Ron Paul wants to build more bases in the U.S.

[Saving Hawaii]

29. "why I said not for the reasons Paul is suggesting"

I didn't see that part.

Anyways, I don't think its wise to try a modified WPA via the military. 95% of the point of a WPA-style program is that it provides employment opportunities. You're suggesting passing off these bases in a year or so, but a military enlistment is 4 years. Where are we going to house all of these new soldiers, especially if we're shutting down bases that we just built? Especially since the new bases are barely adequate for troops being relocated from Europe and East Asia to the United States. And is it at all wise to lock so many people into 4-year military enlistments when the entire goal is to get them a productive job in the civilian economy as soon as possible? Also too, long economics lesson short, military employees have different spending habits than their civilian counterparts. The magic of the Keynesian multiplier, which is the most important thing about a WPA-style program, doesn't work nearly as well with soldiers as it does with regular civilians. Might as well just give the money to rich people.

It's not good for the military either. I think we could afford a drastically-scaled down military, but it's dangerous to dink with what the military needs to deal with. Their job is to kill people (or at least to practice doing so). If instead you make them spend most of their time digging ditches, they don't become good at killing people and we end up with a military that can't do its primary job effectively. It's important for them to focus on preparing to do what it is that they do. That's their job. Not building hospitals for civilian purposes.

If you want a WPA-styled program, then demand a WPA-styled program. This whole WPA-via-military doesn't work. None of the military officers are going to sign off on that because it badly affects their fighting capabilities, and it doesn't make much sense from an economics perspective either.