The main reason the Military part of the budget is off limits, for all intents and

[WCGreen]

purposes.

Pork. Not the kind you eat but the kind that is spread around to almost every congressional district in the country. From research to deployment to huge air bases to payroll processing, the Military spread the pork around so if a congressional person gets to "feisty" about cutting the Pentagons budget, the little bit of pork will be removed from the budget and so lose some jobs.

And no one want to be blamed for losing jobs in their district.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Pork as blackmail, courtesy of the military.

Despicable.

K&R

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Congress

The military would rather prefer to have manufacturing concentrated. It makes little logistical sense.

[GoneOffShore]

3. Absolutely -

Eisenhower was right.

[Arctic Dave]

5. More truth to that then I think most people want to believe.

Very sad.

[ellisonz]

4. I agree with Barney Frank

We could cut several hundred billion out of the Defense budget and not sacrifice national security one bit.

[dballance]

6. The Military has become the de facto fourth branch of government

Seems the founding fathers were correct in their fears of having a standing army. It certainly seems to have taken control of our discretionary budget.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. The military is our most adored, overfed, useless, and sacred of our Sacred Cows.

[WCGreen]

8. Too many people worship war, especially those who are never going to

don a uniform.

[Demo_Chris]

9. I understand the point, BUT....

In most districts losing some defense industry jobs is a hit which impacts a very limited number of potential voters -- and this is assuming that the military pork you voted against is the pork being worked on in your district. Let me cut to the chase, which is more likely to cost you enough votes to matter:

1. A cut in defense spending that MIGHT, potentially, impact your home district. And note how unlikely this is.

2. A cut to entitlement spending that impacts a huge swath of voters

I think that FAR more potential voters are bothered by the loss of services that directly benefit them, yet there is no shortage of people in congress lined up to cut these. So why isn't defense spending on the table? Take your pick: kickbacks, campaign contributions, book buyouts, speaking engagements, or all of the above.


Lockheed Martin earned 46 BILLION dollars profit in 2011. Total spending on the 2012 Presidential elections was about 2.5 billion. Which is why the folks in Washington pay a whole lot more attention to what Lockheed Martin wants than what you want.

[TexasBushwhacker]

10. It's just a phenomenally wasteful jobs program

with obscene profits built in. If we're going to have government jobs programs, lets have them rebuilding our roads and bridges, upgrading our grid, building green energy, retrofitting our buildings and making them more energy efficient, providing healthcare, etc etc etc. Having a bloated military is just a waste of money especially when we go into debt to pay for it.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

11. That's fucking welfare! eom