Le cinque regole del Pentagono

[rossana <rossana at comodinoposta.org>]

Sì c'è il crollo della rivoluzione cominciata con Reagan, ma.... ma la 
quinta regola dice che la spesa militare stimola l'economia.
Siamo alle solite.

Five Reasons Weapons Spending Won't Fall

The Reagan Revolution has collapsed. Over the next eight years a 
resurgent Democratic Party will raise taxes, re-regulate the economy and 
rethink free trade. Judging from the size of the nation's trade and 
budget deficits, these steps are overdue. But what about that other 
pillar of the Reagan agenda, national defense? Is it destined to suffer 
the same kind of decline seen under Carter and Clinton? Probably not, 
because both the Democrats and the times are different. In fact, there 
are at least five reasons why spending on weapons -- as opposed to 
operations and personnel -- might not decline at all.

First, economic forces don't drive defense spending. Demand for defense 
goods is driven mainly by overseas threats and domestic politics. 
Military spending always spikes when threats arise, regardless of 
economic or fiscal conditions. Domestic politics -- which party controls 
Congress and the White House -- also influences the scale and 
composition of defense spending, but threats usually trump politics. 
That's why Democrats presided over four of the five big weapons buildups 
in the last century.

Second, spending on operations and personnel will moderate. With the 
Iraq war winding down and Afghanistan claiming only a modest share of 
defense outlays, the cost of military operations is likely to ease. As 
operational tempo declines it will become apparent that the nation 
doesn't really need more ground troops, just better training and 
utilization of the ones it already has. So there will be greater 
downward pressure on readiness accounts than weapons accounts, 
especially given the need to replace worn-out combat systems.

Third, it takes a long time to change military spending priorities. The 
Pentagon is already putting the finishing touches on a fiscal 2010 
budget request that will drive military spending for the rest of the 
decade. New administrations take the better part of a year to get 
staffed, and once appointees are confirmed they need to get up to speed 
on programs. One thing they find out pretty fast is that the business 
plans for big weapons programs like the Joint Strike Fighter are so 
tightly wound that any changes increase costs. So it will take years to 
adjust current weapons plans.

Fourth, weapons programs will be fiercely defended. Big weapons programs 
generate so many jobs that they spawn potent political constituencies. 
Look at what happened this year when the Pentagon tried to kill its 
next-generation destroyer and a second engine for the Joint Strike 
Fighter. Both initiatives were blocked by members of Congress. The 
military services are just as tenacious in defending signature weapons. 
Is President Obama really going to get in a fight with the Army over 
whether it needs the Future Combat Systems?

Fifth, weapons spending stimulates the economy. Critics of weapons 
spending have long argued that it is a drag on the economy, but the 
exact opposite is true. When the government cuts taxes, many consumers 
use the money to buy products from overseas. But when it funds weapons 
programs, almost all the money gets spent in places like Colorado, Ohio 
and Virginia. And guess who does the work? Members of organized labor 
who are a core component of the Democratic electoral base!

If the new administration wants to sustain high-paying jobs, stimulate 
high-tech skills, and bolster American manufacturing, spending money on 
weapons works amazingly well. It even improves our sagging balance of trade.

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1333.shtml