A brief note on social welfare v. militarized welfare

Speaking Security Newsletter | Congressional Candidate Advisory Note 22 | 2 July 2020

Much of US welfare is tied to state violence, in part because establishment Democrats keep equating militarized welfare with the real thing. It’s not.

Situation

The House Armed Services Committee unanimously approved its draft bill authorizing $740.5 billion for defense (during the next step, the bill will be brought to the House floor for amending-then-voting).

The bill’s authors were quick to emphasize the legislation’s proposed 3 percent pay raise for military personnel as an expression of the committee’s “foremost obligation to America’s national security and the men and women who provide it.”

The problem with militarized welfare is that it’s militarized

The pay raise would mean that junior enlisted troops earn $850 over the previous year. In exchange, the authorizations bill prohibits the withdrawal of US troops from both South Korea and Germany. Democratic leadership has also indicated that it is opposed to any reduction in the US military’s presence across the African continent.

There’s no empirical basis for this disposition (except for the parochial campaign contributions thing). Plenty of empirical arguments to be made in opposition to this posture, however. Some of which fly in the face of the political establishment’s purported “foremost obligation” to ‘our troops.’ Here’s one:

^Predominantly working-class people

Conclusion

Converting the defense budget’s militarized/corporate welfare system into social welfare appears to be what Senator Sanders is after with this amendment. Dad’s amendment is very modest — only 10 percent of DOD’s total budget — so please feel free to join me in reminding any holdouts in Congress of that.

Thanks (as always) for your time,

Stephen (stephen@securityreform.org; @stephensemler)