It is NOT "Welfare". We get a LOT more in return (In the form of an ally in the Middle East) than what we pay.
I would like to take issue with this.
Democrats could say that public payments are owed to low-income people who live in solidly Repulican states so that they will have "allies" in those areas (actually, this is the exact arguement that they make).
We could say that public assistance is owed in economically depressed areas so that we have "allies" in the area.
Being, or not being, and ally should not depend on bribery. You should want to be an ally because you agree with the political philopshy of the other country. Saying "I am no longer an ally if I do not get X amount of dollars", suggests a false and totally conditional friendship. I don't think that we should have to pay anyone to be our ally. They should do so willingly, and happily, without condition.
Anything beyond this does fall under the conventional definition of welfare, or bribery, or both.
No money should have to change hands between friends, in order for them to remain friends.
That is my humble opinion.