I don't know, guys--you kind of can't have it both ways. Either you feel government spending is stimulative and creates jobs, or you don't--and if you want to claim that spending on infrastructure (something the U.S. needs a lot more right now than more military hardware) doesn't create jobs but building planes does, then you're really trying to have your cake and eat it too. The U.S. military is basically a giant boondoggle--unless it's somehow magically embroiled in a dozen conflicts overseas that end up costing far more money in the long run.
If the U.S. government wants to cut back on military spending in favour of entitlements and infrastructure, that's a legitimate policy decision, for which a powerful argument can be made. People keep asking: how is Obama going to pay for things in his budget while cutting the deficit in half? Well, one way is to reduce spending on what has become the largest military in the world.
The question shouldn't be about jobs. You can't keep an unnecessary program in operation only because it creates jobs--it also must fill a need. Does the U.S. need more new fighter jets? I'm no military expert, but my guess is that with the type of conflict they're currently involved in the dollars can be spent more effectively elsewhere.
|