SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Of all the industries in line for a handout in this financially frightening time, the defense industry would seem to bring up the rear. After all, most defense companies saw their profits spike as the U.S. defense budget reached historic heights in recent years. Yet the economic crisis has apparently renewed some people’s concept of the Defense Department as a giant jobs program. This argument recently found a venerated voice in Martin Feldstein, a former Reagan administration economist now serving on president-elect Barack Obama’s economic team. In a Wall Street Journal editorial published on Christmas Eve, Feldstein argues that plowing an extra $30 billion into DOD would produce 300,000 jobs. With all due respect to Dr. Feldstein, his reasons do not reflect the well-documented realities of the Pentagon budget.
Feldstein recommends a “short-term surge” of at least $30 billion per year in 2009 and 2010, followed by a sharp dropoff. About $20 billion would go to procurement and research and $10 billion to operations, presumably to support the thousands of troops he also wants to add. But everyone knows money at the Pentagon moves more like molasses than a surging river. Severe increases in the cost and schedule of major weapons systems has been amply documented by DOD itself. Embedding expensive weapons in the DOD budget by overestimaing budgets and lowballing costs and production schedules has resulted in less military for more money, a problem detailed in the new Center for Defense Information book America’s Defense Meltdown. And more troops means billions of dollars in support costs for decades to come.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Commentary — November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm
The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.
Years ago, I lived in Montana, a land of purple sunsets, clear streams, and snowflakes the size of silver dollars drifting through the cold air. There were no speed limits and you could legally drive drunk. My small apartment in Missoula had little privacy. In order to write, I rented an off-season fishing cabin on Rock Creek, a one-room place with a bed and a bureau. I lacked the budget for a desk. My idea was to remove a sliding door from a closet in my apartment and place it over a couple of hastily cobbled-together sawhorses.
Annual premium on a $6,000 life insurance policy for a champion German shepherd:
Astronomers discovered a pulsar called a superbubble, which spins 716 times per second.
Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari told reporters that his wife “belonged to” his kitchen.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Matt was happy enough to sustain himself on the detritus of a world he saw as careening toward self-destruction, and equally happy to scam a government he despised. 'I’m glad everyone’s so wasteful,' he told me. 'It supports my lifestyle.'”