A college professor provides his expertise on what we should or shouldn't spend on defense, but happily ignores the other side of the ugly government contest - absurd expenditures for failing social programs.
These are two equal and inevitable halves of the reality of government spending. Both waste absurd amounts of money, and both are virtually unaccountable for any level of corruption, incompetence, and injury to the taxpayer. One of the prime virtues of these aspects of government is that they so flawlessly demonstrate the folly of the 'fatal conceit.'
I'm a little more sympathetic to the F-35 because there's a better chance that it will work - deter wars - than the social programs will. I'm also slightly more sympathetic the F-35 because national defense is a legitimate, constitutionally authorized use of the coercive monopoly of the government. If the government weren't stuck on being all things to all people, if it were still constrained by the intended constitutional constraints, it is remotely possible that politicians would get serious about a cohesive national defense strategy that could lead turn geopoltical change - nah, just kidding, that's absurd I know. But seriously, Americans apparently expect people who are good at the art of politics - at being all things to all people whilst representing themselves to be selfless servants of the public good even though we the (gullible) people pretend not to know that the only folks who would chase political success are those with monstrous ego, ambition and desire for recognition - to also understand national defense AND health care public policy (such as it is) and other complex economic issues, nevermind the constitution?
I heard today the US may eclipse a 14 trillion dollar nation deficit - and even that number must be qualified because there are many ways to count the deficit depending upon what your agenda is - and the author wants outrage over a trillion dollars in defense spending spread over the probably 25 year lifespan of the F-35, which is THE future plane for Air Force, Navy and Marines (replacing F-16s, F-15s, AV-8Bs and F-18s). If he wants to convince me, he'd better come up with an alternative because it won't be much cheaper to just keep flying the remains of the existing force. Those of us in the military have been looking for years at the projections for growth of entitlement programs and could see this clash coming, as they say, a mile away. The irony of using a failed government system of entitlements as justification for cancelling the F-35 won't be lost on everyone.
Government procurement of anything is plenty ugly, at least there's a reason to make ugly defense purchases.
These are two equal and inevitable halves of the reality of government spending. Both waste absurd amounts of money, and both are virtually unaccountable for any level of corruption, incompetence, and injury to the taxpayer. One of the prime virtues of these aspects of government is that they so flawlessly demonstrate the folly of the 'fatal conceit.'
I'm a little more sympathetic to the F-35 because there's a better chance that it will work - deter wars - than the social programs will. I'm also slightly more sympathetic the F-35 because national defense is a legitimate, constitutionally authorized use of the coercive monopoly of the government. If the government weren't stuck on being all things to all people, if it were still constrained by the intended constitutional constraints, it is remotely possible that politicians would get serious about a cohesive national defense strategy that could lead turn geopoltical change - nah, just kidding, that's absurd I know. But seriously, Americans apparently expect people who are good at the art of politics - at being all things to all people whilst representing themselves to be selfless servants of the public good even though we the (gullible) people pretend not to know that the only folks who would chase political success are those with monstrous ego, ambition and desire for recognition - to also understand national defense AND health care public policy (such as it is) and other complex economic issues, nevermind the constitution?
I heard today the US may eclipse a 14 trillion dollar nation deficit - and even that number must be qualified because there are many ways to count the deficit depending upon what your agenda is - and the author wants outrage over a trillion dollars in defense spending spread over the probably 25 year lifespan of the F-35, which is THE future plane for Air Force, Navy and Marines (replacing F-16s, F-15s, AV-8Bs and F-18s). If he wants to convince me, he'd better come up with an alternative because it won't be much cheaper to just keep flying the remains of the existing force. Those of us in the military have been looking for years at the projections for growth of entitlement programs and could see this clash coming, as they say, a mile away. The irony of using a failed government system of entitlements as justification for cancelling the F-35 won't be lost on everyone.
Government procurement of anything is plenty ugly, at least there's a reason to make ugly defense purchases.
No comments:
Post a Comment