Rodney

Whatever they're paying, they're getting their money's worth. The military is, what, 300-500 billion a year now? Yes, it helps to ensure world peace, unless policy goes off the rails. But it's also good, very, very good, for business, else conservative/big business types (as separate from other conservatives) would have no more attachment to it than social programs. Once upon a time, back in the '30s and '40s, to be a mainstream conservative was actually to be an isolationist: in favor of a small military, limited engagement with foreign affairs and wars, and so on -- as Geo. Washington himself recommended. What changed?

WWII, for one thing. It brrought American military might to the forefront and the old colonial powers, like the British, who had patrolled the world, to the rear. Moreover, America became an even greater exporting power in world markets, because in the years after the war a great portion of Europe's industrial capacity was out of action, and American companies stepped in to fill the vaccuum. American military power keeps the trade lanes open for American business. American military power, and the influence it brings by being a de facto policeman for the world, buys influence when negotiating trade contracts or helping favored American companies to gain access to new markets. American military power ensures access to cheap raw materials, oil, cheap labor, and a thousand other things we need to keep this country stoked and steaming. And at every turn, the rich and powerful skim their share. Yes, we need a military of some sort. But when you talk about funding for shaky "social experiments," I would personally lump the military into that category, inasmuch as it is meant to shape the society of the world to the benefit of America -- and of course the rich benefit the most.