The Pros And Cons Of Military Spending

Military Spending is Not the Only Way to Spur Economic Growth

Economic Growth Through Investment in Public Education

An examination of government spending on public education and infrastructure shows a pressing need for funding, as well as great opportunity for economic development. Public schools are falling by the wayside as they are consistently getting less and less government funding. Local and state governments account for the vast majority of education spending. In 2014, federal education spending declined to 0.6 percent, and it is projected to be at 0.47 percent of GDP in 2020. (Chantrill). Conversely, The World Bank reports that US military spending accounted for 3.3 percent of the nation’s GDP in 2015 (Anon, World Bank). According

Federal infrastructure investment is drastically low at 0.5 percent of GDP. This is problematic for the US economy because the condition of things like bridges and roads has a large impact on economic growth and function. A lot of the current infrastructure, including the interstate highway system and many different water works, were built following World War II. These are outdated, and it is starting to show. The Federal Highway Administration reported in a survey that about 20 percent of the roads in the US are in bad condition, and the American Society of Civil Engineers rated the US’ infrastructure a D+. This is clearly an area that is not heavily privatized but instead needs government investment, more so than the military. Researchers at UMass-Amherst found that $1 billion in military spending created $555 jobs, while spending $1 billion on public transit created 19,795 jobs. Higher infrastructure spending would clearly create more jobs than defense spending (Amadeo, Current US Discretionary Spending). Raising funding for infrastructure would increase the productivity of the national economy, which would facilitate long term growth. In the short term, heightened infrastructure spending would create jobs for people to work on the developing projects. Jobs to maintain the new or repaired pieces of infrastructure will also exist into the long term. The Council of

United States citizens want the government to reduce its defense spending, and there are researched areas that have been proven to be a more effective investment of government funds. The government knows this information, which begs the question of why it refuses to change the way it budgets its money. The first answer is that there would be a short term drop in employment, as the economy transitions to accommodate the drastic changes in government funding. People would lose their jobs and military contractors would experience losses. This would be problematic, but the long-term result would cut down on the budget deficit and spur the economy. It would also create jobs for many currently unemployed Americans. The second answer is that the government is rife with people at the top that have relationships or backgrounds with either the military or corporations that benefit from defense spending. All the presidents from Truman to Reagan served in the military, and the post-Truman era marks the beginning of the idea of the Permanent War Economy. Since then many presidents have had connections to the economic elite, and Secretaries of Defense have often come from the business world, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. These connections have a marked influence on defense spending, and those at the top of the government must make concerted