Military or not, spending is spending
Democrats who argue against military spending but in favor of non-military spending contradict themselves
In this June 18, 2009 file photo, avionic technicians and mechanics from General Atomics move the Predator B, an unmanned surveillance aircraft, out from under an air hangar at Fort Drum, N.Y. Karlsson argues that Democrats who argue that military spending can be cut without hurting the economy contradict themselves.
Heather Ainsworth/AP/File
[Sorry about the lack of posting the last few days, but I have been sick. Now that I'm feeling better, I will start posting again, starting with this one]
Last month I discussed how some Republicans are inconsistent in their analysis of various forms of spending cut, arguing that cuts in non-military spending helps the economy while arguing that cuts in military spending hurts the economy.
Now we see Robert Reich make a contradiction which is basically the same except that he has the reversed opinion of which spending is good: he argues that increased non-military spending would boost the economy while arguing that military spending is "bloat" and implicitly arguing that it can be cut without weakening the economy.
As with the reverse Republican position, his position per se is not self-contradictory. One can believe that the non-military programs are of greater use than the military ones and therefore favor a shift in spending from military to non-military programs. However his belief in Keynesian effects from non-military programs is in contradiction with his implicit argument of non-Keynesian effects from military programs.