Buck McKeon likes federal spending programs

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

As long as they are defense-related. He is, in the words of Barney Frank, a weaponized Keynsian:

An embedded YouTube video appeared here in the original post. View the original — embeds are preserved as links in this archive.

The crazy thing is that I agree with Buck McKeon. Federal spending can create good jobs which result in durable and healthy communities, like the one Buck McKeon is trying preserve in the AV. Just look at the people in that video, proof positive that the Keynsian “multiplier effect” is real (ie the auto shop owner in the video is benefiting because the federal government is creating demand in his area). Indeed one person says federal spending is the “lifeblood” of the Antelope Valley.

In the old guns vs butter debate, Buck McKeon wants to have it both ways. He’s firmly on the side of guns as a way to create jobs, but he, along with other Republicans, fight every other federal spending effort to create “butter” jobs. Indeed, they fight the very notion that deficit spending during a recession is what you’re supposed to do to get out of a recession.

On a side note, did you get a sense in the video of the SCV’s position on Buck McKeon’s Washington agenda? Somehow I feel the interests of the Antelope Valley are much higher on his list than his old hometown.

Comments (59)

BertaMay 19, 2012 at 5:17 AM PT

Unfortunately, I have concluded that Buck McKeon’s best efforts in Congress are directly related to his campaign donors’ contributions. A perfect example is the supposed “non earmark” land swap in the Mammoth Lakes area vs. the supposed “earmark” land swap to resolve the CEMEX mining issue. If there is nothing in it for him or his family, he has no interest in pursuing the issue. I do not believe this is an earmark issue, and I wonder how much Buck has argued the point with Doc Hastings or anyone else. He enjoys a senior position in Congress and could get others to support him if he called in favors or tried hard enough on our behalf. If he really cannot get any other Congress men/women to support him, then he has done something to alienate them, which also calls into question whether he is the best person to represent us in the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, even if I agreed that it is an earmark, what alternate solution has Buck proposed or pushed on our behalf. NADA. I do not think he is working on our behalf anymore, hence my vote for Dante Acosta.

Alan FerdmanMay 19, 2012 at 6:14 AM PT

Jeff I believe that the issue of defense spending goes far beyond the “guns or butter” debate or the discussion about a job multiplier effect of having a defense plant in your neighborhood. We, as a country, have seen many instances where research and development output of military projects have ended up benefiting us both commercially and generating everyday lifestyle improvements. Take some obvious examples. Let’s remember how Boeing got a huge shot in the arm by converting the military KC135 transport to the Boeing 707 and brought the United States to the front of commercial passenger aviation. Think about every time you listen to a report from a Weather Satellite and ponder the research that drove the technology to launch it into space. Question every time you use your GPS to find a new restaurant or business about the military program that initiated that worldwide system and made it happen. Even for our computer and IT geeks, have them read about how COBAL was a DOD sponsored language. The list goes on and on. It is very important for us to keep in focus that some forms of research are so risky and costly the private sector does not have the capital or the desire to pursue that level of innovation. Military technology programs have an effect of helping to keep the US safe and provide results that benefits the commercial sector as well. That does not mean we should take our eyes off how our money is spent. We just need to realize the benefits generated for us all.

JeffMay 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM PT

“The list goes on and on.” You’re right, it does Al. Spending federal dollars on the NIH and CDC also has great spillover effects that benefit the private sector. Money sent to universities for research into the sciences also creates things that no private company would risk doing itself. Building the Hoover Dam? Check. In other words, spending on the butter side of the equation can create useful products that wouldn’t have been created if we just depended on the free market.

spineflower2May 20, 2012 at 3:12 AM PT

I think you meant COBOL (COmmon Business-Oriented Language). DoD sponsored the development as one of several partners, but its focus remained on business applications. One statistic from Wiki: “In 1997, the Gartner Group reported that 80% of the world’s business ran on COBOL with over 200 billion lines of code in existence…” Perhaps you are thinking of Ada? That was a heavily DoD-focussed development.

Alan FerdmanMay 20, 2012 at 4:04 AM PT

You are correct. I was referring to COBOL. A slip of the finger. ADA is another story, but unfortunately not as successful.

Jim FarleyMay 19, 2012 at 7:48 AM PT

Keynesian economics is not scientific fact as you present it Jeff. While the government in preserving our freedom must spend money to purchase the tools of war, and thus support that industry, the fact the money spent has a ripple effect in the AV economy is not “proof positive” that the Keynesian model works. FDR was the first to put the Keynesian model into practice. It did nothing to end the Great Depression. George Bush’s and Barack Obama’s “stimulus” spending have done nothing to end this recession. These two experiments show just how unproven Keynes is. The battle between Keynes and his great critic F.A. Hayek are fundamentally what are dividing Conservatives from Liberals today. Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom” also emphasizes how when the government takes over large parts of the economy through “stimulus” spending we lose more of our individual freedoms. Keynes doesn’t work and erodes our freedom in the process.

JeffMay 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM PT

“While the government in preserving our freedom must spend money to purchase the tools of war, and thus support that industry, the fact the money spent has a ripple effect in the AV economy is not “proof positive” that the Keynesian model works.” Then what model is it Jim? Let’s pretend the Pentagon spends $150 million a year on defense related projects in the Antelope Valley. None of that money is spent directly on Joe’s Auto Shop, is it? Yet he still benefits because every dollar the Pentagon sends to the AV creates $1.xx in economic activity, some of which ends up in his hands. He’s telling us the truth of that fact right in that video. “The battle between Keynes and his great critic F.A. Hayek are fundamentally what are dividing Conservatives from Liberals today. Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom” also emphasizes how when the government takes over large parts of the economy through “stimulus” spending we lose more of our individual freedoms. Keynes doesn’t work and erodes our freedom in the process.” I don’t understand what you’re arguing. Buck McKeon wants to preserve defense funding so we can save/create jobs. That’s what a Keynsian would say. Are you denying that McKeon is saying that? Are you saying it’s okay to be a Keynsian as long as you’re buying shiny missiles and airplanes? This one is for you Jim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

RockyMay 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM PT

And this one is for you Jeff: The Fight of the Century http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=fvwrel

Jim FarleyMay 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM PT

When the government spends the money on defense in the AV of course there will be the ripple effect of other businesses in the AV benefiting. All I’m saying is that in and of itself does not prove Keynesian economics. Let’s look at the private sector for a moment. The SCV has a vibrant filming industry. It is fueled by private companies choosing to work in the TMZ which includes the SCV. This private money comes in to the SCV and has the ripple effect for many other businesses. This is a great example of how private enterprise, not a government regulated economy, is the way to prosperity for all. To the second point. We should not be preserving the defense industry to save jobs. We should be preserving the defense industry to protect our country, period. If in doing that it creates jobs directly and through the ripple effect great. I don’t begrudge the AV any of the benefits they get from defense spending. So what I am saying is it is never o-k to be a Keynesian, but it is always o-k to spend what is reasonably needed for the national defense.

JeffMay 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM PT

Gee whiz Jim, I think we’re passionately agreeing here. All Keynsian economics says is that when the economy is going into a recession, the government should boost spending in order to increase aggregate demand. Flood the place with dollars, have unemployed people dig holes and fill them up again if necessary, but do something! The market is suffering from a lack of DEMAND and so the government is artificially create demand. In turn, when the economy is doing great, Keynsians argue that that is the time to rein in spending. What about that do you disagree with since you seem to acknowledge that what you call the “ripple effect” sounds exactly what I call the multiplier effect? Secondly, your contention about filming credits that: “This is a great example of how private enterprise, not a government regulated economy, is the way to prosperity for all.” is hogwash. Notice that we the taxpayers have to give up something due to us in order to encourage Hollywood to film here. And if we didn’t -or even if we did and say Burbank increased incentives above our’s- Hollywood would abandon us. This creates a race-to-the-bottom scenario in which states, counties, and cities compete with each other to attract a few temporary jobs. Let me ask you Jim- how much do you and I as taxpayers get from the syndication of NCIS, which is filmed almost exclusively in Santa Clarita? Obviously the film incentive program costs us something, but I’ve yet to see a benefit. Reagan taught me to expect a cost/benefit analysis for every government program. Where’s our’s?

Jim FarleyMay 20, 2012 at 1:45 AM PT

All spending in the economy has a “ripple” or “multiplier” effect if you will. The difference with the government “flooding” the market with cash is that the money the government floods the market with had to be pulled out of the economy somewhere else in the form of taxation or inflation. The government does not create wealth, it spends wealth. A thriving free market creates wealth. The government can help most by staying out of the way. Again, this is the crux issue between Conservatives, particularly “Tea Party” Conservatives, and Liberals.

JeffMay 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM PT

Exactly. You could say we’re redistributing money and putting it to its best and highest use, especially during a recession when the market isn’t creating sufficient demand. Again, you seem fine with this as long as its defense-related. You seem to acknowledge it creates jobs. I don’t see you protesting the fact that the defense spending Buck wants is entirely deficit-financed. You’re a weaponized Keynsian just like buck.

Jim FarleyMay 20, 2012 at 9:11 AM PT

I thought I made it pretty clear I’m for spending on defense to defend the country, not to stimulate the economy. I’m with Alan’s post directly below. The label of Weaponized Keynesian does not apply to me in any way shape or form. Nice try though. Now I’m going to go mow the lawn, grill a couple of dead chickens, have a margarita, and try to end this debate. You’re making me work too hard for a weekend I planned to go brain dead for a while.

Alan FerdmanMay 20, 2012 at 4:12 AM PT

Got to disagree Jeff. What you are implying, is the government should spend money on National Defense when the country is in recession and withdraw support when the economy is doing well? I think this is a very poor argument for you to use in support of your economic theories.

JeffMay 20, 2012 at 5:34 AM PT

No, not with defense. I was talking stimulus programs and such. Run a deficit during a recession, run a surplus during an expansion. Think of the late Clinton years. Two or three years of solid budget surpluses during the expansion.

Jim FarleyMay 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM PT

I really did enjoy the videos from you and Rocky.

JeffMay 19, 2012 at 4:37 PM PT

THen you’d enjoy the EconTalk podcast I linked to a few weeks ago. Russ Roberts, a conservative economics professor at George Mason, hosts the podcast and was a producer of the videos. http://www.econtalk.org/

PetzMay 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM PT

The Constitution talks about Guns….they left the butter out.

ToddMay 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM PT

Acutally, it talks about “arms” and “militia”… no guns.

JeffMay 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM PT

Butter = NASA. How about them apples? No where in the Constitution is NASA mentioned. Your precious Hubble should have been funded by Lockheed, I guess. They would have made a lot of profit off of selling Hubble calendars, I suppose.

Phil EllisMay 21, 2012 at 5:41 AM PT

And without NASA we would not have Tang.

PetzMay 19, 2012 at 8:30 PM PT

NASA was priginally a “military style ” operation formed to fight the Godless communism. Now it is used to find life on other planets in order to prove there is no God and climate change is caused by man. The organization has lost it’s purpose and is a ship without a rudder. Who is destroying NASA ?…..Obama.

spineflower2May 20, 2012 at 3:01 AM PT

I’m sorry, Petz, but this post is just so full of… entertainment… I can’t stop laughing! Actually, NASA was creates for the express NON-military purpose of peaceful space exploration. The predecessor, NACA, dabbled in both military and non military. After NASA was created, ARPA was created for the military space work. So unless you are arguing that our military exists for the purpose of fighting religious wars (a la the Crusades), your revisionist history holds no water. You also argue that finding evidence of life on other planet is a quest to prove there is no God. The two issues have nothing in common. You also do a disservice to the many space scientists who share a deep belief in God. And how you throw in an Obama reference is a fitting non-sequitur to the rest of this nonsensical post.

PetzMay 20, 2012 at 10:12 PM PT

Visit Cape Canaveral and ask the ex-employees whether Obama broke trust and his promise to them.

JeffMay 20, 2012 at 10:23 PM PT

Very well. The mortgage interest rate deduction you use in your sales pitch for SCV houses = government butter

NateMay 21, 2012 at 2:38 AM PT

Nate believes it is clear that Petz always wanted to be an astronaut so he can’t see that the private sector can make space trips for 1% of what it costs the bloated money pit also known as NASA. What its he difference between giving military contracts to build things we don’t need to create jobs and stimulus dollars that build bridges and other public infrastructure we do need? There is a better way of doing things….

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 3:17 AM PT

“They calling me an alien a big-headed astronaut Maybe it’s because your boy yeezy get ^%# a lot….” – Kan-yizzle

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 3:25 AM PT

Were it not for NASA and all the ground breaking work they could only accomplish, the civilian sector(Virgin) could never fathom sending anything into space #trufax And I disagree with you 100% with not needing these “military contracts” as well as reminding you that it is the civilian sector that is profiting both on the front and end with their production. Good example is Quikclot which was developed for the military and now is available to civilians and could save you from bleeding out http://www.quikclot.com And yes, it literally took us going to war to get this product pushed from research to user level.

NateMay 21, 2012 at 3:52 AM PT

NASA’s greatest accomplishment was TANG!

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 4:13 AM PT

Maybe you can Google some better examples

ToddMay 21, 2012 at 4:58 AM PT

No way dood. Tang is the shit. I used to eat spoonfuls of that stuff dry. Ok, my childhood was bit odd…. not like you didn’t know that already…

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 5:16 AM PT

Yes, never mind space exploration, Tang is the shiznit! LOL

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 3:26 AM PT

Or how about ARPANET? Would the internet be the same without it being funded and pushed by the DoD?

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 3:41 AM PT

And this is also a GREAT example of what the military is spearheading in the medical realm. You pray you or your loved ones will never need, but will be thankful if they do that this work was done prior. Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine http://www.afirm.mil

PetzMay 19, 2012 at 8:46 PM PT

The obvious point is that the federal government has a Constitutional obligatrion to fund national defense first….plain and simple Buck has his priorities correct. His mistake was signing off on the debt limit increase thinking that the Super Committee would “do it’s job”.

JeffMay 20, 2012 at 12:22 AM PT

Hey where did you get your solar eclipse glasses?

PetzMay 20, 2012 at 4:40 AM PT

Rainbow Symphony in Reseda. I can spot you some if you want.

JeffMay 20, 2012 at 5:24 AM PT

Am I crazy or do I remember LGSCV is going to be at central park today with telescopes?

PetzMay 20, 2012 at 5:27 AM PT

We will be there from 5 until ?, should be a good crowd.

MikeMay 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM PT

Excellent event, Petz. My first time seeing the LG in action. Everyone who missed it missed out.

JeffMay 20, 2012 at 10:24 PM PT

Yeah great job to you Petz and all the LGSCV. What a stand-up group of guys and gals. I’m so down for the Transit of Venus on June 5 and I’ve kept my special sun viewer.

AmandaMay 20, 2012 at 11:12 AM PT

Do you know the difference between its and it’s? Because your posts indicate otherwise. I find it impossible to take someone’s arguments seriously if he/she doesn’t have a firm grasp of basic American English grammar. Might help: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

DazzledMay 20, 2012 at 6:29 AM PT

Imagine what an awesome educational system we could have created had we invested the trillions of dollars wasted on the invasion of Iraq on school construction/renovation and for more classroom teachers instead. But the “fiscal conservatives” put the “war” off budget while educational program for children are cut. Way to go.

PetzMay 20, 2012 at 6:54 AM PT

You must be unfamiliar with the concept of diminishing marginal returns.

JeffMay 20, 2012 at 7:50 AM PT

What returns do we get by buying a $1 billion extra engine for the F-35? Like really? We need to buy a second engine when the single engine jet already has a good one?

Capt. GeneMay 20, 2012 at 11:12 PM PT

Agreed. You should add in the trillions spent on the war on poverty while you’re at it.

NateMay 21, 2012 at 2:41 AM PT

All safety nets combined including Medicare and Social Security are about 13% of the budget. You are worrying about saving pennies when rent is already past due.

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 2:49 AM PT

I would argue that the military is the ultimate “safety net” for our Nation’s future on so many levels. You don’t realize how important until you need it, and by that point it’s too late.

NateMay 21, 2012 at 3:55 AM PT

Do we really need to spend 7x what China spends? http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/does-america-spend-more-than-next-10-nations-combined-on-defense/ No one is suggesting we give up military spending what we are suggesting is that everyone including the Military learn to do more with less.

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 4:18 AM PT

I don’t think most realize how much we are doing with less. I am doing the work of 3 people personally and there is no add’l incentive for me, I.e overtime, promotion, etc. And we can do what China does but are Americans willing to work for what iPad factory workers make? In a lot of cases you get what you pay for. This doesn’t mean there don’t need to be cuts made but do some research on who the cuts are going to affect the most: Troops, their families, and ultimately military readiness. We cut back after every war but unfortunately those cuts aren’t always made wisely.

NateMay 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM PT

See that is the part of the military no one has a problem with… it is the fat wasteful government contracts that we have a problem.

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM PT

But what fat, wasteful contracts? The RnD for equipment we use in the field or the unionized Federal employees.

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 8:37 AM PT

“I ain’t got time for playin, I’m just saying man, We out here tryna function…”

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 2:36 AM PT

That argument unfortunately doesn’t hold much validity: a) the exact amount spent on multiple areas of operations is sometimes duplicated. Example: A Soldier is paid a salary to be a Soldier 24/7. It doesn’t matter if he/she are in that theatre or in Ft Bragg, they are going to be paid said pay. Same goes with their equipment and subsequent maintenance. b) simply because we aren’t at war does not mean that money budgeted will trickle down to education, jobs, etc. In fact, because of the war we were able to give a large number of persons employment on many different fronts. Now the main premis of this DB is correct in that “Defense” spending stimulates MANY different aspects of our economy. It’s not simply buying of bullets or enlistment of troops, it goes well beyond that. I had the opportunity to hear a General recently give us a presentation and he quoted the Mayo brothers in that the only victor in war is medicine. I agree 100% with that analogy but would add technology and say that developments in the last 10 years by the military, and their partners, are ASTOUNDING! Yes, some will say that the civilian sector could have easily accomplished the same research and development given the resources. I disagree given that the private sector has resources that shadow ours and yet they still don’t produce the same results. I personally am proud that I am part of an organization that brings better to the world, even though we are constantly criticized and misunderstood by persons on all sides of the political aisle.

PetzMay 20, 2012 at 10:10 PM PT

Higher production levels drive down the associated fixed cost making the engines more affordable.

PackfanMay 21, 2012 at 12:52 AM PT

More affordable than not buying them in the first place? If there is no need, why buy?

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 2:24 AM PT

Are you insinuating not to have a back up engine or not to have the jet period?

kkorenthalMay 21, 2012 at 2:44 AM PT

Mr. Acosta responds: http://rightonscv.com/blog/Press-Release-From-Acosta-for-Congress

MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 5:56 AM PT

OMG, Tang is the best we are coming up????? SMH http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html http://www.cnbc.com/id/32085995/Top_Commercial_Products_Launched_by_NASA

BertaMay 19, 2012 at 5:17 AM PT
Unfortunately, I have concluded that Buck McKeon’s best efforts in Congress are directly related to his campaign donors’ contributions. A perfect example is the supposed “non earmark” land swap in the Mammoth Lakes area vs. the supposed “earmark” land swap to resolve the CEMEX mining issue. If there is nothing in it for him or his family, he has no interest in pursuing the issue. I do not believe this is an earmark issue, and I wonder how much Buck has argued the point with Doc Hastings or anyone else. He enjoys a senior position in Congress and could get others to support him if he called in favors or tried hard enough on our behalf. If he really cannot get any other Congress men/women to support him, then he has done something to alienate them, which also calls into question whether he is the best person to represent us in the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, even if I agreed that it is an earmark, what alternate solution has Buck proposed or pushed on our behalf. NADA. I do not think he is working on our behalf anymore, hence my vote for Dante Acosta.
Alan FerdmanMay 19, 2012 at 6:14 AM PT
Jeff I believe that the issue of defense spending goes far beyond the “guns or butter” debate or the discussion about a job multiplier effect of having a defense plant in your neighborhood. We, as a country, have seen many instances where research and development output of military projects have ended up benefiting us both commercially and generating everyday lifestyle improvements. Take some obvious examples. Let’s remember how Boeing got a huge shot in the arm by converting the military KC135 transport to the Boeing 707 and brought the United States to the front of commercial passenger aviation. Think about every time you listen to a report from a Weather Satellite and ponder the research that drove the technology to launch it into space. Question every time you use your GPS to find a new restaurant or business about the military program that initiated that worldwide system and made it happen. Even for our computer and IT geeks, have them read about how COBAL was a DOD sponsored language. The list goes on and on. It is very important for us to keep in focus that some forms of research are so risky and costly the private sector does not have the capital or the desire to pursue that level of innovation. Military technology programs have an effect of helping to keep the US safe and provide results that benefits the commercial sector as well. That does not mean we should take our eyes off how our money is spent. We just need to realize the benefits generated for us all.
JeffMay 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM PT
“The list goes on and on.” You’re right, it does Al. Spending federal dollars on the NIH and CDC also has great spillover effects that benefit the private sector. Money sent to universities for research into the sciences also creates things that no private company would risk doing itself. Building the Hoover Dam? Check. In other words, spending on the butter side of the equation can create useful products that wouldn’t have been created if we just depended on the free market.
spineflower2May 20, 2012 at 3:12 AM PT
I think you meant COBOL (COmmon Business-Oriented Language). DoD sponsored the development as one of several partners, but its focus remained on business applications. One statistic from Wiki: “In 1997, the Gartner Group reported that 80% of the world’s business ran on COBOL with over 200 billion lines of code in existence…” Perhaps you are thinking of Ada? That was a heavily DoD-focussed development.
Alan FerdmanMay 20, 2012 at 4:04 AM PT
You are correct. I was referring to COBOL. A slip of the finger. ADA is another story, but unfortunately not as successful.
Jim FarleyMay 19, 2012 at 7:48 AM PT
Keynesian economics is not scientific fact as you present it Jeff. While the government in preserving our freedom must spend money to purchase the tools of war, and thus support that industry, the fact the money spent has a ripple effect in the AV economy is not “proof positive” that the Keynesian model works. FDR was the first to put the Keynesian model into practice. It did nothing to end the Great Depression. George Bush’s and Barack Obama’s “stimulus” spending have done nothing to end this recession. These two experiments show just how unproven Keynes is. The battle between Keynes and his great critic F.A. Hayek are fundamentally what are dividing Conservatives from Liberals today. Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom” also emphasizes how when the government takes over large parts of the economy through “stimulus” spending we lose more of our individual freedoms. Keynes doesn’t work and erodes our freedom in the process.
JeffMay 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM PT
“While the government in preserving our freedom must spend money to purchase the tools of war, and thus support that industry, the fact the money spent has a ripple effect in the AV economy is not “proof positive” that the Keynesian model works.” Then what model is it Jim? Let’s pretend the Pentagon spends $150 million a year on defense related projects in the Antelope Valley. None of that money is spent directly on Joe’s Auto Shop, is it? Yet he still benefits because every dollar the Pentagon sends to the AV creates $1.xx in economic activity, some of which ends up in his hands. He’s telling us the truth of that fact right in that video. “The battle between Keynes and his great critic F.A. Hayek are fundamentally what are dividing Conservatives from Liberals today. Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom” also emphasizes how when the government takes over large parts of the economy through “stimulus” spending we lose more of our individual freedoms. Keynes doesn’t work and erodes our freedom in the process.” I don’t understand what you’re arguing. Buck McKeon wants to preserve defense funding so we can save/create jobs. That’s what a Keynsian would say. Are you denying that McKeon is saying that? Are you saying it’s okay to be a Keynsian as long as you’re buying shiny missiles and airplanes? This one is for you Jim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
RockyMay 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM PT
And this one is for you Jeff: The Fight of the Century http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=fvwrel
Jim FarleyMay 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM PT
When the government spends the money on defense in the AV of course there will be the ripple effect of other businesses in the AV benefiting. All I’m saying is that in and of itself does not prove Keynesian economics. Let’s look at the private sector for a moment. The SCV has a vibrant filming industry. It is fueled by private companies choosing to work in the TMZ which includes the SCV. This private money comes in to the SCV and has the ripple effect for many other businesses. This is a great example of how private enterprise, not a government regulated economy, is the way to prosperity for all. To the second point. We should not be preserving the defense industry to save jobs. We should be preserving the defense industry to protect our country, period. If in doing that it creates jobs directly and through the ripple effect great. I don’t begrudge the AV any of the benefits they get from defense spending. So what I am saying is it is never o-k to be a Keynesian, but it is always o-k to spend what is reasonably needed for the national defense.
JeffMay 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM PT
Gee whiz Jim, I think we’re passionately agreeing here. All Keynsian economics says is that when the economy is going into a recession, the government should boost spending in order to increase aggregate demand. Flood the place with dollars, have unemployed people dig holes and fill them up again if necessary, but do something! The market is suffering from a lack of DEMAND and so the government is artificially create demand. In turn, when the economy is doing great, Keynsians argue that that is the time to rein in spending. What about that do you disagree with since you seem to acknowledge that what you call the “ripple effect” sounds exactly what I call the multiplier effect? Secondly, your contention about filming credits that: “This is a great example of how private enterprise, not a government regulated economy, is the way to prosperity for all.” is hogwash. Notice that we the taxpayers have to give up something due to us in order to encourage Hollywood to film here. And if we didn’t -or even if we did and say Burbank increased incentives above our’s- Hollywood would abandon us. This creates a race-to-the-bottom scenario in which states, counties, and cities compete with each other to attract a few temporary jobs. Let me ask you Jim- how much do you and I as taxpayers get from the syndication of NCIS, which is filmed almost exclusively in Santa Clarita? Obviously the film incentive program costs us something, but I’ve yet to see a benefit. Reagan taught me to expect a cost/benefit analysis for every government program. Where’s our’s?
Jim FarleyMay 20, 2012 at 1:45 AM PT
All spending in the economy has a “ripple” or “multiplier” effect if you will. The difference with the government “flooding” the market with cash is that the money the government floods the market with had to be pulled out of the economy somewhere else in the form of taxation or inflation. The government does not create wealth, it spends wealth. A thriving free market creates wealth. The government can help most by staying out of the way. Again, this is the crux issue between Conservatives, particularly “Tea Party” Conservatives, and Liberals.
JeffMay 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM PT
Exactly. You could say we’re redistributing money and putting it to its best and highest use, especially during a recession when the market isn’t creating sufficient demand. Again, you seem fine with this as long as its defense-related. You seem to acknowledge it creates jobs. I don’t see you protesting the fact that the defense spending Buck wants is entirely deficit-financed. You’re a weaponized Keynsian just like buck.
Jim FarleyMay 20, 2012 at 9:11 AM PT
I thought I made it pretty clear I’m for spending on defense to defend the country, not to stimulate the economy. I’m with Alan’s post directly below. The label of Weaponized Keynesian does not apply to me in any way shape or form. Nice try though. Now I’m going to go mow the lawn, grill a couple of dead chickens, have a margarita, and try to end this debate. You’re making me work too hard for a weekend I planned to go brain dead for a while.
Alan FerdmanMay 20, 2012 at 4:12 AM PT
Got to disagree Jeff. What you are implying, is the government should spend money on National Defense when the country is in recession and withdraw support when the economy is doing well? I think this is a very poor argument for you to use in support of your economic theories.
JeffMay 20, 2012 at 5:34 AM PT
No, not with defense. I was talking stimulus programs and such. Run a deficit during a recession, run a surplus during an expansion. Think of the late Clinton years. Two or three years of solid budget surpluses during the expansion.
Jim FarleyMay 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM PT
I really did enjoy the videos from you and Rocky.
JeffMay 19, 2012 at 4:37 PM PT
THen you’d enjoy the EconTalk podcast I linked to a few weeks ago. Russ Roberts, a conservative economics professor at George Mason, hosts the podcast and was a producer of the videos. http://www.econtalk.org/
PetzMay 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM PT
The Constitution talks about Guns….they left the butter out.
ToddMay 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM PT
Acutally, it talks about “arms” and “militia”… no guns.
JeffMay 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM PT
Butter = NASA. How about them apples? No where in the Constitution is NASA mentioned. Your precious Hubble should have been funded by Lockheed, I guess. They would have made a lot of profit off of selling Hubble calendars, I suppose.
Phil EllisMay 21, 2012 at 5:41 AM PT
And without NASA we would not have Tang.
PetzMay 19, 2012 at 8:30 PM PT
NASA was priginally a “military style ” operation formed to fight the Godless communism. Now it is used to find life on other planets in order to prove there is no God and climate change is caused by man. The organization has lost it’s purpose and is a ship without a rudder. Who is destroying NASA ?…..Obama.
spineflower2May 20, 2012 at 3:01 AM PT
I’m sorry, Petz, but this post is just so full of… entertainment… I can’t stop laughing! Actually, NASA was creates for the express NON-military purpose of peaceful space exploration. The predecessor, NACA, dabbled in both military and non military. After NASA was created, ARPA was created for the military space work. So unless you are arguing that our military exists for the purpose of fighting religious wars (a la the Crusades), your revisionist history holds no water. You also argue that finding evidence of life on other planet is a quest to prove there is no God. The two issues have nothing in common. You also do a disservice to the many space scientists who share a deep belief in God. And how you throw in an Obama reference is a fitting non-sequitur to the rest of this nonsensical post.
PetzMay 20, 2012 at 10:12 PM PT
Visit Cape Canaveral and ask the ex-employees whether Obama broke trust and his promise to them.
JeffMay 20, 2012 at 10:23 PM PT
Very well. The mortgage interest rate deduction you use in your sales pitch for SCV houses = government butter
NateMay 21, 2012 at 2:38 AM PT
Nate believes it is clear that Petz always wanted to be an astronaut so he can’t see that the private sector can make space trips for 1% of what it costs the bloated money pit also known as NASA. What its he difference between giving military contracts to build things we don’t need to create jobs and stimulus dollars that build bridges and other public infrastructure we do need? There is a better way of doing things….
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 3:17 AM PT
“They calling me an alien a big-headed astronaut Maybe it’s because your boy yeezy get ^%# a lot….” – Kan-yizzle
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 3:25 AM PT
Were it not for NASA and all the ground breaking work they could only accomplish, the civilian sector(Virgin) could never fathom sending anything into space #trufax And I disagree with you 100% with not needing these “military contracts” as well as reminding you that it is the civilian sector that is profiting both on the front and end with their production. Good example is Quikclot which was developed for the military and now is available to civilians and could save you from bleeding out http://www.quikclot.com And yes, it literally took us going to war to get this product pushed from research to user level.
NateMay 21, 2012 at 3:52 AM PT
NASA’s greatest accomplishment was TANG!
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 4:13 AM PT
Maybe you can Google some better examples
ToddMay 21, 2012 at 4:58 AM PT
No way dood. Tang is the shit. I used to eat spoonfuls of that stuff dry. Ok, my childhood was bit odd…. not like you didn’t know that already…
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 5:16 AM PT
Yes, never mind space exploration, Tang is the shiznit! LOL
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 3:26 AM PT
Or how about ARPANET? Would the internet be the same without it being funded and pushed by the DoD?
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 3:41 AM PT
And this is also a GREAT example of what the military is spearheading in the medical realm. You pray you or your loved ones will never need, but will be thankful if they do that this work was done prior. Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine http://www.afirm.mil
PetzMay 19, 2012 at 8:46 PM PT
The obvious point is that the federal government has a Constitutional obligatrion to fund national defense first….plain and simple Buck has his priorities correct. His mistake was signing off on the debt limit increase thinking that the Super Committee would “do it’s job”.
JeffMay 20, 2012 at 12:22 AM PT
Hey where did you get your solar eclipse glasses?
PetzMay 20, 2012 at 4:40 AM PT
Rainbow Symphony in Reseda. I can spot you some if you want.
JeffMay 20, 2012 at 5:24 AM PT
Am I crazy or do I remember LGSCV is going to be at central park today with telescopes?
PetzMay 20, 2012 at 5:27 AM PT
We will be there from 5 until ?, should be a good crowd.
MikeMay 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM PT
Excellent event, Petz. My first time seeing the LG in action. Everyone who missed it missed out.
JeffMay 20, 2012 at 10:24 PM PT
Yeah great job to you Petz and all the LGSCV. What a stand-up group of guys and gals. I’m so down for the Transit of Venus on June 5 and I’ve kept my special sun viewer.
AmandaMay 20, 2012 at 11:12 AM PT
Do you know the difference between its and it’s? Because your posts indicate otherwise. I find it impossible to take someone’s arguments seriously if he/she doesn’t have a firm grasp of basic American English grammar. Might help: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
DazzledMay 20, 2012 at 6:29 AM PT
Imagine what an awesome educational system we could have created had we invested the trillions of dollars wasted on the invasion of Iraq on school construction/renovation and for more classroom teachers instead. But the “fiscal conservatives” put the “war” off budget while educational program for children are cut. Way to go.
PetzMay 20, 2012 at 6:54 AM PT
You must be unfamiliar with the concept of diminishing marginal returns.
JeffMay 20, 2012 at 7:50 AM PT
What returns do we get by buying a $1 billion extra engine for the F-35? Like really? We need to buy a second engine when the single engine jet already has a good one?
Capt. GeneMay 20, 2012 at 11:12 PM PT
Agreed. You should add in the trillions spent on the war on poverty while you’re at it.
NateMay 21, 2012 at 2:41 AM PT
All safety nets combined including Medicare and Social Security are about 13% of the budget. You are worrying about saving pennies when rent is already past due.
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 2:49 AM PT
I would argue that the military is the ultimate “safety net” for our Nation’s future on so many levels. You don’t realize how important until you need it, and by that point it’s too late.
NateMay 21, 2012 at 3:55 AM PT
Do we really need to spend 7x what China spends? http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/does-america-spend-more-than-next-10-nations-combined-on-defense/ No one is suggesting we give up military spending what we are suggesting is that everyone including the Military learn to do more with less.
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 4:18 AM PT
I don’t think most realize how much we are doing with less. I am doing the work of 3 people personally and there is no add’l incentive for me, I.e overtime, promotion, etc. And we can do what China does but are Americans willing to work for what iPad factory workers make? In a lot of cases you get what you pay for. This doesn’t mean there don’t need to be cuts made but do some research on who the cuts are going to affect the most: Troops, their families, and ultimately military readiness. We cut back after every war but unfortunately those cuts aren’t always made wisely.
NateMay 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM PT
See that is the part of the military no one has a problem with… it is the fat wasteful government contracts that we have a problem.
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM PT
But what fat, wasteful contracts? The RnD for equipment we use in the field or the unionized Federal employees.
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 8:37 AM PT
“I ain’t got time for playin, I’m just saying man, We out here tryna function…”
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 2:36 AM PT
That argument unfortunately doesn’t hold much validity: a) the exact amount spent on multiple areas of operations is sometimes duplicated. Example: A Soldier is paid a salary to be a Soldier 24/7. It doesn’t matter if he/she are in that theatre or in Ft Bragg, they are going to be paid said pay. Same goes with their equipment and subsequent maintenance. b) simply because we aren’t at war does not mean that money budgeted will trickle down to education, jobs, etc. In fact, because of the war we were able to give a large number of persons employment on many different fronts. Now the main premis of this DB is correct in that “Defense” spending stimulates MANY different aspects of our economy. It’s not simply buying of bullets or enlistment of troops, it goes well beyond that. I had the opportunity to hear a General recently give us a presentation and he quoted the Mayo brothers in that the only victor in war is medicine. I agree 100% with that analogy but would add technology and say that developments in the last 10 years by the military, and their partners, are ASTOUNDING! Yes, some will say that the civilian sector could have easily accomplished the same research and development given the resources. I disagree given that the private sector has resources that shadow ours and yet they still don’t produce the same results. I personally am proud that I am part of an organization that brings better to the world, even though we are constantly criticized and misunderstood by persons on all sides of the political aisle.
PetzMay 20, 2012 at 10:10 PM PT
Higher production levels drive down the associated fixed cost making the engines more affordable.
PackfanMay 21, 2012 at 12:52 AM PT
More affordable than not buying them in the first place? If there is no need, why buy?
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 2:24 AM PT
Are you insinuating not to have a back up engine or not to have the jet period?
kkorenthalMay 21, 2012 at 2:44 AM PT
Mr. Acosta responds: http://rightonscv.com/blog/Press-Release-From-Acosta-for-Congress
MrPerezMay 21, 2012 at 5:56 AM PT
OMG, Tang is the best we are coming up????? SMH http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html http://www.cnbc.com/id/32085995/Top_Commercial_Products_Launched_by_NASA