Sorry Bill.

Military spending only generates a measly return of 0 to 1 Dollar for every buck spent. Civilian spending can generate a return of 3-5 bucks for every dollar spent. This is why military spending as a stimulus is a crock of shit.

That is the dirty secret about military spending and why only really wealthy nations can afford to spend on lavish militarys.

Really the blogosphere should be more coordinated in responding to Kristol. Don't link to his article. Don't do anything that will encourage site visits.

There's some danger of the NYT keeping him on, as he attracts visits from the left by pissing them off. I mean, does anyone on the right take this guy seriously? I've not seen much evidence of that.

Yes, by all means, shoot him down routinely. But let's do so in a way that guards against a lot of traffic to his page at the NYT.

Military spending worked in WWII because we weren't the BUYERS of our munitions.

We made weapons, sold them for money and they were used in Europe. Then tehy bought more.

Today China does the same with cheap, fragile electronics.

We also buy our own weapons, use them in Asia, and then buy more.

We export very little. It's no more a sustainable business plan than Detroit is working with.

As for Medicare being successful... Ask the people who've received their 2000 bucks in bennies and have to come up with the next 3 grand themselves before they get more help at the 5k mark. (my numbers are off, but the point stands.)

The doughnut hole is a demented, cruel sieve that allows the wealthy who have the 3 grand to get unlimited financial largesse and those who don't (likely not Bush's "base") to cut pills and scrape by, and with any luck for the GOP, drop out of the voting bloc the hard way.

Only Reagan was even close to being a small-government conservative. Kristol

Huh? I think Kristol confuses "small-government" with fiscal conservativism. The Bush administration did gut oversight agencies (EPA, OSHA, etc.), reduce taxes, and promote deregulation (largely by not enforcing those that exist). He also took away bankruptcy protections, fought against SCHIP and extended unemployment, while opening a whole new world to the mining/drilling industries.

In the spirit of the season, Willie Kris should voluntarily boil himself in a vat of pudding, and then bury himself with a stake of holly through his heart

That is, oddly enough, largely true. Republican rhetoric notwithstanding, Republican policy makers tend to increase spending and the size of the government.

No, this is a Big Lie. No Republican congress, senate, president has ever proposed a smaller budget than the previous year. They don't believe in small government. They're simply lying when they say that.

They also don't believe in free markets. They believe in market intervention in favor of large, oligopolistic organizations. Another Big Lie is that they care about entrepreneurship, small business, and open markets. They don't. Their record is very clear on this score.

They also don't believe in fiscal prudence. In this column Kristol says "Hell yeah, we want our cheesy poofs." but he still wants to tax cuts.

And the bit about Douthat's piece written yesterday demonstrates how much they believe in the sanctity of individual rights.

These are all lies. Pure, simple lies. There is nothing surprising in the six years they had all there branches. It's all about crony capitalism and graft. That's it. That's what they got.

blogwhore on this here:

http://kroydblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/billy.html

Hey Bill! With our current military spending and our current economic situation, how long do you suppose it will be before we become North Korea with a vast military and impoverished masses suffering from malnutrition...not that far off I think. The amount we spend on hardware is protecting us from who? I need a reminder. This country can be brought to its knees without a shot being fired , if the Chinese and Saudis call in their loans.

Just a question for "small government" believers: How do you know the government needs to be smaller? Have you done an inventory of the things you want government to do, and then compared it to the list of things it actually does, and found the first list is shorter than the second? Or is it just a matter of your wanting cheaper government?

If "small government" types were serious, they would lead not with tax cuts, but with a list of the government expenditures they wanted to stop. Once they had them stopped, they'd then be able to cut tax rates. But they never do this; instead it is always about tax cuts first.

This priority of tax cuts over services cuts shows that they never really gave a rat's ass about the size of government, they just wanted to pay less for it. Hey, I'd love to drive a Lexus and pay for a Yugo, my desire for this doesn't amount to a meaningful spending strategy. Likewise the push for "small government" doesn't amount to a usable philosophy of governance because it doesn't bother to engage any of the realities of what government is for and what we expect it to do vs. what we want to pay for it. It's just a simple-minded wish that you could magically get a better deal.

Kristol, like the other purveyors of the whole "small government" claptrap, has never had anything worthwhile to add to our thinking about issues of governance.

"Only Reagan was even close to being a small-government conservative."

Please. When Reagan became governor of California, the state budget was $3.7 billion. When he left it was $10.2. He tripled the size of the budget, and he worked hard at that, transferring municipal responsibilities to the state level. When he was President, he tripled the size of the national debt. And, yes, Democrats controlled Congress, but those were his budgets.

Reagan wasn't anywhere near being a small-government conservative, except in his speeches. He was, like his true heir W, a huge-government conservative. The only small-government conservative in living memory was Bill Clinton.

The Medicare Drug Act (Medicare Part D) was written by and with the approval of the managed care organizations, health insurance companies and pharmaceutical industry. It was a money-maker for these industries, which promised a whole hell of a lot more than was ever delivered. Needless to say, the way it was worked out has cost the American taxpayers a great deal more money than a simple inclusion of prescriptions into Medicare would have. No ability to get the lowest prices on drugs, remember that? Hell, I worked for one of the largest pharma companies in the world, and believe me...they manipulated this to benefit themselves big time. This isn't even "big government." It's fascism, pure and simple, in the economic sense.

Former Dan got the main point. Military spending is not capital improvements. Roads are. Build better roads where there is congestion and not only do people get to work faster and are more productive during the day, but we spend less on gas and produce less carbon emmissions because we aren't idealling our engines going no where.

The last line of the selection you published doesn't follow from the rest of what Billy said.
He spends a number of paragraphs outlining Republican hypocrisy--and then concludes by acting as if he was demonstrating fiscal restraint's unpopularity.
The cry of fiscal restraint has been a dog-whistle for getting rid of entitlements. They see nothing wrong with helping out businesses--which is simply 'improving the business climate."
Clinton balanced the budget, but in the wrong way. He did it by boosting the economy. What the Republicans want is an end to helping the underclass.
When Grover Norquist wants to drown government in the bathtub, we know what face that figure has.

"Small Government" is such a bullshit frame Republicans have perpetuated in the same way they made "Liberal" a dirty word. There is no bearing on reality and it means "a government that punishes democratic voting blocks and coalitions and rewards Republican donors and cronies."

More defense spending? So it's not enough to be outspending the next 150 countries combined?

Till late in life, Reagan was a lifelong Democrat, and even a youthful supporter of FDR, so one wonders if he and his weren't more on the cheap side on paying taxes than real conservatives like the Goldwater/Taft crowd, or even moderates like Ike and Nixon.

Given human nature, an inevitable corollary to "you don't have to pay taxes" is "you don't have to control spending." If growth will pay your taxes, then it follows growth will pay for increased spending, if you're a weak minded person who is easily seduced by someone offering candy.

Those Reagan federal budgets were passed because the Southern Democrats, led by Rep Phil Gramm, known as the "Boll Weevils" joined with the Republicans to pass those budgets. David Stockman said those budgets were designed to ruin the social programs.

On Hate Radio, right wing callers still use the canard about how "the Democrats controlled Congress", therefore, Reagan was not to blame for the huge increase in debt.

Must check, but, didn't the number of Federal employees increase under Reagan, as well?

It's just amazing. These guys are willing to spend taxpayer money on anything, as long as it doesn't provide anything of value to the ordinary taxpayer. Bailouts, fine.

So military spending is fine, too, because it produces nothing useful to the populace. Just a huge pile of obsolete weapons to fight the Russkies with, and lots of profits for the defense contractor executives and wealthy shareholders.

econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/12/kristols-fiscal-stimulus-proposal-make.html

Kristol in other words opposes government investment in schools and roads but supports spending on items that would at best not be used and at worst kill people and destroy infrastructure – obviously inconsistent with long-term growth or credible supply-side economics!

Kristol et al can move to Canada, where PM Stephen Harper actually does want to cut government.

The defense budget is already the largest outlay next to Medicare. Bill's suggestions are just a rearrangement of conservative thought. In their mind the govt only exists to provide a military and nothing else. Isn't that what all that "federalist" claptrap is about. They think the consitution only provides for a strong defense and intrastate commerce. Period. That's why they are against any social spending and promote vouchers for education.

Of course, they will make an exception if the govt wants to pay private industry to do ANYTHING. That's just good capitalism.

just wanted to add that the defense budget is also the largest corporate welfare/wealth transfer scheme we've ever seen..depending on who's counting, the pentagon budget is currently between $620 bil and $1 trillion.....kristol dosen't know the first thing about economics...only he would continue to hype investing in something that doesn't produce a return......

Kristol's point is not correct, alas.

He argues that Republicans can't win by advocating "small government" because Republican presidents have tended to expand government. But the public does not know this. They still associate Democrats with "big government", making Republicans, by contrast, pro-"small government".

Republicans can still advocate "small government" and win. In fact, to drop that phrase would almost cause their identity to dissolve in the minds of most voters.