Greg Guma: Military Spending, Where are the Jobs?

In a recent Vermont debate about the impacts of bedding F-35A fighter jets at the Burlington International Airport, the arguments in support often come down to balancing noise and other impacts against economic necessities and benefits. Whatever the outcome, it has raised renewed questions about the economic impacts of military spending. A new study finds that money spent on clean energy, health care, and education would create many more jobs than if the same money is spent on defense. Dire warnings that thousands of Vermont jobs are at risk due to looming defense cuts and related changes in Air Force priorities may turn out to be overstated, or at least premature. In March, a report commissioned by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) predicted that Vermont would lose upwards of 2,100 jobs if automatic defense cuts were triggered by the failure of Congress to reach a budget deal. Vermont Air National Guard jobs were reportedly also on the line: Under the Pentagons initial budget the Air Guard could see a loss of 9,900 jobs nationally over the next five years, including 3,900 active duty personnel and 900 members of the Air Force reserve. Two months later, such outcomes look less likely. Research meanwhile indicates that funding for clean energy, health care, and education would create substantially more jobs. The AIA study, conducted for the aerospace industry in 2011 by Dr Stephen Fuller of George Mason University, projects that more than a million jobs could be lost nationwide, if sequestration leads to a projected $600 billion cut in the defense budget. The Pentagon and other analysts forecast more conservatively that $1 trillion in cuts over a decade would add one percentage point to the unemployment rate!