How come military oriented job programs are the only ones that seem to pass the Grim-Reaper of Free-Market zealotry?
The one exception is “national security”. So military spending is the most efficient to create jobs in the US because you can prevent hiring in other countries.
An example in the opposite direction is US subsidies for solar energy. These subsidies do create some jobs installing them, but the majority of jobs end up created overseas in other countries like China.
If we were to be constrained by WTO rules (an organisation hardcore Leavers seem very fond of) perhaps we can expect an increase in UK arms spending, though this being the UK no doubt this won't mean any improvements for the people at the sharp end of things.
I dare say defence procurement will be similar.
Here's to cutting all that contracting red-tape the EU had us wade through. /s
The political contributions of the sheet metal shop in your district that stamps some widget for the F-35 at 50x market price definitely matter.
Right after "common defence" comes "general warfare" but for some reason that's something most Americans (or at least their politicians) seem to prefer to ignore.
I think it's pretty obvious that the narrow view is the only defensible one.
However two things seem clear to me.
1) In practice in the US today the "general welfare" clause is interpreted expansively when it suits the purposes of the politicians. This is also supported by the article you link: "To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law. ".
2) I think that most people throughout the developed world believe that ensuring the general welfare of a country's citizens is an essential function of government. Outside of the US, especially in Europe and democratic Asia this is probably an extremely dominant view. In the US you hear a lot of very vocal people, apparently such as yourself, argue against it, but I think that's a minority view even here.
State governments are sovereign, too, and have far fewer constitutional restrictions on what they may do. I may not agree with the social-welfare schemes dreamt up by Texans, Michiganders or Californians, but they do not effect me, so it's not really my business. OTOH a federal social-welfare scheme effects me and is patently unconstitutional.