|
January 06, 2000
Military Spending: Reprioritizing Pork
Citizens join social investors asking, "How much is enough" national defense, and at what cost?
SocialFunds.com --
Military spending has long been a concern of social investors, many of whom find the military
budget vastly disproportionate to other domestic budget needs. Although investors can divest from
companies that take military contracts, they still support the military industrial complex through
their taxes.
 Almost half of the discretionary budget for
FY1999 went toward defense. Pentagon spending was $276 billion, while health was only $33 billion,
community development was $22 billion, and education was $47 billion. The Aerospace Industries
Association, a trade group for military contractors, announced that their 1999 sales of $155
billion set an all time record.
Socially responsible investors have had an opinion on
military spending throughout their history. Many social investors object to the military on
principle because they are pacifists, such as the Quakers, or because they do not want to profit
from war. Many believe that national defense is a priority, but perhaps not to the tune of $276
billion.
"Social investors are realists," said Anita Green, Director of Social Research at
Pax World Funds, one of the first mutual fund families to draw concerned investors away from
military contractors. "We know that there are irrational people in the world who will take
advantage of those without an adequate defense. But we also know that real and sustained conflict
resolution only happens when leaders engage in dialogue and mediation."
Although the
number of military contractors have shrunk in recent years, opening up more options for social
investors, military contracts are still hot property on Capitol Hill. Many citizens object to the
waste and favoritism inherent in the "Iron Triangle," the mutually indulgent relationship between
the military, the Congress, and military contractors.
"It's certainly not about national
security, but about political security," said Ben Cohen, President of Business Leaders for Sensible
Priorities (BLSP), a citizens group committed to balancing U.S. economic and military needs.
"Defense contractors give 3 times as much as even the tobacco industry does to politicians."
The influence of military contractors in Congress is overwhelming. Lockheed Martin, for
example, the largest U.S. defense contractor, has facilities in all 50 states, insuring that every
U.S. Senator has constituents who work for their company. The payoff for defense contractors is in
turn enormous. Lockheed Martin received $18 billion in Pentagon contracts in 1996, according to
BLSP. Boeing stands to make contracts of over $5 billion for developing "Star Wars" technology.
"'Bringing home the bacon' is part of an elected official's job," said Christopher
Hellman, Senior Analyst at the Center for Defense Information (CDI), a non-profit research
organization that specializes in military budget and planning issues. "You are less likely to be
accused of 'pork barreling' if you can claim 'national security.' The military is becoming more and
more the last bastion of political pork."
Congress has even added $30 billion in
unrequested funds to the Pentagon budget over the last few years, according to CDI. In FY2000 this
includes such bonuses as $275 million for five Air Force F-15 Fighters, $54 million for six
National Guard Blackhawk Helicopters, and $89 million for assorted ammunition.
But perhaps
the most frustrating aspect of the Iron Triangle to many investors, and other citizens, is the
inefficiency it generates. The General Accounting Office recently discovered that Pentagon
officials couldn't account for $43 billion spent over the last decade. Although they may have
learned their lesson about $640 toilet seats, the Pentagon recently paid $75 for metal screws which
sell for about 57 cents in a hardware store, according to BLSP.
With the Cold War a
fading memory, many Americans are asking who the U.S. is defending itself against with such
bountiful military spending. BLSP has pointed out that the military spending of U.S.'s five most
likely future adversaries combined, boogiemen like North Korea and Iraq, only adds up to $15
billion, less than an eighteenth of the U.S. military budget.
The present level of
military spending might be defensible if there were proportionate funds allocated for other
domestic needs. But in a developed country where over 12 million citizens don't have decent,
affordable housing, the high school graduation rate has slipped to 11th in the world, and infant
mortality rate is 13th, higher than most industrial countries, many people find the current level
of military spending in the U.S. overzealous.
"Defense contractor lobbyists and their
backers in Congress have detailed grand plans to spend hundreds of billions dollar more on weapons
designed to fight the Soviet Union even though the Cold War thankfully is over," said Cohen of
BLSP. "Those dollars would not be available to invest in programs that build our communities here
at home."
Although most citizens would agree that an adequate national defense is
desirable, the amount of money of currently spent on the military seems disproportionate to more
than a few. Many social investors have chosen to divest of military contractors, but shrinking the
U.S. glut of military spending will take the concerted efforts of an educated and activated
citizenry fighting for increased budgetary support for social programs.
http://www.businessleaders.org/
©
SRI World Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Top
| 
