are any people who are not capable of protecting themselves, then private charities like vigilantes will do much better at protecting them than governments.

Even though you made those arguments in jest I approve of them. In the mean time I'll answer your question.

That's because the so-called deficit hawks are only deficit hawks when out of power. Just like the other part is only anti-war when out of power. From 2001-2008 the deficit hawks were in hibernation, from 2009 to 2016 the peace movement was in hibernation, and now the deficit hawks are in hibernation again.

The military is one of the top four budget items. If the US military budget was cut in half it would still be the biggest military budget in the world, larger than the next two combined. The US doesn't even get good bang for the buck, looking at our last several military activities.

Any deficit hawk that is also a war hawk is not a deficit hawk. It is only a posture to assume when out of power, like being anti-war.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think the USA is one of the safest places on earth when we consider that fear and the demand for guns has created a self-sustaining presence.

I do feel far safer in Toronto than I would in New York or LA, but USA has at least not seen a war on its soil, since what? 1812? And that was us, when we burned the White House down

We were invaded in WWII. Not to mention Pearl Harbor.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Lets not forget there was a war on US soil in the 1860s.

 

[lpetrich]

Lets not forget there was a war on US soil in the 1860s.

It was a war of Americans vs. Americans, a war that killed more Americans than any other war, both in absolute numbers and in population-relative proportion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Military contractors and suppliers make big bucks. Enormously big bucks. They don't need privatization and in fact, do better in the current set up.

Military contractors and suppliers are simply politically correct weasel words for mercenaries.

 

[ronburgundy]

They ask the question but I see basically nothing of an answer.

The question is a rhetorical way of highlighting the illogical hypocrisy of conservative pretending they care about the deficit or spending in any principled way. It esposes the fact that they merely use fiscal responsibility as a cover to keep the rich as rich as possible. Since wars make so many rich even richer and is the main reason the US uses its military, they don't oppose that kind of spending.