What If Your Paycheck Withheld Defense Spending Too?

TW: A blogger at Rortybomb came up with a nudge concept related to tax witholding and the defense budget. As you now, there is witholding already for social security and medicare, two of the three largest components of the federal budget. Would delineating the third component, defense, influence how folks frame the hundreds of billions we spend on national defense as compared to the hundreds of billions we spend on health care and social security.

From Rortybomb:
"Here’s my simple idea. Let’s say your salary is $60,000/year, and you take one exemption. According to this paycheck calculator, this is what your pay stub looks like every two weeks, leaving the States out of it

Now let’s do one of those informational nudge things. Taking numbers from the Federal Budget from here, what if your paycheck looked like this instead, which is the same paycheck:"

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/my-friendly-nudge-of-the-day/

Why Ending F-22 Procurement Is So Important

"THE fact that the F-22 program is no longer needed beyond where it stands today, that it is no longer wanted by the most senior civilian and uniformed officials in the Pentagon—exercising their best professional judgment—and that it is simply no longer affordable cannot be disputed. However, in the face of those facts, the full weight of all those interests that have—for a period of over 20 years—become invested in the survival of the program has been brought to bear on the decision-making process on this body today. That is the military-industrial-congressional complex at work."
-- check at bottom for the quotee

From Robert Gates speech to Chicago Econ Club last week:
"...Authorization for more F-22s is in both versions of the defense bill working its way through the Congress. The president has indicated that he has real red lines in this budget, including the F-22.

Some might ask, why threaten a veto and risk a confrontation over a couple of billion dollars and for a dozen or so more -- a dozen or so more planes?

The grim reality is that with regard to the defense budget, we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar devoted to -- diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity, whether for more F-22s or anything else, is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I cannot accept and one that I will not take.

And with regard to something like the F-22, regardless of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 or 200, if we can't bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision -- reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the current Air Force secretary and chief of staff -- where do we draw the line? And if not now, when? If we can't get this right, what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual. The president has drawn that line, and that line is with regard to a veto. And it is real..."

TW: Congress is trying to continue funding the F-22 fighter aircraft in the face of opposition from Gates and our POTUS. Obama has threatened a veto if F-22 funding emerges in the new defense spending bills. I sincerely hope he holds the line. There are strong arguments in favor of the F-22 but we cannot have everything at some point tough choices have to be made. The F-22 is a metaphor for government spending in general.

The reason the F-22 remains alive is not overriding military needs but strong political pull exerted by the F-22 manufacturer which cannily (like most contractors) spread F-22 production contracts across as many congressional districts as possible. This is a bi-partisan pork project but where are those allegedly ferocious spending police in the Republican party to help Gates and Obama fend of the budget busters?

It appears, as of yesterday, the Senate has voted to back the Gates/Obama position. Good news. These things tend to have nine lives (at least) so I suspect further votes will be necessary. The quotee btw, Mr. John McCain (Sen AZ) well-known pacifist left-wing weak on defense type.

Why Slowing Any Spending Is So Damn Hard (cont.)

TW: Another example of why cutting government spending is like whack a mole. Defense programming being perhaps an especially challenging area. As you may recall Robert Gates, the highly respected Republican Defense Sec., after considerable review actually made some tough choices regarding which defense programs to keep versus trim.

The C-17 transport planes, the presidential helicopters and the F-22 fighters were amongst the trims. All three programs are still alive and I would say likely to be funded by Congress. The arguments the conservative blog below uses are tried and true- "to cut the F-22 'seriously imperils national security' (TW: obviously Gates is a fool unconcerned about national security), 'the Air Force wants them' (TW: shocking that the Air Force general whose units use the F-22 would want more planes), yada yada yada.

Then there is the intellectually bold argument that since another 100 F-22 would only cost about $15 billion ($150 million each incrementally) and we are spending more on many other government programs, why not F-22 instead of pansy things like TARPs and education.

I have been watching defense spending since I was a kid (yes I am a freak and very old), the arguments NEVER change. At some point we need to be able to make choices for defense and many other areas!

From the New Majority blog:
"It looks like the F-22 production line may not fall idle after all. Cracks in the Administration's attempts to kill it are appearing. First...the most important thing—preservation of the production line as a surge capacity in the event of war—appears to have gotten a boost from the House Armed Services Committee, who've allocated $369 million for parts to keep it active...

Second, the Pentagon's line that the "we only need 187 F-22s" policy was driven by military, rather than budgetary, concerns appears to have been proven false, which might change the procurement number sooner rather than later. Aviation Week's Ares blog puts it succinctly: "The USAF did want more F-22s and considered a 180-some force to be a high risk approach, but after the Defense Department provided the service with a new assessment of future wars, the USAF changed its mind...

...The match that might set off the military/political tinderbox around F-22 procurement could well be the June 9 letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA, where the plane is built) from four-star Gen. John D.W. Corley, chief of Air Combat Command...two of whose squadrons have flown the F-22 the longest of any units in the USAF). In this letter, Gen. Corley stated flatly: "In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid term.… To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy." ...This type of insight from a uniformed commander certainly has the potential to change the political dynamics surrounding the F-22. Members of Congress tend to listen to uniformed leaders when they go on record regarding national-security shortfalls."

...In defense spending terms, twenty-six billion is a fairly big number. In domestic-spending terms, particularly in the age of TARP and the trillion-dollar "stimulus," it's chump change. For example, President Obama wants to spend ten billion on new early-childhood education programs and another fifty or sixty billion on the Department of Education, university building projects, etc.

Which leads me to wonder—have we finally reached that great day when our schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy its fighter force?
http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=1746b2e6-ef8f-4a86-a50d-0def46f1bd95

Oink, Oink Goes the Defense Budget (cont.)

TW: This was ironic given this morning's post. The Info Dissemination blogger saw the same article and posted as well with the difference that he knows much more about the Navy than I do. Yet, the conclusion is the same. As you can tell the LCS (littoral combatant ship) is not one of the blogger's favorite ships.

The point is how pandering flows both ways in government leading to sub-optimal results, this is not a partisan issue. If folks wants improved government we need to improve the processes.

From Information Dissemination:
"...Anytime ADM Mullen is acting in his role as CJCS for the wars, I think Mullen is excellent. With that said, anytime Mullen is speaking for the Navy, he doesn't do the Navy any favors.

Shelby also coaxed Mullen to praise Alabama's very own littoral combat ships.

"Could you tell us here the advantages that the Navy will gain once the service begins to utilize the LCS?" he asked."Okay,"
Mullen obliged. "I need the LCS at sea, deployed today. . . . It offers unique characteristics in terms of speed and mobility and . . ."
"Also firepower," Shelby added.
"And firepower," Mullen agreed. Sigh.

ADM Mullen is a former Chief of Naval Operations who knows the Littoral Combat Ship so well, he signed off on the construction of 2 Littoral Combat Ships. He is currently serving as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking military officer in the United States.

Maybe we should just pretend ADM Mullen is ignorant about the LCS, instead of acknowledging Mullen is being dishonest in front of a Senator, telling that Senator exactly what he wanted to hear.

Firepower on the LCS? When a 4 star Admiral is obviously dishonest about a controversial platform in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing about the capabilities of a program more than 300% over budget, as LCS-2 is, for the purposes of telling a Senator representing his district exactly what he wants to hear, and what you want him to believe, so he will fund your program...

What are people supposed to think? What does this say about the Navy? What does this say about the LCS? What does this say about everyone in OSD, the Senate, the House, the Executive branch, and the Navy who stands quiet when they know this is clear dishonesty? It is impossible to assume that Mullen, the CNO who was so intimately involved in the development of this system, is either ignorant regarding the 'firepower' of the LCS, or actually believes the 57mm and RAM represents firepower.No amount of spin can fix the image of a controversial ship obviously discussed dishonesty in a widely read article in the Washington Post. The LCS earns every bit of skepticism and criticism it gets."
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/06/when-smile-and-nod-goes-bad.html

Oink, Oink Goes the Defense Budget

TW: It is tempting to head down the path of righteous indignation when reading these pieces, but it would do no good. This is how the world goes round. This is bi-partisan porkulousity. Those Senators were not elected to do the right thing, they were elected to represent their state's interests, which in these cases are not necessarily aligned with our nation's.

To me the defense budget is merely a metaphor for most other programs with the difference that defense like police and prisons get wrapped in an extra layer of patriotic demagoguery. Which does nothing to make the porkulousity any less harmful to the overall good.

From Dana Milbank at WaPo:
"This meeting of the Senate Military-Industrial Caucus will now come to order.

The chair recognizes the senator from Northrop Grumman for a question.
"We've noticed the increase in the amphibious ship fleet needs that go beyond traditional military missions," said Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). "Do you see a continuing need for shipbuilding in the amphibious area?"
Of course, Senator. Nobody will hurt the DD(X) destroyers they build in Pascagoula.

Does the senator from General Dynamics have a question?
"Littoral combat ships," said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). "Do you believe that this program will play a vital role in our Navy's future fleet?"
Certainly, Senator. Tell the folks in Mobile that their shipbuilding operation is safe. The chair now recognizes the senator from Boeing..."

"I wanted to ask you today if you can tell me how you are taking into account the health and longevity of our domestic industrial base," asked Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).
Sure are, Senator. Your constituents in Everett will get another shot at that aerial refueling tanker contract they lost to the Airbus consortium.

And so it went at yesterday's hearing of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, attempting a bold reshaping of the military-industrial complex to meet the changing nature of war, pleaded with the lawmakers to rise above the powerful contractors that fund their campaigns and influence their elections. "The responsibility of this department first and foremost is to fight and win the nation's wars," Gates reminded them. "I know that some will take issue with individual decisions. I would ask, however, that you look beyond specific programs and instead at the full range of what we are trying to do."

Not likely, Mr. Secretary. Lawmakers are perfectly happy to reform military procurement, as long as the cuts are not made in any of their back yards. The result will inevitably be that the Pentagon is forced to fund many programs it doesn't want while shortchanging others it urgently needs..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060902843.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Bob Gates Does the Near Impossible

TW: Gates has become a true bi-partisan. He is weaving his way through two very different POTUSes seemingly with ease. He is putting his stamp firmly on the national security policies of the U.S. He clearly knows how to work the bureaucracies known as the U.S. government and Pentagon. He is also benefiting immensely from what Klein refers to as to be that "unbound, fearless advisor" without future ambitions (not so sure he is truly in his twilight).

We could use more folks like him. It will be interesting to see how long he stays around, he is providing massive cover to everything Obama is doing on the national security front. Furthermore his shift of resources from the longer-term potential threats (i.e. China) to the actual real time threats in Iraq/AfPak inherently will look good until and unless those longer-term threats emerge.

From Joe Klein at Time:
"...[during testimony to Congress] Gates is a different sort of Defense Secretary. He warned the legislators that each decision was "zero sum." Any money that went to things he didn't want would come out of programs necessary to support the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Undaunted, the legislators pressed their case — especially the Republicans, who seemed convinced, as one said, that the Pentagon budget was part of a nefarious Obama Administration plot: "Fiscal restraint for defense and fiscal largesse for everything else." Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona was very concerned about anti-missile defense — a gold-plated pipe dream, if there ever was one — and especially a product dramatically called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. To which Gates replied, in a manner so casually dismissive that Franks seemed to shrivel in his seat, "I would just say that the security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs ... that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars."

...And as for that kinetic contraption, it was a "five-year development program, in its 14th year, not a single flight test, little work on the third stage or the kill vehicle, etc., etc., no known launch platform ..."

...Robert Gates is suddenly seeming almost, well, charismatic. He reeks authority. He is, according to several sources, the most respected voice in National Security Council debates. The President is said to love his unadorned manner. Much of which is attributable to the fact that, in the self-proclaimed twilight of his public career, Gates has emerged as that most exotic of Washington species — the bureaucrat unbound, candid and fearless. He tells members of Congress what he really thinks about their pet programs. He upends Pentagon priorities, demotes the military-industrial hardware pipeline and promotes the immediate needs of the troops on the front line. He fires high-ranking subordinates without muss or controversy — an Air Force secretary and chief of staff who didn't agree with him on the need to end production of the F-22 aircraft; the commandant of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who presided over disgraceful conditions; even a well-respected general like David McKiernan, a conventional-warfare specialist unsuited for the asymmetrical struggle in Afghanistan.

...The Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, which essentially ran national-security policy in the first half of the Bush Administration, was stuck in the Cold War. Rather than fight the enemy we had — the stateless terrorists of al-Qaeda — they sought more conventional enemies.

...Gates summoned General David Petraeus — no favorite of Rumsfeld's...Gates was about to travel to Iraq and wanted to know what the big questions were. "The biggest question is whether we have the right strategic concept to fight the war," Petraeus told him. "Instead of concentrating all our efforts on transitioning to Iraqi control, we need to go out and secure the population."...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1901342,00.html

Gates v. Rumsfeld

TW: What makes Gates the most respected Defense Secretary in decades and Rumsfeld a pinata for left and right? They both have tried to reform a very difficult to reform entity, the Pentagon/Defense Dept., which inevitably leads to blow back from Pentagon supporters in Congress and elsewhere. They both have built reputations as autocratic

This piece boils it down to personality, one was a complete asshole the other not as much. It appears how one goes about leadership matters as much or more than where one is leading. An obvious point but one that continuously receives less credit than it deserves.

From author Brad Graham via the Tom Ricks blog:
"It does appear that Gates, who after succeeding Rumsfeld seemed bent on setting himself apart from his predecessor in approach and tone, has in some ways come to mirror him. The micromanaging and the overruling of the military chiefs are just a couple of examples...

But in personal style, Gates has remained distinctly different from Rumsfeld, and this has been a key to his success. He has shown little of the arrogance, the dismissiveness, the discourtesy of his predecessor. He has managed to convey firmness and decisiveness without being overbearing and offensive. Most significantly, he has restored a measure of accountability without breeding deep resentment and making himself unpopular. While Rumsfeld in six years fired only one top official (Tom White), Gates in two-and-a-half years has already removed six (Harvey, Pace, Fallon, Wynn, Moseley and McKiernan). And yet Gates has none of the bullying, domineering image that Rumsfeld seemed to cultivate. Rather, he has demonstrated an ability to exercise strong civilian leadership with reason and just cause.

Significantly, too, Gates has brought a sense of balance to a Pentagon that Rumsfeld had kept in a swirl. His lack of flare and self-promotion have been a relief after the theatrics of his predecessor. In the Rumsfeld tradition, Gates has persisted in prodding the military to think outside its box. But he has taken a quieter approach and, at the same time, refocused the military transformation process. He talks less about what might be needed for future wars, placing more emphasis on current needs and on how to wage unconventional warfare better.

You didn't ask, but the question of Rumsfeld versus McNamara also may be of interest, since McNamara is the only other Pentagon leader whose term rivals Rumsfeld's for controversy. Both Rumsfeld and McNamara came to the Pentagon from the corporate world exhibiting arrogance and impatience, and both showed similar characteristics in office: keen analytical minds, insatiable appetites for data, predilections for new methods and approaches for problem solving. McNamara may have been more soullessly analytical, and Rumsfeld more intuitive, but both sought tighter civilian control of the military and ordered reappraisals of U.S. strategy. Both also brought with them contingents of civilian aides who shared their determination to shake things up and a propensity to clash with the Joint Chiefs. And both became embroiled in unpopular wars."

Where they differed most notably was in how they ultimately viewed their own tenures. Despite his public cheerleading for the Vietnam War, McNamara privately became dubious about its wisdom and effectiveness while still in office. In later years, he increasingly recognized that he had failed as defense secretary because of mistakes he and others had made in Vietnam. By contrast, Rumsfeld did not leave office doubting his handling of the Iraq War. He has acknowledged no major missteps or shown any remorse on the subject to date. Asked in my final interview with him last fall whether he harbored any regrets, Rumsfeld sounded tired of such queries. "Oh, that's the favorite press question," he quipped."

Why Slowing Any Spending Is So Damn Hard (cont.)

TW: Yesterday I posted on reason #1, slowing defense is so hard- "any time someone proposes the slightest slowdown they are accused of leaving 'Merica open to the enemy". Today's post shows reason #2- "defense not being stupid, spread their production across as many congressional districts as humanly possible, thereby creating a nice little interest group for almost every defense procurement program".

Reason #2 is extremely powerful, bi-partisan and largely immune to rational defense needs. What the armed forces or a POTUS assert as needed fade quickly to secondary importance. Folks whine about the politicians but they are merely reflecting the parochial interests of their constituents, regardless of party folks are happy to cut spending as long as it is not THEIR spending.

From Chicago Tribune:
"In a victory for the Chicago-based aerospace giant, the House included $2.2 billion for eight more C-17s in a war-spending bill. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has called for ending production once the last plane on order rolls off the Long Beach, Calif., assembly line in 2011 as part of a sweeping Pentagon spending reform push.

...But the plane's supporters had reason to be hopeful as a result of the committee chairman's response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who pleaded for funding.

"The senator has good reason to be optimistic," Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) said, suggesting money for the plane is likely to be forthcoming. "I have been and remain a strong supporter of the C-17 program, and I am committed to finding a responsible way to maintain the program."...The fight is seen as a key test of Obama's budget-cutting efforts in the face of lawmakers looking out for their home-state interests. "Once they get used to overriding the president," Loren Thompson, Lexington Institute defense policy analyst, said of Congress, "they'll keep doing it."

The plane, in production since the early 1990s, has the backing of odd-bedfellows, from liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conservative Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). A key reason: Its aircraft parts come from more than 650 suppliers in 43 states." The plane's landing gear comes from Cleveland; its cockpit, nose and cargo ramp and door from St. Louis; engines from Connecticut; avionics from Binghamton, N.Y.; tail sections and engine coverings from Dallas; seats from Phoenix; and so on. The plane provides more than 5,000 jobs in Long Beach and another 15,000 elsewhere in California.

..."Congress is mainly concerned about protecting jobs," Thompson said, pausing, "and votes."

...Top Air Force leaders said Thursday that they simply do not need more cargo planes and that they had far more pressing priorities on which to spend money.Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said the Air Force has 316 large transport aircraft, including the C-17 and C-5 fleets.

A 2005 study said that inventory was sufficient, and a new study due to be completed in the fall will likely reach the same conclusion, Schwartz said.Michael Donley, the Air Force secretary, said if more air mobility is needed it will be cheaper to modernize more of the older C-5 aircraft than build new planes."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri_boeing_may15,0,1195862.story

Why Cutting Any Spending Is So Damn Hard

TW: I am posting a couple of things on defense spending. There are two primary reasons why slowing the rate of growth in defense spending is insanely difficult. Reason #1 is: "any time someone proposes the slightest slowdown they are accused of leaving 'Merica open to the enemy" (tomorrow will post #2).

This has been going on since WWII (before that we meandered more or less blissfully amidst our own isolationism whilst the heathens and Europeans messed amongst themselves). Until about 1990 any hint of lessening the growth was met with ferocious accusations of leaving "Merica vulnerable to the Commies", since 9/11 the Commies have been replaced by Jihadists with the Chinese now emerging as the next great engine to expand defense spending.

Defense spending is a metaphor for all federal spending, everyone bitches about spending too much but few, far too few, are willing to step up and assume responsibility for spending less. Our own armed forces, POTUS and the most highly respected Defense Secretary in decades oppose adding more of these particular programs...and yet.

From Fred Kaplan at Slate:

"...Gates was presenting what he called a "reform budget," reflecting the lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, emphasizing the needs of today over the dubious musings of what might be needed 20 years from now, and recognizing that money is far from limitless.

The legislators, especially some Republicans (and Joe Lieberman), were wringing their hands as if Gates' budget—more than a half-trillion dollars, not counting another $130 billion to sustain the two wars we're fighting—amounted to a pittance and as if even slight cuts in marginal weapons systems would plunge America into serious danger.

Take the secretary's exchange with Sen. Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama. Sessions was worked up over cuts in the missile defense program. Gates was cutting back the number of Alaska-based interceptors from 44 to 30; he was canceling the multiple-kill vehicle and the airborne laser. What, Sessions asked, is going on here?

Gates replied that he's supported missile defense ever since President Reagan started the program back in 1983 but that the Pentagon had to consider practicalities. The Alaska interceptors are good for one thing—shooting down missiles launched from North Korea—and 30 interceptors are more than enough to deal with that (still hypothetical) threat. The multiple-kill vehicle was designed during the Cold War to ward off a huge attack by the Soviet Union. The policy for the past eight years has been to counter small attacks by rogue nations or terrorists, so a weapon designed to shoot down lots of missiles at once isn't needed, even if it were to work (which, though he didn't say so, is extremely unlikely). The airborne laser—a 747 airplane fitted with a laser beam that would destroy enemy missiles as they blasted out of their silos, before they entered outer space—has a basic conceptual problem. First, we would have to buy 28 planes just to keep enough of them in the air at one time. Second, to get within range of the enemy missile bases, they'd have to loiter inside the airspace of, say, Iran and North Korea—and that just isn't going to happen.

Finally, Gates was recommending a mere 10 percent cut in the missile-defense program, from $10 billion to $9 billion. This was hardly a slash job.

...The salient fact is that Gates had scrutinized the program and taken out elements that were plainly unnecessary or absurd. Sessions was looking at the program as an abstraction and its budget-figure as a symbolic show of strength. If this were anything other than the defense budget, Sessions would be derided as a paragon of senseless waste.

As Gates put it, a lot of the cuts he'd imposed were "kind of no-brainers … poster children for an acquisition program gone wrong..."
http://www.slate.com/id/2218407/pagenum/all/#p2

Enhancing Our National Security By Slowing Defense Spending Growth

TW: We were blissfully residing in the one state most vulnerable at the time of the launch that Korean missile. I can state unequivocally that concern was minimal or rather non-existent. Fox is shamelessly not only biased but egregiously stupid.


TW: One of little issues that popped during our brief sabbatical was the new Obama/Gates defense budget. The progressive media did a good job albeit slightly delayed rebutting the ridiculous meme that Obama was in any way "cutting" the defense budget. It is of course yet again increasing despite the slow drawdown of forces in Iraq (which are still funded largely through supplemental budgeting but the drawdown will reduce overall pressure on equipment etc.).

I am highly skeptical that all of the programs reduced or cut to keep the overall spending from increasing even more will actually remain reduced or cut but thankfully Gates et al. are moving to stop a freight train that will only accelerate if not controlled aggressively. If we are to have ANY hope of managing on national spending, defense must be integrated into the equation. Simplistic bloviation about "leaving our nation vulnerable" whenever any steps are taken to reign in defense programming are not only foolish but in fact harm our national defense by creating unsustainable weapons systems and programs. Kudos to Gates (and Obama)!!

A Simple Stimulus Example

TW: A simple example of how government spending mitigates the collapse of demand. This is one type of stimulus the Republicans almost never oppose but for some reason cannot understand how it could work for almost any other type of spending (prison construction excepted of course).

From Floyd Norris at NYT:
"The durable goods orders for December, released today, provide more evidence that the economy fell off sharply late last year. There is a little bit of evidence that things stabilized a bit in January, but it is too early to say.

As it is, using a three-month moving average to smooth out somewhat volatile numbers, durable goods orders from October to December were down 16.8 percent compared with the same period of 2007. That is the sharpest year-over-year fall since they started collecting data in 1958.
But the real news is in the breakdown. Durable goods orders other than the military were down 18.6 percent, also a record. Within that group, car industry orders were off 25.9 percent, and nonmilitary aircraft and parts orders — hello, Boeing — were down 66.9 percent.
But military orders were up 18.4 percent.
Pentagon orders are notoriously volatile, so that might be a fluke if it was not continuing a trend. For the whole year, such orders were up 26.8 percent, while orders for nonmilitary goods were down 7.3 percent.
Perhaps that was economic stimulus. Perhaps it was an effort to spend the money before the Democrats took over. In either case, the Pentagon seems to be one of the few willing buyers these days."