What else could the US do with the military's $700B?

I was happy to read the following opinion editorial published in the Austin American-Statesman this week.  The two authors state that they are Mennonites, a religious tradition that includes a strong witness for peace.  Their views on military spending are shared by many people in the US who may or may not have a particular religious faith.  In our "Penny Polls" in the high schools, students overwhelmingly vote for the majority of our national treasure to be spent on education, health care and environmental protection rather than on war and preparation for war.  We know that our Penny Polls are not scientific polls, but they do provide a look at what ordinary persons in the US, and young persons in particular, see as most important. 

Here's the op-ed that echoes what we hear from students during our school visits:

What else could the US do with the military's $700B?

by Michael Shirk and Miguel Ferguson  

 As practicing Mennonites, we believe that the resources we have been given and the goods that we produce should be used to foster peace and social justice. This view, far from putting us on the political margin, resonates with the unmistakable warning that was part of President Eisenhower’s farewell address in 1961.

He said: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of undue influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex.” Unfortunately, for the last half century, Democrats and Republicans alike have insisted on funding the military and foreign wars of occupation with enormous expenditures of taxpayer money. This year, both the House and the Senate have passed versions of a $700 billion military budget. Adjusted for inflation, this is approximately twice the amount that we spent the year Eisenhower issued his warning.

The $700 billion budget that both houses of Congress seem intent on passing is $80 billion more than the previous year’s budget and $37 billion more than President Trump requested. It represents over $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the US., and is more than the combined spending of the 10 largest national military budgets.

Eisenhower, the only general to serve as president in this or the last century, believed that the comparatively modest military budget of his day was “a distorted use of the nation’s resources” that threatened the very structure of American life. We weaken — not strengthen — our nation, and further militarize the world economy by accepting such a swollen military budget.

We believe the huge sums spent on military expenditures here and abroad could be better spent on pressing domestic needs. The U.S. maintains almost 800 military bases in over 70 countries around the world, but our rates of child poverty are among the highest in the industrialized world. Our infrastructure recently received a grade of D+ from The American Society of Civil Engineers — and that was before the devastating floods and uncontrolled forest fires that we have recently experienced.

To provide some scale as to the sheer size of the increase that has been requested, last year’s Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders outlined a plan to provide free college tuition to every student attending a public university. The plan was lampooned as a socialist giveaway, but its price tag of $47 billion is just a little more than half of the increase that Congress has penned into next year’s military budget.

There are many other alternatives to our permanent war economy which would generate real wealth and security for all Americans. As Eisenhower foresaw, in lieu of bloated military expenditures, we could have health insurance, high-performing and properly funded schools, family-friendly policies, a world-class infrastructure that provides safe drinking water and efficient transportation, and energy independence through a commitment to research and development of renewable power sources.

We are not alone in our desire to see America reject the hoary ideology that peace and security can only come from catastrophically large military expenditures. Liberals should reject the out-of-control military spending because of the opportunity costs it represents in funding social welfare policies and programs that promote the common good. Conservatives should reject the outsized military budget because it supports the embodiment of federal power over states and individuals.

America and its elected leaders need to heed Eisenhower’s admonition and reject the disastrous values and costs of the military-industrial system. Our peace and democracy depend on it.

Shirk is an attorney and Ferguson is a small business owner.

Published on October 3, 2017 in the Austin American-Statesman