Defense Spending as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
posted by Frank Pasquale
In a recent editorial, Robert Scheer wonders “Why is U.S. military spending at the highest point, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than at any time since the end of World War II?” Scheer further wonders:
Maybe one can make a case that it is appropriate that more than half of the discretionary funds in the 2009 budget go to defense, and all the other federal programs for science, education, infrastructure, global warming and nonmilitary international programs compete for the rest. But isn’t it bizarre that the biggest peacetime military budget in U.S. history — 35% higher than when Bush came into office and larger than the military budgets of all other nations combined — is not even discussed in the current presidential contest?
I found Scheer’s questions particularly interesting as I read another article (this time from economists) challenging the view that the US can afford to spend 30% of its GDP on health care in 2050. If health spending reached such a level, the authors predicted a productivity crisis that would drag down the US economy in comparison to other countries’. We see glimmers of such arguments in periodic panics over the Medicare and Medicaid budgets at Washington think tanks.
I think it’s helpful to think about defense and health spending together because they reveal there is no objectively correct answer as to how much public spending there should be in any given category. In a world of escalating military tensions, military budgets may well have to rise. When a general “pax” prevails, there can be more investment in health and safety. Sadly, the perception of rising military tensions (and ensuing buildups) may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If your neighbor gets more arms, you’re well-advised to arm yourself. In such cases, the wasteful and destructive potential of positional competition is most evident.
June 10, 2008 at 9:10 am
Posted in: Philosophy of Social Science, Politics
Print This Post
Responses (4)
Patrick S. O'Donnell - June 10, 2008 at 10:03 am
I first read Scheer’s piece in my local paper (The LA Times) and was wondering if anyone would pick up on it. I think the self-fulfilling prophecy and positional competition stuff speak volumes, although too few are listening, as the housing crisis, the price of gas and food, and the economy in general, direct their attention elsewhere, however much it all falls under the heading of old-fashioned political economy.
Nate Oman - June 10, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Scheer’s use of the term “peacetime” strikes me as remarkably obtuse. I live in an area with lots and lots of military families, and I am sure that they would be surprised to learn that we have a “peacetime” budget. As far as they are concerned, the fact that their loved ones get sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, where they are then shot at and shoot at the enemy, makes it “wartime.”
Humblelawstudent - June 10, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Ugh, articles like Scheer’s are incredibly irritating. His broader point is reasonable (though I disagree), but much of his evidence is the distortions and deceptions.
For example, in his discussion of China he ridicules the idea that China could be (any time soon) a threat to the US. His point misses the mark. No one contends that China could ever (at least in the next 20 years) inflict a broad strategic defeat on the US. Instead China has, or soon will have, the ability to control specific areas, such as around Taiwan, and inflict prohibitive losses on any US attempt to remove China from the area (in say, an invasion on Taiwan). Such a situation is where the potential Chinese threat arises and US policy makers are trying to address. Whether we really should be concerned with this is a legitimate question, but Scheer doesn’t really bother to address it honestly and reasonably.
Another example is his attacks on the F-22 and F-35. Evidently unbeknownst to him, but known to many if not most military advisors is our F-15s and F-18s are largely obselete compared to the latest generation of Russian fighters and some of the upcoming Chinese copies. Developing, testing, and producing aircraft takes a decade if not more. If we had not developed the F-35 and more importantly the F-22, the US would have inferior aircraft to other nations, especially come five years from now.
Unlike say WW2, developing a modern aircraft or weapons system takes often a decade or more of lead time. To have an effective military, we have to be prepared for future conflicts, (at least 5-10 years in teh future). It is simply untenable to wait for parity by another country or even superiority and then expect that we can recover the difference. It simply doesn’t work that way anymore (unlike again WW2).
Perhaps we don’t have to have 2000 fighters in the airforce, however that really isn’t the argument that he making. His poor and frankly ignorant arguments do a great disservice to the legitimate debate regarding the direction of our military.
Don Meaker - June 14, 2008 at 3:36 pm
When thinking about spending in Health and Safety, keep in mind that the Constitution gives no powers to the Federal Legislature on the subject. The States retained those powers. Why would the founders make that decision?
First: Competition between the states for new business or business growth leads to discouragement of higher taxes. State spending is less subject to abuse.
Second There are 4 classes of spending (Per Milton Friedman).
1. Spending of your money on yourself. You care about both cost and value.
2. Spending of your money on someone else. You care about cost, not so much about value.
3. Spending of someone else’s money on you. You care about value, not so much about cost.
4. Spending of A’s money on B. You (C) don’t care so much about either cost, or value.
Government spending is normally of class 4. Speinding when you don’t care about the outcome is normally less efficient than when you spend and care about the outcome. Thus government spending is less efficient than private spending.
Leave a Reply