Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

Spending Adv. – Uniqueness – Military Spending High

Military spending is high right now
Garrett-Peltier 10 (Heidi, research fellow at PERI at Univ. of Mass., http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0310garrett-peltier.html) GAT

According to the National Priorities Project, military spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has reached approximately $1 trillion since 2001, not including the cost of the surge of 30,000 troops. In fiscal year 2009, federal government outlays on the military were 17% of all outlays. Meanwhile, energy, resource conservation, and the environment accounted for only 1% of federal outlays, while education, training, and social services made up only 2%. Military spending is therefore eight to seventeen times as high as federal education- and energy-related spending. The Obama administration is facing increased pressure to reduce the size of the fiscal deficit and the national debt, both of which have grown partly as a result of military spending. At the same time, there is an urgent need to put people back to work and to move the country toward a low-carbon future. While military Keynesianism offers one strategy for recovering from the recession, it is by no means the most effective, even putting aside the other reasons for objecting to a war economy. By reducing military spending, we can channel some of those savings to clean energy, healthcare, education, and other matters of national and global importance.

Spending Adv. – Link – Trades Off

Military spending trades off with social spending
Naiman 6/20 (Robert, Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy, 6/20/10

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/20-3) GAT

This week, House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey [D-WI] told the White House that he was going to sit on the Administration's request for $33 billion more for pointless killing in Afghanistan until the White House acted on House Democratic demands to unlock federal money to aid the states in averting a wave of layoffs of teachers and other public employees. Obey didn't just link the two issues rhetorically; he linked them with the threat of effective action. At last, at long last. But why is David Obey standing alone? Perhaps, behind the scenes, the big Democratic constituency groups are pulling for Obey. But you wouldn't know it from any public manifestation. Why? This should be a "teachable moment," an opportunity to mobilize the majority of America's working families to push to redirect resources from futile wars of empire and the corporate welfare of the "base military budget" to human needs at home and abroad. Where is the public mobilization of the Democratic constituency groups? If we could shorten the Afghanistan war by a month, that would free up the $10 billion that Obey is asking for domestic spending. Rep. Jim McGovern's [D-MA] bill requiring a timetable for military redeployment from Afghanistan currently has 94 co-sponsors in the House (act here.) If McGovern's bill became law, it would surely save the taxpayers at least $10 billion. Why aren't the big Democratic constituency groups aggressively backing the McGovern bill, demanding that it be attached to the war supplemental? This isn't just a question of missing an opportunity. There is a freight train coming called "deficit reduction." If the big Democratic constituency groups continue to sit on their hands on the issue of military spending, then we can predict what the cargo of that freight train is likely to be: cut Social Security benefits, cut Medicare benefits, raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare, cut domestic spending for enforcing environmental regulations and civil rights and worker safety.

Spending Adv. – Link – Trades Off

Military spending uses resources less efficiently, trades off with civilian investments, and hurts civilian innovation – any gains would take years to have an effect
Gold 2 (David, Prof. of International Affairs at New School Univ, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Military_Budget/MilitaryBudget_Economy.html) GAT

Military spending also has implications for the supply side of the economy. The people, equipment, materials, and production capacity that are used by military industries are similar to the resources needed for civilian research and new investment. While military spending accounted for about 6% of total output in 1983, about 30% of all durable goods output was for the military. Because there is direct competition for resources, military spending may reduce the ability of the economy to generate new products and rebuild production technology. Economists have researched this issue, also. There are a number of studies showing that high levels of military spending are associated with low rates of economic growth. British economist Ron Smith, after analyzing data for the United States and other advanced capitalist countries, concluded that there is a direct effect whereby countries that maintain large military establishments also have low rates of investment. This is because military spending can push civilian investment aside. Military industry firms outbid civilian companies for engineers, skilled workers, key materials, and even loans. Military firms use these resources less efficiently than would civilian ones because they are less concerned about controlling their costs. They know the Pentagon will foot the bill. The Department of Defense frequently argues that the civilian economy benefits from the spinoff from military research and development (R&D). Military investment probably had more impact on civilian products in the years after World War II than recently. Innovations in aircraft design and computer technology received a push from the military and space programs in the 1940s and 1950s. (So did nuclear power, which may be an example of a negative spinoff.) Today, military technology has become far too complex to have significant civilian applications. In any event, looking at the economy as a whole, it's likely that spinoff was never a very important phenomenon. Military priorities also have a qualitative impact on civilian innovation. In the United States, where transistors, semiconductors, and other electronics originated, the emphasis on military-oriented research has reduced the ability of companies to compete with Japanese and European companies. Military requirements emphasize high-speed applications and products that can withstand extreme pressures and stresses, with little regard for cost control. Civilian products need low cost and standardized components, an area of electronics where the Japanese, in particular, excel. Because of these differences, several U.S. companies have left the Pentagon's R&D program, fearing they will be unable to keep up with civilian market developments if they follow the military's lead. Whatever the actual effects of military spending on the U.S. economy. those who make decisions may still use the military budget in an effort to fight recession. A problem, however, is that in today's era of large weapons systems, it may not be possible to increase the military's budget fast enough to be an effective counter-cyclical tool. For example, the B-1 bomber was approved by President Reagan in October 1981, during a recession, but actual production was not scheduled to begin until the end of 1983, by which time the recession had ended. Similarly, the Pentagon spent $4 billion less in the 1983 fiscal year than planned, partly due to delays in the MX program. Other defense money can be allocated in a more flexible fashion, but there are severe limits to the extent that weapons purchases can be used to fight the business cycle. Since military spending is a poor way of fighting recession, and it imposes significant long-term costs in terms of undermining innovations and economic growth, one must also ask why the country's political leaders turn to the military budget as a means of economic stimulation. Is it misinformation? Or are there political constraints and rationales that override economic considerations?