Stimulus for Me but not for Thee

President Obama has announced he is ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home. America is expected to save $140 billion per year as a result; money that can be used to help pay the national debt.

So, saving $140 billion is going to turn the a $14.9 TRILLION dollar debt around. (See latest figures here) Now, far be it from me to be cynical, but will that money even be used to pay down the debt? Certainly the Super Duper Deficit Committee and Kaffee Klatch is eyeballing it lustfully. Sadly, we all know the answer to that. (In point of fact, the Iraq savings are already spent on Obamacare, which is part of how the CBO was able to score it revenue neutral.) But why, if we are going to save $140 billion next year, does the President demand he be given additional money for his jobs plan? Back in September his proposal was calculated to cost $400 billion, according to CBS News and if he is to do it piecemeal, as he is now planning to do, does not the savings in Iraq mean he needs be given no money at all?

---

Actually, this is an example of how liberal economic theory works; Orszag is saying the savings from Iraq will bolster the U.S. economy and at the same time his boss is saying the economy will only grow if stimulated through government spending. Why, pray tell, wasn't the Iraq war stimulative? And if it was stimulative, why is the Administration ending it? First there are the troops, who will come home to either resume their old jobs (and bumping the temps who were filling in) or will find themselves unemployed and will wind up on government benefits. This will have a ripple effect, with these individuals having to purchase their own health care and whatnot. Then there are the vendors who supply the military with everything from meals ready to eat (and mess chow, too!), fatigues, hardware of every kind, munitions, etc. There are the private security contractors who will have to lay off personnel. There are the oil companies supplying gasoline. There are the tire companies, the tent makers, everyone who has a hand in maintaining a major military presence. All of them will suddenly find themselves looking for new work. And don't forget the private security companies like Blackwater. Where are all these people going to make up for the loss? That's right; they'll get it from the Obama stimulus, and will then be forced to vote Obama or face cuts in benefits. It ultimately comes down the the same thing; stimulus spending is stimulus spending. Why end one stimulus program only to create another? In fact, spending on a war that has our enemies fighting us overseas is preferable to spending on nonsense here, nonsense like Solyndra in which sticky fingers rob the public, and friends of Obama get to make lots of money. At least military spending buys us something of importance, something government is actually charged with doing. It certainly makes more sense than dispatching troops to Uganda. Of course, Obama's planned stimulus spending is all about enriching SEIU and teacher's unions, groups that feed off the teats of the American body politic and then donate back to the Democrats. Obama knows that military men generally favor Republicans, and his base is in the public sector unions, on Wall Street, and in the race-baiting industry, so he needs to defund the military, get the soldiers on unemployment and AFDC, and send all that money to his union buddies. Democrats are fond of saying that Republicans want to starve children and old people, yet they think it just dandy to starve soldiers and their small children. Ending the Iraq war is proof that stimulating the economy isn't the goal of stimulus.