In the past several weeks I’ve been getting quite a few
campaign emails from Neil Livingstone, who’s running for governor in a crowded
Republican field. Livingstone and his running mate, Ryan Zinke, who are usually
in high dudgeon about something, were upset last week because they think that
Max Baucus, Jon Tester and Brian Schweitzer haven’t done enough to “ensure the
continued viability of Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls.” They’re
worried that if the United States moves to reduce the size of its nuclear
arsenal and eliminate its fleet of intercontinental missiles, Malmstrom will be in “real jeopardy.” And they’re fretting about the current
proposal by the Pentagon to move the F-15 fighters currently stationed at
Malmstrom to California and replace them with C-130 cargo planes.
Now if you’ve been longing for the day when you no longer
have to worry so much about nuclear annihilation, or if you think the Pentagon
probably knows best what kinds of planes should be based where, you might
wonder what all the fuss is about. Well,
in a word, it’s jobs. Livingstone and
Zinke are convinced that reducing or changing Malmstrom’s mission would mean Montana
would lose jobs, and they offer some numbers (no source cited) to prove it.
Some of the numbers are pretty big and others quite small, but in the end it
doesn’t make any difference because, in Livingstone’s words, “The loss of a
single job is not acceptable.”
Really? Does Livingstone
really believe that the decision to decommission part of the world’s largest
stockpile of nuclear weapons should turn on the loss of a single job? Does he
really think that the loss of one job is too high a price to pay to use the
nation’s military and fiscal resources more efficiently and effectively? In his emails, Livingstone promises that when
elected he will cut taxes, balance the state budget, and reduce costs. Does he really think he can do that without
cutting a single job?
Well, probably not. Chalk it up to the desperation that
comes at the end of a long and not very promising primary campaign. And understand that what Livingstone is
saying is not a lot different from what a lot of other politicians, from both
parties, are saying as well. At times
like these, in a recession that we just can’t seem to climb out of, job
creation tends to emerge as one of the first, and sometimes the only, things we
consider when we’re making decisions about how to manage public resources. In the process we tend to downplay the other
important values at stake in these decisions – after all, it’s jobs that really
count – and the result can be that we fail to do right by ourselves. We forget that it makes a difference what the
people with the jobs are producing.
Livingstone may go particularly astray here, but we all do
to some degree. In debates about the environment, or natural resource
development, or funding education and the arts, or, well, almost anything, both sides assail each other with claims and
counterclaims about jobs gained or lost depending on whether we do one thing or
another. And the fact that human health
and quality of life, or climate stability, or civic, social and cultural
vitality may be at stake tends to get lost in the shuffle.
Don’t get me wrong. I shouldn’t have to say this, but just
to be on the safe side, I will: jobs and
job growth are very, very important. We all want to live in a country where
anybody who wants a decent job can find one, and where when a worker does get
laid off, it doesn’t take her months to find a new job and get back to work.
That’s not the country we have right now. Too many workers are unemployed and
too many who have lost jobs stay unemployed for far too long. It’s Americans’
number one concern as we approach the 2012 elections, and they expect
government to do something about it.
And government should do something. But the solution lies in
firm and effective macroeconomic management. Even Livingstone and Zinke,
despite their pledge to be fiscally conservative, argue forcefully that government can and does generate job growth through spending. In fact, almost any kind of spending will do
that. But in spending money to stimulate the economy and sustain job growth, we
should use our fiscal resources wisely and efficiently. That means putting people to work in not just
any jobs, but in jobs that build a more just, healthy, secure, and prosperous
nation.
