Small quibble - Gates has never affiliated with either party. He is and has always been a registered Independent.

Gates said: "... every defense dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk -- or, in effect, to 'run up the score' in a capability where the United States is already dominant -- is a dollar not available to take care of our people ..."

Given that the USA spends as much on the military as the entire rest of the world combined (and most of the rest of the world's military spending is by US allies), there are hundreds of billions of dollars being squandered every year to "run up the score", that are not available to "take care of our people". Let alone to address the actual existential threat to human civilization from anthropogenic global warming.

The bottom line is that the Obama administration plans to INCREASE military spending significantly above its already obscene levels.

That's not change that I can believe in.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I doubt it will be the Republicans in the Congress who will be the largest stumbling block in the reprioritization of military spending. Military spending is quintessential bi-partisan pork - it's the easiest form of spending to defend to voters in this country and voting to cut it makes you a target for opponents in your next election.

And since it's so bi-partisan, most Representatives and Senators work to get the money spent in their district/state. So they have military bases, and factories building equipment, and other juicy bits of money coming into their district. Voting to eliminate those is political suicide, as so many second and third tier jobs in various districts exist only because of that military pork. This is the exact situation that Eisenhower was warning against, and of course our economy is mostly dependent on it because no one with the power to stop it took him seriously.

So yeah, I have little hope that major changes will happen all at once here no matter how much it would make sense for our budget or our actual defense needs. The interests are aligned against it, and it will be Democrats who are leading the charge for the status quo for the most part. And Republicans aren't going to be big on making changes no matter who first appointed the guy making the suggestions - they're more likely to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct and to be watching which districts Democrats piss off and working to try to get a pick-up in those districts because of it. Any district they can swoop in like heroes and claim that Democrats are killing jobs is going to be first on their hit list in 2010.

SecularAnimist - You're missing the point on this entire shift. You're arguing that Gates is increasing the defense budget for 2010. This is absolutely true, but you're missing the underlying point. Gates is going to focus on the insurgency tactics of operation. Meaning, less carriers, less planes, choppers etc. It may mean an increase THIS YEAR, but for years coming up, it will probably see a decrease, especially with contract reform.

"Republicans might, just might, be slightly less willing to attack the administration on Pentagon spending with a Republican Defense Secretary hand-picked by Bush-Cheney.

Nah, they'll just tar Gates like they have every other Bush admin apostate that dared go against the grain. That Gates is a Bush-Cheney pick might give the Obama admin a bit of general-public cover, but it won't cause Republicans to hestitate slamming Gate's proposal (or voting against it) in the least.

What happens to the thousands of middle class people building these weapons systems? Does Lockheed get a bailout too?

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower Posted by: croatoan on April 6, 2009

Is it possible that after all these years there are some individuals in government who finally get it?

Apparently Bob Gates is one. (applause!)

"What happens to the thousands of middle class people building these weapons systems? Does Lockheed get a bailout too?"

Interesting dilemma. How can you ever stop building weapons if some people will lose jobs in the process? Are we stuck forever with this form of welfare?

The answer is that defense spending does not help the economy. Lots of money goes into building things that don't get used. So if you move those people out of the defense industry to civilian jobs the economy is stronger and jobs will appear to accommodate those who are laid off.

As President Eisenhower explained it in his Chance for Peace speech:

"The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. "

So yes, in the short term some defense workers lose their jobs, and the Carlyle Group gets a little less money, but the money not spent on atom bombs and fighter aircraft are spent on hospitals, schools, scholarships and such that are actually productive and useful.

The answer is that defense spending does not help the economy.
Posted by: JohnK

The research certainly has. Radar, jet engines, modern aviation, internet, space-based Earth observers, GPS, laser, microchips, computer, composites, the Hummer, medicine, etc.

Defense research has been the prime engine of technology growth since forever.

So yes, in the short term some defense workers lose their jobs..

I was slightly facetious in my original post - I agree with Gates. What I want to get at is, I think Obama's ultimatum to GM is correct. The first bailout (giveaway, really) to GM was wrong. If GM is losing market share every year, then GM is doing something wrong, and probably should've entered bankruptcy to reorganize so they can be profitable. Giving GM taxpayer dollars when GM hasn't shown they can turn a profit is likewise wasteful. GM needs to shed workers, and those workers should eventually find work in industries and companies where we are productive and competitive.

"If GM is losing market share every year, then GM is doing something wrong, "

For the record, GM was still #1 in market share in the US last summer. Sure it was falling...but it was still higher than everyone else.

"Giving GM taxpayer dollars when GM hasn't shown they can turn a profit is likewise wasteful"

For the record, as recently as last spring (before the bottom fell out of the economy) GM's *auto* divisions were in the black. They *were* turning profits on cars until the economy went kerplat. The entire company was losing money - but it was the financial services division that was in the red.

Ah.... the "Peace Dividend" Clinton promised us but chickened out of.

And a Republican (Gates) shall lead us...

Gates is not a republican. That is a common misconception because he served both presidents Bush, but it is a false assumption. He is a true Independent. He has never been a registered republican nor Democrat.

Now if "autocrat" was an option, he might have declared a party affiliation.