You would think that by increasing the defense budget drastically, this would stimulate the economy.According to Obama, Democrats in general, and even some Republicans, massive government spending is necessary to stimulate the economy. That's the rationale behind the stimulus package, and the all-out borrowing and spending of Obama's budgetary proposals. Why then should we be worried about reigning in runaway pentagon spending? Let's put aside the fact that we are involved in two wars, and currently increasing our military commitment in Afghanistan. Just from a purely economic standpoint, the argument is that we need to spend, spend, spend. When certain GOP critics attack individual pet programs of Democrats as wasteful & unnecessary, the answer is usually that they provide needed jobs, perform some useful service, and that anyway, we need this spending to stimulate the economy. Sure, we can't afford it, but we are doing it anyway. Who cares if we go deeper and deeper into debt. Now isn't the time to worry about the debt. Democrats say we must spend.
It is indisputable that defense spending, wasteful and inefficient as it is, provides numerous jobs -- often good, high-paying jobs. All those military programs that are overbudget & behind schedule have thousands of people whose jobs depend on them. Why not just keep cranking out more F-22s? Instead of gutting the Future Combat System, shouldn't we expand it and bring in more contractors? Why won't that provide good jobs and stimulate the economy? Yeah the Zumwalt destroyer costs way too much and hasn't met expectations. But so what? Don't shipyard workers need jobs too? Huge expensive programs like missile defense not only require large numbers of skilled workers, those skilled workers need a support system of service jobs that create even more employment.
So why is military spending getting only a modest 4% increase? Why is defense the only exception to Democratic economic policies?