I frequently am called upon to address defense-industry audiences—offsites, board meetings, etc.—about the outlook for weapons spending.
I always begin by reminding the assembled executives that their customer isn’t a military service or defense agency, it’s a political system.
That is a market reality worth bearing in mind as the Biden administration puts together its military spending plans for the next three years.
There is a widespread belief that the administration’s 2022 defense request was just a placeholder until it gets sorted out, and that big changes are coming in 2023 when key appointees are in place and defense reviews have been completed.
However, there are compelling electoral reasons why Biden’s defense posture, especially his approach to weapons purchases, may continue to resemble the Trump priorities he inherited.
All you have to do is look at the razor-thin majorities Democrats command in Congress to see why changes in major programs could portend doom for their control of the government.
In the House, the loss of four votes would prevent Democrats from securing a majority for their agenda; in the Senate, the loss of even one vote could prove fatal.
So, if the pattern of midterm elections under recent Democratic presidents repeats next year, with sizable losses in both chambers, Biden could find his party severely weakened as it prepares for the next presidential contest in 2024.
The reason weapons spending may prove pivotal in next year’s midterms and beyond is that military outlays are by far the largest pot of discretionary spending that any administration controls, and weapons accounts are more subject to sudden shifts than, say, readiness.
For instance, Caspar Weinberger funded huge increases in weapons outlays during his time as Ronald Reagan’s defense secretary in the 1980s.
Only a decade later, after the Cold War ended, defense secretary Dick Cheney canceled a hundred major weapons programs during his four-year run in the same job.
Thus, it seems that among the various discretionary accounts that an administration can leverage to secure political support, weapons outlays deliver the greatest potential for influencing votes.
The Biden administration knows this, and probably will review any changes proposed by the Pentagon in its weapons accounts in light of the likely political fallout.
For example, the Navy has been talking about ending production of its Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in order to pursue a bigger warship.
Any such move would inevitably result in thousands of layoffs at Bath Iron Works, the biggest industrial employer in Maine.
If you doubt that the potential electoral consequences of mass layoffs at Bath will figure in administration defense plans, then you don’t understand how Washington works.
Against that backdrop, here are four states with sizable defense-industry workforces that are up for grabs in the next presidential election—states that went for Biden in 2020 but could easily go the other way in 2024.
The Biden White House will have to consider what any bold plans for shifting Pentagon investment priorities might mean for the vote in these states.
Arizona. Biden won Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes with 49.4% of the ballots cast, compared to 49.0% for Donald Trump. It doesn’t get much closer than that.
The state’s 5,000+ defense contractors benefit handsomely from weapons spending, having received nearly $13 billion in Pentagon contracts during 2020. Raytheon’s missile business is one of the biggest employers in the state, and fellow aerospace contractor Honeywell also employs thousands.
It wouldn’t take much to shift Biden’s 11,000-vote margin in Arizona to a Republican candidate in 2024—Obama lost the state in both elections—nor to flip marginal congressional districts in 2022. Thus, the impact of weapons initiatives on local jobs will have to be assessed if the White House wants to avoid an electoral backlash.
Florida. The Sunshine State is arguably the biggest prize in presidential politics, since the two states with larger populations—California and Texas—are considered to be safely in the pocket of one or the other party.Trump won Florida last year with 51.2% of the vote to Biden’s 47.9%, but the previous two presidential races were won in the state by barely 1%.
So it probably has electoral implications that this particular battleground state has 16,000 defense contractors and last year received over $16 billion in Pentagon contracts. In fact, since 2000 Florida has received a quarter-trillion dollars in military contracts, much of it related to weapons work.
Unlike in Arizona, the Florida defense complex is spread out statewide among many prime contractors, from BAE Systems in the Panhandle to Northrop Grumman
NOC
in Melbourne to Raytheon in St. Petersburg to Sikorsky in West Palm Beach. Any generalized reduction in Pentagon weapons outlays would inevitably destroy jobs across the state.
Pennsylvania. The Keystone State didn’t favor a Republican presidential candidate after Ronald Reagan left office until Donald Trump appeared on the ballot in 2016. Trump beat Clinton by 44,000 votes that year and lost by barely 1% four years later (48.8% to Biden’s 50.0%).
Close presidential races tend to be the rule in the nation’s fifth-most-populous state, which implies that relatively minor developments can have outsized consequences for Pennsylvania’s 18 Electoral College votes. How the Pentagon treats the state’s 11,000 military contractors might prove significant in a close race.
Like Florida, Pennsylvania’s defense complex is spread out, with only a handful of really big operations like the BAE Systems armored-vehicle plant in York and the Boeing
BA
rotorcraft plant near Philadelphia. But many of the small and medium-size suppliers are subcontractors on big-ticket weapons programs like the F-35 fighter, so a few program changes could have employment implications across the state.
Wisconsin. The Almanac of American Politics predicted in 2018 that Wisconsin might prove “the most pivotal battleground contest for Trump’s reelection bid,” acknowledging that a repetition of Trump’s 2016 win in the Badger State was by no means assured. As it turned out, Biden won with 49.4% of the vote in the state to 48.8% for Trump—a difference of 21,000 votes out of over three million cast.
Time will tell whether Wisconsin has returned to its long tradition of favoring Democratic presidential candidates. But Democrats will have to assume the worst in 2024, and thus strain to secure every available vote. That makes the state’s 4,000 defense contractors potentially important, even though on a per capita basis Wisconsin only brings in a fraction of the defense dollars that, for instance, Arizona does.
The biggest in-state prime contractors are Marinette Marine, which last year was awarded the Navy’s next frigate, and Oshkosh Defense, builder of almost all the Army’s trucks. Trump sought to capitalize on the frigate award in the 2020 election, and given its importance to the local economy Biden is unlikely to change course. Oshkosh has performed well on the Army’s newest light truck, which makes it easy for the White House to keep that effort on track.
Bottom line: weapons spending is only one component of federal spending, but in the battleground states where political control is ultimately determined, it has the potential to be decisive.
Several of the companies mentioned here contribute to my think tank.
Moe is set to speak in the city of Yorkton about affordability measures this morning before travelling to the nearby village of Theodore for an event with the local Saskatchewan Party candidate.
NDP Leader Carla Beck doesn’t have any events scheduled, though several party candidates are to hold press conferences.
On Thursday, Moe promised a directive banning “biological boys” from using school changing rooms with “biological girls” if re-elected.
The NDP said the Saskatchewan Party was punching down on vulnerable children.
Election day is Oct. 28.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 18, 2024.
REGINA – Saskatchewan Party Leader Scott Moe is promising a directive banning “biological boys” from using school changing rooms with “biological girls” if re-elected, a move the NDP’s Carla Beck says weaponizes vulnerable kids.
Moe made the pledge Thursday at a campaign stop in Regina. He said it was in response to a complaint that two biological males had changed for gym class with girls at a school in southeast Saskatchewan.
He said the ban would be his first order of business if he’s voted again as premier on Oct. 28.
It was not previously included in his party’s campaign platform document.
“I’ll be very clear, there will be a directive that would come from the minister of education that would say that biological boys will not be in the change room with biological girls,” Moe said.
He added school divisions should already have change room policies, but a provincial directive would ensure all have the rule in place.
Asked about the rights of gender-diverse youth, Moe said other children also have rights.
“What about the rights of all the other girls that are changing in that very change room? They have rights as well,” he said, followed by cheers and claps.
The complaint was made at a school with the Prairie Valley School Division. The division said in a statement it doesn’t comment on specific situations that could jeopardize student privacy and safety.
“We believe all students should have the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe and welcoming learning environment,” it said.
“Our policies and procedures align with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.”
Asked about Moe’s proposal, Beck said it would make vulnerable kids more vulnerable.
Moe is desperate to stoke fear and division after having a bad night during Wednesday’s televised leaders’ debate, she said.
“Saskatchewan people, when we’re at our best, are people that come together and deliver results, not divisive, ugly politics like we’ve seen time and again from Scott Moe and the Sask. Party,” Beck said.
“If you see leaders holding so much power choosing to punch down on vulnerable kids, that tells you everything you need to know about them.”
Beck said voters have more pressing education issues on their minds, including the need for smaller classrooms, more teaching staff and increased supports for students.
People also want better health care and to be able to afford gas and groceries, she added.
“We don’t have to agree to understand Saskatchewan people deserve better,” Beck said.
The Saskatchewan Party government passed legislation last year that requires parents consent to children under 16 using different names or pronouns at school.
The law has faced backlash from some LGBTQ+ advocates, who argue it violates Charter rights and could cause teachers to out or misgender children.
Beck has said if elected her party would repeal that legislation.
Heather Kuttai, a former commissioner with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission who resigned last year in protest of the law, said Moe is trying to sway right-wing voters.
She said a change room directive would put more pressure on teachers who already don’t have enough educational support.
“It sounds like desperation to me,” she said.
“It sounds like Scott Moe is nervous about the election and is turning to homophobic and transphobic rhetoric to appeal to far-right voters.
“It’s divisive politics, which is a shame.”
She said she worries about the future of gender-affirming care in a province that once led in human rights.
“We’re the kind of people who dig each other out of snowbanks and not spew hatred about each other,” she said. “At least that’s what I want to still believe.”
Also Thursday, two former Saskatchewan Party government members announced they’re endorsing Beck — Mark Docherty, who retired last year and was a Speaker, and Glen Hart, who retired in 2020.
Ian Hanna, a speech writer and senior political adviser to former Saskatchewan Party premier Brad Wall, also endorsed Beck.
Earlier in the campaign, Beck received support from former Speaker Randy Weekes, who quit the Saskatchewan Party earlier this year after accusing caucus members of bullying.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 17, 2024.
REGINA – Saskatchewan‘s provincial election is on Oct. 28. Here’s a look at some of the campaign promises made by the two major parties:
Saskatchewan Party
— Continue withholding federal carbon levy payments to Ottawa on natural gas until the end of 2025.
— Reduce personal income tax rates over four years; a family of four would save $3,400.
— Double the Active Families Benefit to $300 per child per year and the benefit for children with disabilities to $400 a year.
— Direct all school divisions to ban “biological boys” from girls’ change rooms in schools.
— Increase the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit to $15,000 from $10,000.
— Reintroduce the Home Renovation Tax Credit, allowing homeowners to claim up to $4,000 in renovation costs on their income taxes; seniors could claim up to $5,000.
— Extend coverage for insulin pumps and diabetes supplies to seniors and young adults
— Provide a 50 per cent refundable tax credit — up to $10,000 — to help cover the cost of a first fertility treatment.
— Hire 100 new municipal officers and 70 more officers with the Saskatchewan Marshals Service.
— Amend legislation to provide police with more authority to address intoxication, vandalism and disturbances on public property.
— Platform cost of $1.2 billion, with deficits in the first three years and a small surplus in 2027.
—
NDP
— Pause the 15-cent-a-litre gas tax for six months, saving an average family about $350.
— Remove the provincial sales tax from children’s clothes and ready-to-eat grocery items like rotisserie chickens and granola bars.
— Pass legislation to limit how often and how much landlords can raise rent.
— Repeal the law that requires parental consent when children under 16 want to change their names or pronouns at school.
— Launch a provincewide school nutrition program.
— Build more schools and reduce classroom sizes.
— Hire 800 front-line health-care workers in areas most in need.
— Launch an accountability commission to investigate cost overruns for government projects.
— Scrap the marshals service.
— Hire 100 Mounties and expand detox services.
— Platform cost of $3.5 billion, with small deficits in the first three years and a small surplus in the fourth year.
—
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct .17, 2024.
