Why Democrats Advocate Cutting Defense Spending for Healthcare and Education
During a lecture, a veteran in my class once expressed his frustration, saying, 'Do you know how much money is wasted in the military?' He highlighted stories of multimillion-dollar aircrafts that were built and never used, only to be dismantled. According to him, if the money saved from such wastage were redirected, it would be enough to fund education for every college student and healthcare for every American citizen.
The United States accounts for nearly 40% of global military spending, and it devotes a larger proportion of its GDP to defense than most other countries. The defense spending is often criticized for not going where it is needed most, such as the salaries and wellbeing of servicepersons and their families, or in funding the VA (Veterans Administration).
A Wasted Resource: The Need to Cut Defense Spending
Democrats argue that defense spending should be curtailed, specifically targeting parts that are unnecessary. These funds are then redirected towards more critical areas such as education and healthcare. It is not merely an act of cutting defense spending but a stance against unnecessary war-mongering actions.
The logic behind this is simple: the Pentagon is primarily focused on spreading war rather than defending the American people. Therefore, reducing defense spending would allow resources to be reallocated to more essential areas. Other nations spend a much smaller proportion of their GDP on defense, yet their soldiers' needs and welfare are adequately met without such vast over-expenditure.
Political Hypocrisy and Wasteful Spending
It's disheartening to see that despite the clear need for redirection, the budgets for the military continue to increase year after year. Most politicians either vote for the seemingly useless wars or spend little to no time protesting against these overspending issues. It's a stark contrast to the public's desires.
The arguments against more defense spending are straightforward. Defense spending is part of the cycle of pump-priming the economy. Governments collect taxes and other forms of revenue and then spend that money on various services. These services range from infrastructure like roads and bridges to direct social services such as healthcare and education. The logic is that by providing these services, the government is fulfilling its core function of keeping money circulating through the economy.
Yet, the critical distinction is made when it comes to military spending. While spending on healthcare, education, and other government services might be seen as "socialistic," funding a standing military is often framed as a necessary means to ensure the 'freedom' of the nation. This dichotomy is curious and often questioned.
Conclusion: Redirecting Resources to Social Expenditures
Understandably, governments need to spend money to maintain these services and keep the economy moving. However, the allocation must be carefully considered to prioritize needs over excesses. By cutting unnecessary defense spending, the United States can allocate more resources towards essential areas such as education, healthcare, and social programs. This reallocation of funds is not only a matter of efficiency but a step towards ensuring the well-being of every American citizen, including veterans.
Ultimately, the argument for redirecting defense spending towards more critical social needs is not just about fiscal responsibility but also about the moral imperative to address the needs of the American people. With the right redirection of funds, every American can benefit from improved quality of life, better healthcare, and more opportunities for education.