By Adam Bitely — Here is a term that you may not have ever heard of: Weaponized Keynesians.
This term was coined by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) a while back and was brought to my attention in a recent Paul Krugman column. According to Krugman, Frank defined weaponized Keynesians as anyone who believes “that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat that is of course economic salvation.”
Krugman, a loyal Keynesian himself, has long preached the tenants of proper Keynesianism to anyone that reads his bozo economics columns in the New York Times. But weaponized Keynesians as defined by Barney Frank and brought to light by Paul Krugman are a real threat to those who believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility.
Military spending has long been a topic of debate between Democrats and Republicans. Many Democrats on the campaign trail supposedly favor curtailing military budgets. Both on the campaign trail and in the halls of Congress, many Republicans praise the benefits of ever-increasing military spending. But neither party has the knowledge of what the exact cost would be to provide the exact amount of security to keep America safe. Both parties are simply pandering with their rhetoric to constituents that want more or less spending.
Enter the weaponized Keynesians. These are the people who believe there is no cost too high for securing the nation — even though there is no such thing as a vertical demand curve meaning that there is never an item that one person or group of persons would demand no matter what the cost might be.
The weaponized Keynesians also seem to hold the belief that the government has the Midas touch when it comes to all things involving the military. At a recent GOP debate, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul went back and forth on whether they would consider cuts to military spending.
Gingrich blasted the automatic sequestration of defense spending set to take effect if Congress does not enact the Super Committee’s recommendations as “suicidally stupid,” while Paul suggested that the country must consider what would happen if the country went broke. The military at that point would be non-existent and no money would exist for any kind of defense.
Military spending is just like any other form of government spending. Too often people associate emotional arguments with their favorite government program and lose sight of the major problem that the U.S. government faces — which is the fact that U.S. government officials spend more money than they take in.
I’m not sure if there is anyone that knows what the perfect amount of military spending is. But the fact of the matter is that when it comes to getting the U.S. fiscal house in order, all spending must be on the table for consideration of being cut. Imagine a scenario where the debt of the U.S. is so large that the government simply collapses under the weight of the debt. Military spending will be irrelevant at that point.
Until the weaponized Keynesians understand that their form of Keynesian economics makes as much sense as those that argue for more “stimulus” spending, the government will continue to bleed money. Anything that the government spends money on must be on the cutting room table if the government is going to take an honest stab at correcting their spending addiction.
Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com. You can follow him on Twitter at @AdamBitely.
