July 01, 2007
Comment on the Alleged Trade Off Between Going to War and a Domestic Agenda -Becker
I have not read Bator's monograph, but I am doubtful about the claims he makes to explain Lyndon Johnson's support of the Vietnam War. Posner discusses well the dubiousness of any assertion that the Great Society Program added enough value to justify the over 50,000 Americans killed, the more than 150,000 wounded, the fissions created in American society, the thousands of Vietnamese killed or injured, and the vast amounts of property and equipment destroyed. The ending of the draft in 1973 and its replacement by a voluntary armed force, clearly an unanticipated consequence of the unpopularity of the war, and possibly one not desired by Lyndon Johnson and many of his advisors, is arguably the most beneficial outcome of the war.
I do not know what President Johnson thought, but the war is unlikely to have helped much, and possibly it hindered, the passing of the Great Society program. Consider some of the centerpieces of this program. Posner quotes Bator as justifying the War in part because of passage of the Voting Rights Act that effectively gave the franchise to blacks who had been disenfranchised in some southern states. That Act is important, but it would have been passed had the war not occurred. For the civil rights movement began in the 1950's, partly with the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court in 1954 that ended formal desegregation of southern schools. Giving the growing political and economic clout of blacks, and their allies in both parties-after all, President Eisenhower, a Republican, called in the troops to force integration in the Little Rock school system- one cannot reasonably argue that the Vietnam War hastened to any significant degree the passage of the Voting Act.
Or consider Medicare and Medicaid, passed under Johnson, which involved an enormous expansion of the role of the federal government in financing medical care. These Acts had a profound impact on the availability of doctors and hospitals to the elderly and poor. Possibly, the Vietnam War quickened the passing of these Acts by a few years, but it is highly unlikely that it did more than that. Western Europe and all the other OECD countries also had very large expansions in government financed medical care during the past 40 years, and none of them had any significant part in the Vietnam war, or any other war during this time period.
The past several decades were the decades that defined the growth of the welfare state in all rich countries. The United States would not have resisted this trend even if the Vietnam War had not occurred. After all, the welfare state expanded under practically all presidents after World War II, regardless of political party. Expansion of governments into the financing of the welfare, pension, and health areas was "in the air", and the war at most speeded up its introduction a little. Several years' advancement in timing is a small gain for the large price America paid from its casualties and defeat in this war.
Budgetary considerations are also relevant in evaluating Bator's argument. Wars usually put pressure to keep down other government spending in order to reduce the rise in the budget deficit. This certainly happened during World War II and the Korean War, where non-war spending fell by 11 per cent per year from 1940-45 (the period of U.S. involvement in World War II), and 6 per cent per year during 1950-1953 (the Korean War years). The first term of George W. Bush's administration during the Iraq War is one exception since spending on domestic programs during this term grew by about 5 per cent per year, and the budget deficit grew rapidly. Domestic spending was constrained during the second term while spending on the war increased much further.
The Vietnam War period is another exception since non-war spending grew by 14 per cent per year from 1965-1971, the main period of this war. That growth clearly reflects the Great Society spending expansion. Whether this expansion of domestic programs was caused by the war, as argued by Bator, is less persuasive, however. For the Democrats not only controlled the presidency but also Congress during this period, and considerable evidence indicates that overall federal spending grows more rapidly when one party controls both the legislative and executive branches. That interpretation would also explain the difference between Bush's two terms because the Republicans controlled Congress as well during the first term, but not during most of his second term. Since expansion of domestic programs is the rule rather than the exception when one party controls all the branches of the federal government, it does not seem as if Johnson needed to go to war to get the Great Society programs he wanted.
Posted by becker at 03:54 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1590
Comments
War == Money! Very very simple! Companys like lockheed martian would not have so much money if not for that!
Posted by Watches at July 1, 2007 08:25 PM | direct link
When you say that the welfare program woould have expanded irrespective of the decision of fighting the war in Vietnam, you also mention that this expansion may have been slower. Which means that it is quite possible that the Great Society program would have only come to fruition in some body else's presidency, something Johnson may not have approved of. Thus the tradeoff.
Posted by as at July 1, 2007 09:11 PM | direct link
When you say that the welfare program woould have expanded irrespective of the decision of fighting the war in Vietnam, you also mention that this expansion may have been slower. Which means that it is quite possible that the Great Society program would have only come to fruition in some body else's presidency, something Johnson may not have approved of. Thus the tradeoff.
Posted by as at July 1, 2007 09:11 PM | direct link
Professor Becker says:
“Expansion of governments into the financing of the welfare, pension, and health areas was "in the air", and the war at most speeded up its introduction a little. Several years' advancement in timing is a small gain…”
Let me question the use of the word ‘gain’. This non-economist is concerned about the sustainability of the welfare state. USA Today recently ran a story about unfunded government liabilities running at $60 trillion. Senator Coburn had a release putting us on the hook for $70 trillion, growing by $3 trillion per year. Compare with US aggregate home equity at around $10 trillion.
It is naïve to believe that our electorate will vote to cut their own benefits and it looks to me like we’re about to go for ‘free’ health care for all. If you believe the Heritage Foundation, the high school dropouts joining us from down south cost the taxpayer $20,000 per household per year, accelerating the liabilities. The average family of four has something nearing one million dollars of unfunded debt around their neck.
Who’s going to pay for all of this? If the rich are targeted with wealth taxes; Bloomberg will go to the Bahamas, Gates will go to Belize, Clinton will go to the Dominican Republic, and Bush will go to Paraguay. Citizenship in Central and South America can be ‘negotiated’ very quickly for men of means and it will be very hard for the electorate to get to them.
Is the end game a collapse of our credit rating and domestic upheaval when the checks stop showing up for a hundred million dependent people?
Posted by Bill at July 1, 2007 10:14 PM | direct link
Prof Becker says,
"For the civil rights movement began in the 1950's, partly with the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court in 1954 that ended formal desegregation of southern schools. Giving the growing political and economic clout of blacks, and their allies in both parties-after all, President Eisenhower, a Republican, called in the troops to force integration in the Little Rock school system- one cannot reasonably argue that the Vietnam War hastened to any significant degree the passage of the Voting Act."
There are two errors here. First, it was formal SEGREGATION of southern schools that was ended by Brown. Second, Eisenhower called in the troops to force DE-SEGREGATION. The court appears to have been careful (in Brown and all but one of the subsequent similar cases) to force de-segregation where there had been de jure or de facto segregation, realizing that there is no constitutional basis for forcing integration of races (or its modern manifestation, “diversity”).
Posted by jimbino at July 2, 2007 11:04 AM | direct link
So, Becker refers to “the thousands of Vietnamese killed or injured.” Make that more than two thousand thousand. Yes, the number is generally put at between 2 and 3 million. I suppose that talking about the thousands of Jews and others gassed by Hitler is next in order. May the Lord save us from such economists turned spin-doctors: economists with no scruples whatever when it comes to misrepresenting numbers. I say, “U-Chic, lay off this hack!”
Posted by chaste lepimp at July 2, 2007 01:20 PM | direct link
Perhaps LBJ's approach to the Vietnam Conflict may have been a sly Keynesian move on the Administration's part to increase the demand side of the equation by creating a boom in the military-industrial complex side of the economy (something Eisenhower warned the Nation about before leaving office). This boom created tens of thousands of jobs and their payroll taxes that could help finance the Great Society programs. Clever, Huh!
Posted by n.e.hat at July 4, 2007 06:40 PM | direct link
