Courtney Speaks on Porkulus

Joe Courtney (D-Electric Boat), has an interesting Op-Ed in the New London Day today, defending the Porkulus package just signed into law by President Obama.

Rep. Courtney must have been reading some of my old posts, because his argument is at least partially correct.

When he says, "Shipyard workers at Electric Boat building nuclear submarines, assembly line workers constructing Blackhawk helicopters in Stratford, and factory workers in East Hartford manufacturing F-22 aircraft engines all get their paychecks because their primary customer - the U.S. government - spends taxpayer dollars to buy their products," he is singing my song. He is right. This kind of government spending focuses on the legitimate role of government, national defense, and these kinds of jobs are good, high paying jobs requiring highly skilled workers, with spin-offs that benefit consumers in all sorts of other idustries beyond national defense.

I think I can even agree with him that some Federal spending on science research at the National Science Foundation can even be justified.

But, the Congressman fails to point out in his Op-Ed that the porkulus provides no funds for additional spending on any of these weapons systems that are so important to his state (CT). In fact, if Obama eventually has his way, we can be certain that the ballooning deficit is going to be used as an excuse for cuts in defense spending. Since the Virginia class is so important to Connecticut's economy, what will he be saying when Obama seeks to slash Virginia spending to 1 sub per year from the current 2? Will he be so enamored of Obama then?

Perhaps then, we'll hear him extolling the virtues of these great jobs submarine production brings, vice the nationalization of health care, or any of Obama's other great projects.

I applaud Rep. Courtney for opposing the original $750B bailout of banks. He made the right call there, and he is what passes for a moderate, Northeastern Democrat, so, on the whole, I expect he's not doing a bad job for his constituents.

But, remember, Congressman, that this money is OUR money. To support the increased Medicaid, Medicare, school spending, and everything else, someone else has to have their money confiscated or the Feds have to borrow it, or, print it. Maybe option 1 can be justified, but options 2 and 3 are not ideal, and have long-term consequences that stand to be very painful some day, for a generation not yet fully cognizant of those consequences.

Democrats used to justify everything they did by saying "Do it for the children." Now the mantra seems to be "Do it to the children."

Thanks!


...
end
...