It's true, but the same people voting yes "because jobs" vote no on infrastructure repair and improvement projects - desperately needed work that would also create jobs and have a huge, noticeable positive impact on the general citizenry.
Govn't spending to create jobs is always welfare, no matter where we put the money. Why not put it somewhere that will create the same number of jobs, and have something other than a flaming war plane to show for it?
New defense projects are sexy; bringing this type of work to a district makes politicians seem "innovative", and it's the type of thing that plays well in a campaign speech. Maintaining and expanding infrastructure isn't sexy. It won't keep politicians elected.
Defense job creation is appealing because it's an easy way to use federal money for local benefit. If you want to fix bridges or something, you have to deal with people saying it's your state's or city's responsibility, but everyone agrees that defense is the feds' job.
Govn't spending to create jobs is always welfare, no matter where we put the money. Why not put it somewhere that will create the same number of jobs, and have something other than a flaming war plane to show for it?