Search This Blog


New Left ethos to blame for LA loss of defense work

Essential to understanding the large economic loss from defense contracting changes that appear to be headed Louisiana’s way is that it is not the fault of corporate allocation decisions nor of insufficient political clout, but that it is an inevitability caused by the conscious decision by those presently in charge in Washington to de-emphasize and weaken U.S. defense capabilities.

Former policy-makers can debate all they want about whether the losses of government contracts may idle a Louisiana builder and have another shift operations away from the state, but the reason this debate even can happen is because the Pres. Barack Obama Administration has deemphasized defense expenditures at the expense of American security. In his first two years in office, backed by a compliant Democrat-led Congress, Obama has proposed historic lows in defense expenditures relative to Gross Domestic Product. His budgets also have concentrated on much lower increases in expenditures relative to domestic areas, his trillions of dollars contained in spending bills have hardly been for the military, and costs continue to escalate as a result of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unfortunately, this fiscal policy ignores reality, given these two wars plus the necessity to catch up after neglect during the 1990s that only begun to get addressed in the first decade of the 21st century. Obama has made wishful thinking a prime part of his defense policy, such as putting together “strategic partnerships” that have allowed Russia to increase its influence and Iran to come within two years obtaining nuclear weapons that can be delivered to the U.S. These are no substitute for U.S. ability to manage its own affairs to meet its own interests.

This destructive thinking emanates from Obama and liberal Democrat’s fundamental belief that the U.S. is a force for evil in the world, at least as currently constituted. They consider the pursuit of U.S. interests independent of the desire of other states (many of whom do actually act in their own interests when helping facilitate or helped by facilitating a decline in U.S. power) as illegitimate, because the U.S. historically has spread a belief system of individualism and free enterprise above and beyond government command and control of society, and has acted to further these and export these ideas to other states.

The New Leftists and their ideological children that control, for now, levers of power in Washington dislike these aspects of our political culture and think that one method to begin their removal from it is by weakening the U.S., which would make it less able to act unilaterally. If achieving this, America would have to meld its interests more to satisfy those that believe in larger, more powerful state apparatuses if not those hostile to freedom and democracy, which in turn would alter the country’s internal system to grant the state more power and privilege over people’s lives (and allow those who control it like themselves to exercise it).

Thereby we see reductions in military spending that trickle down to the situation here in Louisiana. State policy-makers can harangue corporations, court them, or plead to the federal government, but it will make little difference regarding defense jobs in the state until those who blame America first and see its strength in the world as a problem no longer remain in power.


Mr. Harris Plutocrat said...

Recently you opined that those who said the Jindal sand barriers wouldn't work were extremist environmentalists with their own agenda. Today your preposterous water-carrying for the Jindal administration was laid bare to your own humiliation, as the sand barriers were en masse carried off, just like the "extremist environmentalists" said it would. Of course, the whole point was to enrich a few Jindal supporters, and they will certainly be paid regardless of their utter, complete failure (accompanied to the fervent cheerleading and pom-pom waving of impressionable shills like Jeffrey Sadow). Naturally, I didn't expect you to address your own massive failure on your own blog, but for anyone reading, feel free to read on here...

The shame you bring upon your university is immense. You embarrass the whole state. The reason you're a superficial, simpleton partisan is that when you go to write a post on the importance of "science" in informing political decisions, you immediately hurl abuse at all scientists, then you link to the National Review and the WSJ, and come to the conclusion that the republican press releases told you to come to in the first place. Then within days your precious savior Jindal is revealed as a corrupt, shallow simpleton politician seeking to curry favor and dole out badly needed contracts for unneeded sand berms. Not a peep from Jeff Sadow, though. He's moved on to bigger and more important things. What an embarrassment to Shreveport, Louisiana, Louisiana State University, and America.

Mr. Harris Plutocrat said...

Only the deranged, conspiracy-theorist mind of Jeffrey Sadow can come up with such a delusional misinterpretation of basic facts. Sadow tacitly ADMITS that Obama has INCREASED defense spending since Bush. Yet he characterizes this as a deliberate attempt to "weaken" the US to make it easier for enemies to overthrow. He wants you to think that us liberals "hate" the country and secretly want it overthrown. He uses the most transparent propaganda tool: underlining "historic lows in defense expenditures", but then sneaks in the qualifier "relative to GDP". That is, defense spending has gone UP, and the only way to make it seem like it's going down is to irrationally tie it to GDP. Note to sadow: GDP is collapsing due to GWB, but even in the face of that defense spending is way up. Sadow says that these are "lower increases", somehow trying to make increases seem like historic lows. These are INCREASES that Sadow says are "historic lows". Note to Sadow: Terrorists don't tailor their weapons budget to US GDP you idiot. Furthermore, quantity of dollars spent on defense does not mean "safer" you idiot. There are OTHER factors.

And don't go bitching about rogue states gaining nuclear weapons under Obama. You didn't say a thing about North Korea and Iran putting their nuclear programs in overdrive as soon as GWB took office, after a full decade of progress under Clinton. Of course your solution would be to send a bunch of young american men to die in Iran, which in your twisted world would be glorious.

Not even the most deranged teapartier thinks that "obama and liberal democrats fundamental belief" is that the "US is a force for evil." Liberals don't think that crap you idiot. And they certainly wouldn't think it based on some US "belief system of individualism and free enterprise above and beyond government command and control of society". What the hell are you smoking? I've spent nearly my entire life surrounded by liberals of the full spectrum and none of them even think that remotely. All you're doing is sprinkling in your wet Soviet fantasies to uneventful, marginally distinct budget matters. What a moron. The tinfoil hat is on tight today - even linking to the unabashed conspiracy theorist website "DiscoverTheNetworks". Doesn't that URL reek of ridiculous conspiracy morons? I have no idea how you John Birch lunatics don't collapse from outrage fatigue. The hysterical illusions of "powerful state apparatuses" that "control" every aspect of human life. You shrieky, whimpering conspiracy theorists counterpart were the Pravda-believers in the USSR and the impressionable anti-american protestors wheeled out in Iran every time they need TV footage.

In the REAL WORLD, liberal politicians have aided the destructive republicans, helping them overspend on the military. You people never learned the lesson of the Soviet Union's collapse: overspending on military beyond your means has drastic consequences. We spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. This is untenable - even the libertarians know this. We have to be careful about all of our expenditures, INCLUDING military. And we have to ONLY spend that which is needed. This is an economic crisis, and we may have to pinch even military budget. NOT because we "hate" some "evil" America, but because this is a CRISIS that we NEED TO GET OUT OF. Liberals are serious about getting us out of the mess YOU created; Conservatives just think that they can put patriotic flags on all defense expenditures and pray our way out of trouble. You're a disgrace to your university.

Anonymous said...

It does raise some questions about the instruction in his classroom. To slightly advocate a one-sided view is one thing, but to be a completely myopic shill for only one side is disturbing. Sadow appears to border on being a Ward Churchill, only from the right. I would hesitate to have any student I knew come under his indoctrination.

Anonymous said...

I see the leftard shills for The One have taken a break from brewing all that fresh hot black tea to try and spew their lies here. Yeah, of course The One has increased defense spending. Just like good ol' Willy did. Lying maggot swill. How dat tea taste, bro? Mmm, mmm, mmm!

Anonymous said...

Good to see that among the professors followers are the racists.

Landman of the Apocalypse said...

Plutocrat, there is no need to descend into Sadow’s realm of ad hominem attacks and strawmen. The facts are the facts, and the facts usually show Sadow’s material as shameless demagoguery. There is no reduction in military spending to “trickle down.”

Northrop Grumman states two reasons for moving to Pascagoula and evaluating sale of its shipbuilding concerns: 1) there is little synergy between shipbuilding and its other businesses, and 2) the Pentagon’s priorities are shifting “to smaller, more agile technologies that can be used in modern wars against shadowy foes.” Washington Post, July 15, 2010.

Sadow’s own “authorities” debunk his assertions. Look at the graphs—Obama is increasing defense spending in 2011, despite anticipated drawdowns/withdrawals of troops. Will he decrease defense spending over the next 5 years? If we withdraw from Bush’s two wars, I should hope so. Undoubtedly, the 5 year projections are not static. Congress and the President will revisit future spending each year and in light of current facts.

The supposed drop in the defense budget spending as a percentage of the budget? It is less than the increase in entitlement spending. If Congress were to freeze entitlement spending, Obama’s proposed budget actually increases the percentage of the U.S. budget allocated to defense. He confuses restrained growth in military spending with “wishful thinking.”

His “logic” suggests that increasing entitlement spending somehow dictates at least a proportionate increase in defense spending. Huh? I’m not sure whether and how much the U.S should increase defense spending. Nevertheless, an increase in one does not dictate an increase in the other.

By the way, the most recent spike in entitlement spending coincides with implementation of Part D and the rise of Medicare Advantage plans. We can’t reasonably attribute those to Obama.

It is unremarkable that the diatribe regarding Obama’s “fundamental belief” contains no references or links. In the world of thinkers, you’re way out there by yourself on that one. Perhaps a link to a Tea Party website? Or David Horowitz.

For the coup de gradoux, a link to Horowitz’s website equating liberals (labeled “leftists”) to terrorists and the like. Horowitz, a former writer for a far-left magazine, flip-flopped with gusto. Now a conservative activist, he is accused of racism and fabrications. Horowitz has been roundly rejected by respectable academia.

Assuming that we will not do our homework, Sadow promotes his political agenda by means of false assertions. As an editorial writer, he is an unremarkable ideologue. As an academic, his attempts to deceive are appalling.

Anonymous said...

Wow, people attack you for using ad hominem attacks at the same time they say you would consider it glorious if American troops died; and they attack you for not including links at the same time they do not provide evidence for this assertion. I'll put it simply for the consistently inconsistent: Why would Obama cancel a missile defense interceptor program that is all that stands between us and an Iranian nuclear strike, in order to appease a nation that invaded one of our allies after Obama was elected?