Rusting tanks and obsolete warships

Frank Sinatra had a song about a silly old ram who thought he’d butt a hole in a dam. High hopes and a little perseverance helped him take out a billion kilowatt dam. Persevering, hoping and hard-headed Americans for decades since World War II have wanted somehow to stop the foolishness of heaping two thirds of the discretionary federal budget on arms each year. Yes, they knew the importance of a robust defense. Yes, they understood the Soviet menace. But when was it enough? And may we now give our heads a rest?

In our nation’s effort to pay down the national debt and balance the budget, we have faced and are facing periodic crisis deadlines that, if neglected, will bring down the economy. Like any family budget, so the national one has to see both increased income and less government spending. It has to be both. One is not enough. But both are painful to parts of the population, so the inclination is to burden the less vocal or powerful. That means more taxes for the middle class and less spending for the poor.

So in recent months we have been astounded to see a successful start to trim Defense. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned that bad things would happen if the sequestration mechanism kicked in by law. But the solution reminded me of the controversy years ago about closing military bases to save money.  Not wanting to touch the deadly third rail of cutting some favored base, Congress decided to make up a bipartisan list of bases that would be automatically closed if agreement about closures could not be reached by congressional horse trading. That took the heat off individual congresspersons. And we saved a ton of money. Anybody now miss the closure of Clark air base and Subic naval base in the Philippines?

Many Americans are under the impression that the hundreds of our domestic bases mean prosperity for the cities near them. Indeed, after World War II government made the conscious decision to locate them in the poorest parts of the country. That way jobs and salaries would help locals. But the corresponding impression that arms manufacture also means prosperity has a flaw: as we continue to make more and more weapons systems, even those the generals and admirals do not want, we use government money in the least efficient way.

If the idea is to stimulate the economy, given that military subcontractors are in every congressional district and not by coincidence, we are doing it inefficiently. If we build a tank, it will circulate back into the economy comparatively little money. Once the employees of the defense contractors are paid, the tank sits in the rain at an armory rusting. It is useless even to clear snow. We sink obsolete warships for fish habitat. But if we used the money for socially geared needs, like roads and bridges and teachers and medics, much more money would cycle back into the economy for the good of all.

Military brass officials have testified that weapons makers badger them to buy product they do not need.  So their highly paid lobbyists go over the heads of the joint chiefs and appeal to Congress, saying that the subcontractors in their districts will benefit. But nobody complains that this is Big Government. Nobody compares this waste to welfare for the rich contractors. Nobody notes that the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters.

Then, trying to make lemonade with these lemons, the war economy sells cheap to allies our war material. This helps rectify the overseas balance of payments. Many do not know that our foreign aid, about 20th in generosity proportionately worldwide, consists of vouchers given to our friends which can only be redeemed by American defense contractors. We do not give surplus crops as aid, unless in extreme foreign emergency. And we do not give away bales of cash, as libertarians charge.

The standard retort to this is that we don’t appreciate the sacrifice of our volunteer service personnel. I certainly do. While many poor in so mismanaged an economy must enlist to get a job, the valor and courage of our military cannot be overstated. In fact, arguments like this try to get them out of harm’s way when politicians, many of whom never wore the uniform, send them to places like Iraq for no defensible military reason. None of the 9/11 terrorists was an Iraqi. Most were from our ally Saudi Arabia.