National Quaker organizations have the unfortunate tendency to address war spending from the perspective of budget realignment or reallocation. This approach puts forth the false notion that national governments sit atop vast reserves of wealth that should be spent on nonviolent rather than violent ends. The reality, of course, is that no such infinite reserves exist. If the government sits atop anything, it is more likely a mountain of debt than wealth.
National governments cannot spend new wealth without either issuing new debt (that will have to be repaid) or extracting it directly from taxpayers through the implicit or explicit threat of violence. If Quakers (or anyone else for that matter) want to be known as "Champions of Peace," it would be better to strive toward a reduction in the war spending that seeks to keep funds in the hands of individuals to peacefully pursue their own ends instead of merely shifting line items in national budgets. The former focuses on individual and local empowerment, and the latter focuses on somehow "winning" in the national political game.
Given that it is primarily national Quaker organizations spreading the budget realignment message (see also AFSC's "If I Had a Trillion Dollars" campaign https://afsc.org/resource/2nd-annual-if-i-had-trillion-dollars-ihtd-youth-video-festival, and FCNL's "Cut the Pentagon, Not Our Communities"http://fcnl.org/events/week_of_action/cut_the_pentagon_not_our_communities/) it may make sense to ask whether this message reflects a bias that funds should be gathered in a central location to be redistributed by "those who know better." That is unfortunate if it is the case - it is unlikely to succeed and distorts any true sense of the ideals of Quakerism.