
Wall Street Journal (5/12/23): “The drama in Washington this spring reflects a deeper political impasse that risks crimping military-spending growth in future budget negotiations.”
The Wall Street Journal is very concerned about the effects of the debt limit fight…on military contractors. In an article (5/12/23) headlined “Debt-Ceiling Fight Weighs on Defense Industry,” the paper reported, “If the US defaults on its debt and is unable to pay all its bills this summer, the pain will fall squarely on the defense industry.”
A default could disrupt payments to military contractors, the Journal pointed out, and even a temporary suspension of the debt ceiling for several months “would raise the likelihood the Defense Department will have to make do with a temporary budget known as a continuing resolution.” This would likely “inflate the costs of military programs, delay the launch of new ones and prevent production increases.” In short, weapons producers might feel a momentary pinch after years of war profits.
But, given the unlikelihood of outright default, the more concerning scenario for the Journal has to do with budget talks. The piece noted that, as the largest item on the discretionary side of the federal budget—which excludes social programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are funded on an ongoing basis—military spending could soon find itself on the chopping block. And who’s taking the pain? Your friendly old drone supplier:
Concerns that military spending could be cut—or, at best delayed—in a debt-ceiling fight have weighed heavily on investor sentiment toward the biggest military contractors. Shares in Lockheed Martin are down this year more than 7%, with General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman off 15% and 20%, respectively.
Dear God, no! We must take action to address the “‘wall of worry’ among investors”!
All the valiant fighters for justice are concerned. We hear from a congressional representative who castigates Republicans who “play chicken with the full faith and credit of our country” and “jeopardize our national security.” Then an Air Force secretary is brought in to sound the alarm about the strategic harms of failing to fund the military.
Where are the voices opposed to increased military spending, who represent the majority of the US public rather than the minority of war profiteers? Probably off playing hackysack. The Journal evidently couldn’t reach them.
The cost of cuts

The Journal article featured an image of a weapons display for Lockheed Martin, whose stock is “down this year more than 7%.”
There’s a hint of hope, though! The piece notes:
While Republicans are seeking a spending freeze, many members have voiced support for a larger increase in the military budget, though it would come at the cost of cuts in other areas.
What these other areas would be remains unspecified. But let’s take a look. According to a recent analysis by the New York Times (5/8/23), if the military budget, along with veterans’ health and the border patrol, are spared from cuts, each remaining area of the discretionary budget would have to be cut in half to satisfy the Republican spending caps. That includes Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others.
It’s beyond absurd to exclude this context, and instead hand-wring about the area of the discretionary budget that appears least likely to face cuts—and, by any reasonable account, the most able to survive them.
Again, as the Washington Post (4/26/23) has reported, “Republicans have promised to focus…cuts on federal healthcare, education, science and labor programs, while sparing defense.”
An article by military analyst William Hartung from last month in Forbes (4/26/23) likewise opened:
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced the outlines of a possible Republican budget plan last week, and the big winner was the Pentagon [emphasis added]. Even as McCarthy called for a freeze in the federal discretionary budget at Fiscal Year 2022 levels as a condition for raising the debt ceiling—a move that he promised Freedom Caucus members when they grudgingly supported his election as speaker in January—he signaled that the Department of Defense would not be impacted.
This is a completely different story from the one that the Wall Street Journal has chosen to promote, and one that has far more basis in reality.
But let’s raise a glass to Raytheon. May they get through these tough times and thrive. If there’s one thing the world is lacking, it’s enough weapons contracts for war profiteers.
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the Wall Street Journal at wsjcontact@wsj.com (or via Twitter: @WSJ) Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.






Dear US Congress and the Military:
Hmmm. the Preamble does begin with WE THE PEOPLE——somehow We the People turned into —-we the corporate CEOS. Hmmm the presidents, Washington , Lincoln and many others would be so disappointed in you—you don’t seem to care about the PEOPLE at all—unless you need bodies for wars.
Speaking of “bodies for wars…” You know US military people—— you haven’t won a war since the 1940s!!!!~~! I would hope that Congress would wait for you to at least win one war before you got any more money. REMEMBER, you don’t want to screw over the PEOPLE—- because… Oh hmmmm, maybe you should read up on what happened when the FRENCH leaders screwed over the PEOPLE…… a lot of heads did roll over that debacle!
Oh and Congress, I think it would be very important for all the elected ones after each election, where the said to be winners need to take a Constitution test, because honestly—quite a few of those elected ones don’t actually seem to now much about their own nation’s history.
So, here’s the plan: Each elected would need to score at least an 80 % on their Constitution test—otherwise—what good are they? Sadly, it seems that there are many stupid, and uninformed people being elected—-and that does not bode well for this nation now, nor does it bode well for a better future!
https://genius.com/Murray-head-say-it-aint-so-joe-lyrics
Say it ain’t so Joe (Biden?)
tRump even gets mentioned!
And we’re gonna get burned…
And of course oh babies,
the real victim of weapons.
Isn’t it time to stop referring to American military spending as for defence? It’s been used solely for wars of aggression since, ooh, at least 1945. The USA is under serious threat of attack by no other government, while it uses its military to provoke many other states.
Gosh, it seems like if Congress like, perceives the debt ceiling fight might be upsetting the military weapons manufacturers’ wonderful peacekeeping efforts and their small and quite reasonable profits will help the swell elected officials have kinda a built in passage since that profit is in their best interests. Seeing the patriotism of our DC heroes as I do, gosh, it would be a no brainer. Don’t you think?
Brilliant analytical journalism, Conor! Thanks
I am not sure why you are supposedly “challenging media bias” but filling the page with your own.
The points of your post are essentially correct – We spend a trillion dollars a year on so-called “defense” to fight enemies that we invent, and the WSJ and (R)’s are cheerleaders of the military industrial. I can say snarky stuff because I’m not pretending to be unbiased. You are. Try harder to clothe your biases, there’s plenty to take issue with, just don’t take shortcuts.
But you don’t fight hack-journalism with hack-“challenges”. Grown ups making their points don’t sink to making lazy comments like “war profiteers”. Everyone who contracts with the government, all $700B+ is there to make a profit, is it their fault for bidding on RFQs? Do you know where a huge part of Lockheed’s, Ratheon, etc. government contracts are actually for? Have l look at their SEC 10-Ks and browse gao.gov dashboard, and SAM.gov. It’s IT /information services , engineering support, etc. which are as useless as their “defense” projects. So they are actually “poor IT project management profiteers” . DoD spends more on drug contracts than aircraft .
Do the legwork. Challenge your own bias and write a “straight” piece – the facts are all there, you don’t need to “tilt” to make your case.