Krugman: Republican Hypocrisy On Spending Is 'Wonderful' To Watch
One of the major themes of last week was the degree to which Republicans in Congress were deceptively referring to Defense Secretary Robert Gates' budget proposal as a weak-on-defense spending cut. The corollary to that claim--articulated by many Republicans, but also some Democrats--is that defense spending "cuts" will cost jobs. The problem is, though, that most of the people making that argument voted against the stimulus bill this past winter.
Last week we caught Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) in just such a contradiction. During the debate over the stimulus, Chambliss lashed out at the specter of government recession spending, calling it a "bloated government giveaway." But then, he called into the NPR program Talk of the Nation and said none of that matters as long as the spending is defense spending.
"[W]hen it comes to stimulating the economy," Chambliss said, there's no better way to do it than to spend it in the defense community."
On Sunday, Paul Krugman appeared on ABC's This Week, and picked up on the same thing, and called out Congressional Republicans for what one might call the "Chambliss hypocrisy". Here's Krugman:
What's so wonderful is watching Republican congressmen saying, "But this will cost jobs!" The very same Republican congressmen who were denouncing the stimulus, saying government spending never creates jobs, but cutting defense spending costs jobs. It's wonderful.
What Krugman doesn't note (because the panel covered it earlier in the show) is that these Congressional Republicans are basing their argument on spending cuts that don't exist. Funny, that.
We'll be rounding up examples of this as we find them, from both Republicans and, perhaps, some anti-stimulus Democrats.
Josh
Matt
Eric
And today's front page article on changes to the student loan program includes a similar sort of schizophrenia. There is sheer terror that not subsidizing Sallie Mae et al. will lead to the loss of jobs.
And Sallie Mae deserves particular opprobrium here -- it is now in the process of in-sourcing some 2000 jobs to a hard hit community in NE Pennsylvania just as soon as its bloated subsidies are under pressure. Just wait and see what happens to those jobs at the end of the legislative season.
April 13, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 13, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
April 13, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I'm talkin' about!
April 13, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful.
Non-sequiturish as hell, but beautiful.
April 13, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You certainly live up to your nom de plume.
April 13, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahaha! Too stinking funny. Good to see you Id.
April 13, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well,yes, they are spending cuts if your district makes parts for the F-22.
Didn't you love John Stewart, commenting on the fact that there are parts made for that plane in 46 different states? He said something to the effect, "Maybe if they made it all in one place, it wouldn't be so expensive. I mean, judging by Amazon's shipping rates, it's gotta cost a lot!"
April 13, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What keeps being missed is that while the F-22 production is being ramped down F-35 production is ramping up. In fact the F-35 production is a larger overall program than the F-22 due to international purchasing and more platform variations. In all there is more likely to be an increase in net jobs than a decrease. But that doesn't fit the meme of Dems cutting defense jobs so it is only Colbert that is talking about it.
April 13, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The typical military contracts now a days is awarded to the lowest bidder. Can you imagine a top-of-the-line air superiority aircraft made with Sear's craftsmans tools, parts from Lowe's, Costco and Sam's Club and cockpit avionics by Dell?
April 13, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It's the punch-line to an old joke, but that IS how we got to the moon.
April 13, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was part of the Evil Genius of the Military Industrial Complex: spread the jobs [for weapons systems, armor, etc.] around to as many states as possible. That way EVERY Senator for EVERY state where jobs are housed will support worthless weapon systems. Ditto for the dittohead members of the House.
This is why it's so hard to "cut the defense budget."
April 13, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it's fun to listen to Krugman needle the repuglicans, it serves no useful purpose if the MSM isn't doing their job and catching the blatant hypocrisy as well. As long as the repuglican's can talk out of both their mouth and a$$ at the same time and never be confronted with their two-faced, double standards by the MSM, they have free rein to ramble on about the most idiotic, twisted and contorted logic they can muster on any subject they desire without having the slightest idea what they're talking about. Backmann is a good example. As long as the MSM is there eager to hear what she has to say, she'll keep contorting and twisting the world as we know it much like a chiropractor twists and contorts a human body in ways unimaginable. Fortunately, the body is adaptable to being pushed, prodded, twisted, bent, folded, doubled-over and contorted without suffered any damage. The same can not be said for the mind.
April 13, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
"[W]hen it comes to stimulating the economy," Chambliss said, there's no better way to do it than to spend it in the defense community."
A warmongering capitalist feels need to profess his conflict of interest in the "People's Chamber".
Just how much interest does saxly have in his industrial muilitary complex?
April 13, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
YO! And, by the way, Chambliss is wrong! Military spending is not anything but an immediate boost to the economy. It pays more long term dividends to build infrastructure.
April 13, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but international purchasing to offset the production costs of the F-35 might look good on paper, but it compromises the integrity of the fleet. The more of them that are outside the US influence, the easier it is for them to be taken apart, weaknesses found and exploited to make them useless in a real air-to-air furball. It would be pretty bad if the US ever engaged another country in an air war and a weakness was exploited to render the entire fleet useless. So whatever aircraft is our main line of defense, if it can be compromised we will have lost the air war. Also, internal avionics, regardless of age, are susceptible to compromise too. A few years ago, the USAF was invited to India to participate in some wargames. As sophisticated as the F-15 is, the Indian AF was able to give them a run for their money using after-market and off-the shelf avionics that were readily available to meet the demand to defeat an F-15 at its own game. So while the F-22 may be a budget buster, if the US wants to maintain it's edge and advantage with a superior air arm they'd better remember everyone wants to defeat us at our own game.
April 13, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares. The next war is going to be fought by drones. They can fly faster and turn tighter than any manned vehicle. They are cheaper and smaller. They can hang around the fight longer. Manned fighters (like the F-22) and attack bombers (like the F-35)are soooooo 20th century.
April 13, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beetlejuice~ Sorry but your story of the Indian after-market off-the-shelf planes giving our platinum-plated US planes a run for their money just reinforces the feeling that we are getting pretty average shit hardware for our gazzillions of dollars spent.
The point about the fat fascist Senator from Georgia, the one who needed to lie about a real war hero to get his job, is that IN FACT military spending is one of the WORST ways to create jobs dollar for dollar. IN FACT education spending creates far more jobs dollar for dollar and has wide ranging benefits to society in general. Military hardware overkill just makes us look tough not smart. Iraq has proven that in spades. If we took the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on exotic fantasy warcraft and built real schools, real mass transit, and real healthcare infrastructure we would have real and lasting benefits. Big bang for the buck!
April 13, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
wonderful is the word
April 13, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is anyone else irked that a baseball sports writer is sitting at the same table as a Nobel Prize winner and a former Speaker of the House, as if he knows something about politics, government or world affairs?
I mean, I thought NBC had the MLB contract, so why the hell is ABC paying Will?
April 13, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about this one-off on the relative value of jobs~
I was reading an estimate of the number of Americans who die each year for lack of timely health care intervention of otherwise treatable non-fatal health problems. The number was 18,000! Yes, put that in your mind for a minute and let it sink in. Every year in our crazy quilt for profit disaster of a health care system we loose 18,000 Americans to unnecessary death.
So let's compare that to the singular event of 9/11 when we lost 3000 Americans to unnecessary death. Why on Earth do we not get on a war tirade and spend 'whatever it takes' to end the annual loss of 18,000 lives? Why? If we are so taken by the death of innocents why does the far larger number not much change how we do business here but the much smaller number makes us spend ourselves crazy with debt on every high tech toy some pentagon pimp can dream up?
April 13, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The F-22 Raptor is the greatest air superiority fighter ever made, which came into production precisely when it was no longer needed.
The F-22 was made to fight two opponents, the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China. It's stealth capabilities and massive long range air-to-air attack capabilities essentially allow a wing of F-22s to rack up completely lopsided kill ratios in a World War 3 sort of scenario, where combat takes place across thousands and thousands of miles and you won't even see your opponents you're attacking, they're radar blips, and your opponent can't see you at all because you're invisible to radar.
The thing is, the opponents we're actually fighting fight over battlefields a few hundred miles across at most, attacking opponents who rarely have an airforce or serious radar targeting anyways, and the most valuable combat aircraft is an AC-130 gunship bristling with vulcan cannons and air-to-ground weaponry, not an F-22.
April 13, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a question, why aren't we building the next generation of the AC-130 Spectre or A-10 Thunderbolt II, to back up ground forces?
Why is all the money going to air superiority and multipurpose aircraft, instead of ground support?
April 13, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because, no matter how necessary and effective it is, ground support isn't very sexy to your average zoomie.
April 13, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am from GA and have worked in the defense industrry on the B-2 bomber. The word was that we would lose jobs...we didn't...most got other jobs in the Company. Chamblis is a tow the line Republican who has not one independant thought. I say cut the F-22 and because you have the F-35 right behind it. Also, if you look at the cost overrun which are enormous it makes no sense that a plane should cost 400 Mil. Each defense contractor mark up the product and add in cost overrun and then challenges the program to come under budget so they can add to their bottom line. They have played this game for so long that it is a big time farce. Yet Republicons, ditto heads et. al talk about the stimulus plan is too much and nothing but pet projects yet military spending on pet projects is not wasteful and placing debt on their grandchildren. Now thats hypocrisy!
April 13, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink