February 28, 2011

Progressives have a problem

Posted in 2012 Elections, federal budget, Obama administration, role of government, U.S. Economy tagged , , , at 11:20 am by realitytax

We all get that advertising makes an impact, and it follows that our military recruiting benefits from marketing expenditures.  Should voters tell our representatives in Congress to micro-manage ad campaigns for the Defense Department?  In a word, no, but that’s what this hullabaloo is all about.

“There is no argument from Democrats or Republicans that we must reduce our massive debt. But there is fierce discussion and passionate debate concerning how to reduce our deficit.”

The Pragmatic Progressive Forum
28 Feb 2011

If Congress chooses to set limits on what part of the Defense Department budget goes to advertising, including “none,” that’s possibly within their role in tackling the budget deficit. At what level do we want to spend time controlling the specific choices?

According to Wikipedia (see citations below) for the 2010 fiscal year, “the president’s base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on “overseas contingency operations” brings the sum to $663.8 billion.” Now I know the Pentagon pays more than seems reasonable for hardware, and consulting, and other services, and that a penny saved is a penny earned, but when it comes to advertising it’s also a question of return on investment — and while the roughly $16 million that we’re talking about is a lot of cash, relative to that $600+ billion, folks, it’s chump change: less than 1/100 of 1%

So tell me, how much time is it worth arguing over, relative to the other 99.9975% of the Defense Department budget? All progressives will accomplish, other than distracting from other spending decisions, of course, is alienating NASCAR fans: ultimately that mind-set drives them to think their values are more in line with the Republican party.

Image via Army.mil

With over 15 million viewers a week ago for NASCAR’s Daytona 500, the appeal is undeniable even to folks who can’t imagine why “just watching cars driving in a loop” is entertaining. The biggest companies in the U.S. wanted in; they know the value of having their logo seen by that many fan-eyeballs, associating their brands with the race and drivers tends to make influence purchasing. Would Target®, Burger King®, Sherwin-Williams®, and Budweiser® be there if advertising didn’t matter?

Progressive columnists and pundits need to learn two things, fast, if they want to take advantage of the attention that the struggle in Madison is finally generating in the media. First, diversity is good, even when it comes to what we do for entertainment. Second, avoid falling into traps that emphasize differences. It doesn’t help their causes to focus on stuff that makes middle-class Americans think liberal neighbors and/or Democrats in Congress are somehow less in touch with regular people than the elite GOP strategists and politicians.

Winning elections is about more than just getting people to vote. If the Democrats in Congress get drawn into this argument, and start arguing against an iconic pass-time, in a process where narrow margins determine who holds an office and makes budget choices they’ll be conceding electoral might to their opposition for years to come.

______________________________
Wikipedia citations: 

Updated Summary Tables, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2010 (Table S.12)
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf
Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. jeff61b said,

    The point is, there was an actual vote in Congress specifically about this NASCAR sponsorship. If they are taking the time to vote on this, they should defend WHY this is worth doing when we’re cutting benefits to people and laying off people in federal jobs.

    OK, so someone thinks the NASCAR sponsorship is money well spent because it is “advertising” for the military. As if young NASCAR fans are saying to themselves, “Dang, I like that U.S. Army logo on the car that came in third at Talladega. I think I’ll go talk to my Army recruiter.”

    If that’s responsible use of tax dollars, then they need to sponsor something that really appeals to their target demographic, people in their late teens and early twenties.
    I can see it now, “Jersey Shore, sponsored by the U.S. Navy.”.

    Or maybe Snookie can tattoo “We’re looking for a Few Good Men” across her chest.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: