Bodes well or ill...?
I am not "terrified" about shifting military expenditures from military budgets to civil R&D and infrastructure contracts (from which military could benefit as much as any other sector); I insist that this should be occasion for celebration rather than dread. It was, after all, military procurement that fueled post-WWII manufacturing and military R&D developed the internet (not to mention Tang and Velcro). I think that the arguments for military-industrial "lean-ness" - much more a matter of technical (intelligence?), covert (drones?) and interdiction (special forces) capabilities in modern circumstances, rather than expensive, fixed garrisons of operation - have prevailed and luckily so. Armies of occupation are no longer fiscally nor practicably "sustainable". In my opinion, discussion should proceed about how best to transfer surplus assets to civil services and industries. An army that is "too big" or too unwieldy, in modern circumstances, to accomplish the necessary missions is as surely "too big" as corporate holdings have been which failed the public trust. Good "civil defense" is not necessarily an "overbearing offense" (Bush doctrine) and, I argue that, our diplomatical assets are enhanced and should be wisely pursued.
Can they hear us now...?
It bothers me that President Obama has not explained well the "way" we should go; when the bombast against explanations he gives is treated as legitimate/loyal opposition (the political right particularly dislikes a tutorial demeanor) in the popular media and the national "will" is stupefied by bombardment of misinformation from anonymous partisans. Irresponsible business behavior and licensed financial excess has torn the fabric of social well-being, and it is the DUTY of government to provide for just/equitable state of affairs (wherein we can pursue our private/personal happiness) and for the "fair deal" that the President has proffered. The argument that we should mistrust government (which is often cheaper and almost always more transparent the the private sector) but rely, instead, upon the vagaries of "market forces" sounds unlikely to the public ear. The agenda of fitting topics for discussion in our political forum - Fair Deal (opportunity), Broad/Basic Benefits and Standards (regulatory reform), Democratic Way (GETMONEYOUT of politics), Civil Rights (immigration reform), Public-Private Enterprise (infrastructure banking), etc. - has been interrupted by conservative-ish static, I fear. It may be the case that much of the OWS movement is a cringing reaction to the screeching halt to which Republicans have been able to bring political debate. some "place" to occupy in the political debate must be "occupied" by the popular OWS movement before the frequency/bandwith is blocked, so to speak.
As seismic demand-shifts rake across economic regions, following old fissures, before us opens opportunities to "refit" our commerce and industry to more safely withstand global rumblings and fractures. Pioneering toward the future we must build new bridges (leaving the recalcitrance and fearfulness of the "conservative-ish" behind) that can support the passage the many who run along the way.