A lot of interesting reader responses to the “It’s About Geography” post earlier, many agreeing wholeheartedly with TPM Reader JH, but some, like regular TPM Reader DC, taking exception:
A quick check of the Statistical Abstract of the United States indicates that in 2006 the top fourteen states in prime contracts per capita (i.e. those states that gained more than their populations might warrant) were, in order: Virginia, Alaska, Connecticut, Mississippi, Maryland, Missouri, Hawaii, Arizona, Alabama, Massachusetts, Vermont, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas.
Yes, the South is well represented here (if you count Maryland and Virginia as credibly “southern”); but so is New England (Connecticut and Massachusetts have long been among the most defense-dependent states in the country). Six of the above states voted for Obama in 2008. Georgia, BTW, is far down the list. In terms of absolute expenditures, the top three are … California, Texas, and Virginia.
Your correspondent is basically trotting out the old Kirkpatrick Sale/Bruce Schulman argument that the South systematically milked the blue states to gain federal subsidies. But in fact, throughout most of the post-WWII era, the South actually did *worse* than the rest of the country in terms of prime contracts–and procurement has accounted for at least sixty percent of US defense spending.
TBS, the South does indeed embrace a disproportionate share of active and retired military and dependents, and has since World War II. But what that has to do with issues involving the reshuffling of defense *procurement* is beyond me.
Yes, Chambliss will go to bat for Lockheed Martin–as Chris Dodd will for Electric Boat and Snowe and Collins for the Bath Iron Works (Does your correspondent know they exist? Does he know Fort Dix exists? That it’s in the Northeast?). But in the end, the Republican response to the Gates/Obama proposal isn’t about geography; it’s simply a repeat of the old Republican effort to paint everything Democrats do on defense as “soft.”
