War As Economic Policy (*Update)

The growing consensus on the economy seems to be spend, spend, spend. I’m fine with spending to stimulate the economy, as long as we spend in the right places. During a recession, especially long-term, deep recessions, spending is about all you can do. A spending freeze, particularly across the board, which is what John McCain proposed on the campaign trail to save the economy, is outdated Hooverish economics. It seems, though, the GOP is going to stick with spending cuts and freezes as their policy to carry us through this latest recession. To me, such thinking is fundamentally flawed on a number of levels.

Now, as you can tell I lay off a lot of economic issues other than to say Bushnomics doesn’t work. This is mainly because I’m not an economist and I believe serious matters as what to do about a recession should be yielded to the experts. It’s obvious; however, the biggest engine to stimulate an economy is the federal government. And proper spending is the only component of that. The question then becomes where and how to spend the money.

Republicans claim spending got us into this mess and they are absolutely correct. What they aren’t acknowledging is how and where we spent the money. We’ve been spending over $10 billion a month fighting endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s money that yields no returns other than war policy success or failure. But it’s not an investment at all. Imagine if we had spent the over $1 trillion already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan here at home and used that money as an investment mechanism. That’s really what this whole debate is about. Republicans aren’t against spending when it comes to waging Glorious War but want to freeze it when it’s money being invested here at home. When we spend it at home we’re called socialists when we spend it abroad we’re called Great Patriots.

A trillion dollars spent here at home on infrastructure, new energy initiatives and broadband expansion is an economic policy that will create jobs and new forms of wealth which will in turn stimulate the economy in ways not seen in a generation. That’s an economic policy I can support.

*Update:

Compare my post above to Bush's sad admission today that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Take notice, too, that Bush speaks very candidly to an international audience about the reality of Iraq and 9/11. To a domestic crowd I can't recall one time when he has been this forthcoming concerning Saddam Hussein having nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.

Also, look at War Cheerleader Newt Gingrich's comment last night on, of all places, Fox News about more Glorious War:

I think that the Israeli government probably would be best served if they created a deadline of sometime next fall and basically told the new American president that they’re willing to do anything they can to help him achieve a non-nuclear Iran prior, say, to September or October, but that there is a point at which they will not run the risk.

And then compare all of it to Chickenhawk and War Cheerleader William Kristol's insistence that George Bush use the Marines to invade Somalia and declare war on the pirates lurking in the waters.

And while [Bush is] at it, perhaps he could tell various admirals to stop moaning about how difficult it would be to deal with the pirates off the coast of Somalia (isn’t keeping the shipping lanes open a core mission of the Navy?) and order the Navy to clobber them. If need be, the Marines would no doubt be glad to recapitulate their origins and join in by going ashore in Africa to destroy the pirates’ safe havens.

When it comes to politics the right wing just can't get enough war. As if war is free. Such operations cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have a zero rate of return. Outside of the military industrial complex, nothing domestically benefits from war without end. Yet they can't support enough war. On the other hand, domestic spending initiatives are "socialism" and "anti-American." It's obviously not spending they are against. It's anything that doesn't have to do with war.