“In the 14th century it was the church that lived in symbiosis with the military. Nowadays it is the politicians. The US government spent a staggering $687bn on “defense” in 2010. Think what could be done with that money if it were put into hospitals, schools or to pay off foreclosed mortgages.”
I can sympathize with the thought that perhaps much of that money was wasted. I’ve worked in the defense industry for 33 years and I’ve produced equipment that went straight from receipt to the scrap heap. It was even known that was what would happen to it before it was ordered. Defense contracts, like any rent seeking behavior, generate its own constituency. It finances those constituencies and those constituencies finance campaigns and provide graft to politicians. (Free rides on the corporate jet, vacations in company owned hunting lodges, infinite golfing, to name a few.)
But when the author says, suppose we put money into hospitals, schools and paid off mortgages, he undermines his argument. These merely redirect the money to different constituencies, who then provide a different sort of graft. Michelle Obama, for example, had a well-paid position in a hospital with a vague job description. She got a million dollar award through her husband for the hospital and she got a substantial raise. Then, when she could no longer fill the role and had to leave the hospital eliminated her position. That’s just one example of how giving money away creates graft.
If there’s a choice on where to uselessly spend money, I’d prefer the graft be spent on the military. Given how rapidly wars progress today you can’t ramp up to build something after the conflict starts. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld famously observed, “You don’t go to war with the Army you want. You go to war with the Army you have.”
I agree with you that the military is not the only place where taxpayer’s money is wasted, redirecting it to another bunch of grifters is not a good idea.