Skip to main content

I claim that the following is a basic economic fact, which all Keynesian economists should readily acknowledge: in the current federal budget political context, in which federal borrowing is capped under the Budget Control Act, and repealing the BCA’s borrowing cap is not under serious consideration; and in which increased taxes on the super-rich, like a Wall Street speculation tax, are not considered politically viable in Washington, more unnecessary Pentagon spending will destroy American jobs.

Before explaining why we know this fact to be the case, let’s consider two related reasons why this fact matters a great deal right now: the Burlington F-35 basing fight and the apparent return of the proposed federal budget “Grand Bargain.”

In Burlington, Vermont, the city council, which owns Burlington International Airport, is considering a resolution to ban the basing of the noisy, dangerous, problem-plagued F-35 warplane at the city-owned airport.

If all the city council had to weigh were the concerns of the residents who will be displaced by the noisy F-35, and the residents who are concerned about the danger of basing the experimental, problem-plagued F-35 in a densely populated area, it would be a slam dunk. The city council would vote to reject basing the F-35 at BIA.

What’s the argument on the other side? Jobs. Supporters of basing the F-35 in Burlington claim that bringing the F-35 to Burlington will bring more federal dollars to Burlington, and therefore more local jobs.

Even in a narrow, local sense, the jobs argument is dubious. The Air Force has conceded that the Vermont National Guard will continue to have a mission, with or without the F-35 being based at BIA. Any local difference in jobs is going to be tiny, barely perceptible in the context of Burlington’s overall economy.

But in terms of national budget policy, the claim that the F-35 is creating jobs is completely wrong. The F-35 is not creating jobs. The F-35 is destroying jobs. That’s because with federal borrowing capped, with increased taxes on the super-rich off the table, more money for the F-35 is going to come from cutting domestic spending – like Social Security checks - or raising taxes on the middle class. Cutting Social Security checks and raising taxes on the middle class to pay for the F-35 would destroy more jobs than the F-35 creates.

If supporters of the F-35 had to concede that they support destroying American jobs to pay for the F-35, Burlington would be having a very different discussion. We’d be back to the slam dunk, and the Burlington council would easily vote to block basing the F-35 at BIA, based on residents’ concerns about noise, displacement, and safety.

This bring us to the “Grand Bargain.” The “Grand Bargain” is the proposal for a budget deal between President Obama and Speaker Boehner that would cut Social Security checks, raise taxes on the middle class, and turn off Pentagon budget cuts. Congressional Republicans who have voted to partially shut down the government are saying that “entitlement reform” is the ransom they are going to demand for raising the federal debt ceiling. “Entitlement reform” is a euphemism for cutting Social Security checks. Some Democrats are saying that they are ready to accept “entitlement reform” – cutting Social Security checks – as the ransom for raising the debt ceiling, but only if Republicans accept “increased revenue.” “Increased revenue” here is a euphemism for raising taxes on the middle class, as AFL-CIO Director of Policy Damon Silvers explains:

The tax increases the Grand Bargain crowd advocate tend to be aimed at the middle class—they are “base broadening” ideas like ending the tax exclusion for health insurance or ending the home mortgage deduction. They will add to the bizarre unfair upside down u-shaped curve of our tax system—the fact that when you put together income taxes, payroll taxes and sales taxes, poor people pay less of their income in taxes than middle-income people, but the very rich pay a smaller percentage than either the poor or the rich in taxes.  

The tax side of the Grand Bargain generally asks nothing of big corporations—typically Grand Bargain proposals include the idea of revenue neutral corporate tax reform and stays away from tax proposals aimed at restoring fair taxation for the 1%, like raising the capital gains rate, creating new high-income brackets or creating a financial transaction tax. Proposals for a Grand Bargain also include lowering tax rates on the 1% and corporations and providing more tax incentives for sending jobs overseas.

So, the Grand Bargain is essentially about taking money from middle income people through Social Security cuts and tax increases and giving the money to the Pentagon for unnecessary Pentagon spending.

In addition to being a reallocation of national resources from the 99% to the 1%, the Grand Bargain would destroy American jobs.

This was documented in a 2011 study by economists Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier at the University of Massachusetts. They showed that if the federal government could borrow and spend a billion dollars, the government would create more jobs by spending the money on education, health care, clean energy, or tax cuts to promote personal consumption (like the payroll tax holiday) than by spending it on the Pentagon.

It follows from the 2011 study by subtraction that if federal borrowing is capped, and higher taxes on the super-rich are off the table, so that adding money to the Pentagon budget requires that it be taken from somewhere else in the budget in the form of reduced domestic spending and higher taxes on the middle class, then unnecessary Pentagon spending destroys jobs, because whatever jobs are created by the additional Pentagon spending are more than offset by the greater number of jobs destroyed by cutting domestic spending and raising taxes on the middle class.

Look at Table 1 on page 5 of the University of Massachusetts study. A billion dollars added to the Pentagon budget, if you can borrow the money, adds 11,200 jobs. A billion dollars added to the domestic economy through tax cuts to promote personal consumption (like the payroll tax holiday) adds 15,100 jobs. All other means of increasing domestic spending – education, health care, clean energy – add more jobs than tax cuts. So we can use tax cuts as a floor for comparison (confirmed by personal communication with the study authors, August 2012.) If we cut spending in these areas rather than increasing it, we have the same effect as increasing spending, but with the opposite sign: we destroy as many jobs with cuts as we would have created by spending the same amount of money. Raising taxes on working families by a billion destroys 15,100 jobs. So, if we increase Pentagon spending by a billion and raise taxes on working families to pay for it, the net effect is to destroy 3,900 jobs. If within a year (in practice this would happen over ten years) we turned off $500 billion worth of Pentagon cuts and paid for it by cutting Social Security payments by means of the chained CPI, raising the Medicare retirement age, and raising taxes on working families, we’d destroy about two million jobs. That would raise the national unemployment rate by about one and a half percentage points.  

Now, you may be thinking to yourself: if it’s so obvious that in the current federal budget context, unnecessary Pentagon spending destroys jobs, and thus that the Grand Bargain would destroy jobs and raise the national unemployment rate, why isn’t this fact more widely acknowledged? There are two key reasons.

The first reason is that there are powerful economic and political forces that don’t want you to know this fact – what President Eisenhower, in his farewell address, called the “military-industrial complex” - and there are as yet no sufficiently powerful economic and political forces that have a strong interest in making sure that you know this fact.

The second reason is that, whether we like it or not, logic and evidence only form a part of what the broad public thinks it knows about economic policy. What people in Washington call “validators” matter a great deal. The vast multitude of liberal Democrats look to prominent liberal “public intellectual” economists to tell them what’s what on economic policy.

That means that if prominent Keynesian public intellectuals like Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, and Joe Stiglitz would stand in the public square now and say clearly that in the current federal budget context, with federal borrowing capped and taxes on the super-rich off the table, unnecessary Pentagon spending will destroy jobs, it would likely have a significant impact on public discourse.

I claim that if the question is clearly put to them, they will have no choice but to say this, because it follows by arithmetic from the University of Massachusetts study.

Let’s put this proposition to the test. Let’s ask our Keynesian economists: with federal borrowing capped and taxing the super-rich off the table, won't more unnecessary Pentagon spending destroy jobs?

2:26 PM PT: UPDATE: Stephen Miles of Win Without War points out to me that post-Supercommittee, it's technically spending, not borrowing, that is capped under the Budget Control Act. But the point is that any "Grand Bargain" to replace the sequester is not going to increase the deficit over what was envisioned by the Budget Control Act, according to press reports of the Washington negotiations. In that sense, borrowing is capped under the Budget Control Act; the deficit reduction targets that the Supercommittee faced are still the baseline of negotiations.


Don't cut my Social Security benefits or raise my taxes to pay for the $1.5 trillion F-35 boondoggle.

100%14 votes
0%0 votes

| 14 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If you don't want the planes, I'm sure that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, nextstep

    somebody out there will be happy to take them.  I see no evidence if they don't go to Burlington, they'll not be built or operated elsewhere.  Thus the national impact on job creation will be a wash, and your local area will suffer a tad jobwise while somebody else will gain incrementally.

    Besides, having them based in Vermont makes good sense insofar as keeping a watch out for the next Celine Dion trying to make it into the country.

  •  Not necessarily.... (0+ / 0-)

    In theory, you should only be either borrowing new public debt, or taxing, when you need to destroy private sector jobs.  That is, when the economy is overheating and there are more jobs than workers available, creating inflationary pressure on wages.  Otherwise, new spending should basically be financed by new money from the Fed.  

    Now if the Fed is also politically constrained, and it may be right now, then you are right.  But really, they should be doing something like the trillion dollar coin that Krugman has discussed.  The Fed should be using any legal means within it's power right now to provide dollars to the economy, absorbing any new debt.

  •  Where does the F-35 money go? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robert Naiman

    Much of it goes to the employees of Lockheed-Martin and the engine maker, Pratt & Whitney, as well as other suppliers.  This money is then spent in local grocery stores, etc. and stimulates that local economy.  It isn't totally wasted.

    Military money does not have the stimulating effect of that same money spent in the private sector where some of it is used to build production that puts more Americans to work, and the virtuous circle continues and enlarges.

    Social Security has nothing, NOTHING to do with the deficit.  It stands alone.  The reason to cut SS and Medicare is to dismantle the social safety net.  The super-rich want to pay less tax, and they want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when they were the oligarchs and we were the serfs.

    •  It's right that it's not totally wasted, but ... (0+ / 0-)

      Every alternative use does more. In that sense, the F-35 is a total waste. Spending the money in any other way would do more, including returning it to taxpayers through a payroll tax holiday.

      It's true that there is no reason at all to mess with Social Security. But, whether we like it or not, it's been made part of the budget discussion by people who want a "Grand Bargain." It's important to emphasize that the proposed Grand Bargain is likely to be a loser for most people for 3 reasons: it's likely to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, it's likely to raise taxes, and it's likely to use the money from cutting Social Security and raising taxes to pay for out of control Pentagon spending, and that transfer of resources will destroy jobs. If the choices are sequester or Grand Bargain, most people will be better off with sequester. That cannot be stressed enough.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site