Mankind must put an end to war, before war puts an end to mankind, John F. Kennedy. The U.S. military budget is a great cause for concern both for the federal deficit and the matter of safety. While there are many changes that need to be made to our federal budget one of the most evident issues is the amount of money the United States spends on the military. The United States needs to cut its military spending to aid in reducing the deficit, increase American safety, bring the global view of America back into a positive light, and help foreign relations with other governments.
The United States had to borrower over 514 billion dollars last year in order to cover our national budget, and of the 3.881 trillion dollar budget 640 billion of it was used towards our military spending. In comparison to other military world leaders the United States spends more than the top eight world countries combined as seen in the graph to the left, clearly there is room for cuts. The United States could cut its military spending by over 66% and still be spending more than the next top military spender, China at 188 billion together (Peterson Foundation, 2014). Some of the proposed cuts involved are troop reductions, equipment and vehicle downsizing as well as global military base cuts. One of the most staggering statistics to coincide with our military spending compared to other countries is how many global bases the United States currently has compared to them as well. It costs the United States over $102 Billion annually to keep up with their 737 global military bases, that’s not including the bases within U.S. borders. As seen in the graph above (right) The United States has more global miltary bases than any other country, the point, and cost of...
... middle of paper ...
...lly when called upon, but no longer does the U.S. need to force themselves into nations apart from their own. The American image can be restored, safety can endure, and the federal budget and ongoing deficit can be lightened.
In conclusion, American citizens need to reflect on this information and it is important they think about the future they are creating for themselves and their children. Do Americans sit at home discussing the military defense of our country thirty to forty years ago, or do American citizens show more concern about the present day national deficit, and what will citizens think about thirty to forty years from now? The federal spending on our military is where the main focus in cuts needs to be, America’s safety will not be reduced if handled appropriately and American wallets will feel less of an impact if we act now instead of down the road.
Despite his many compromises however, Thomas Jefferson’s intent to dissolve the national debt was to a great extent unvarying. Jefferson and his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin honestly feared a large federal deficit as a threat to Republicanism. To avoid this threat, the President sought to diminish the role of the federal government, and decreased the national budget. These budget cuts substantially diminished the size and resources of the American army and navy. When criticized, Jefferson defended these military cuts as being consistent with Republican policies in that a smaller U.S. Army would be seen as less of a threat to other nations and reduce the risk of provocation, resulting in the ultimate promotion of peace.
Will the security of our nation be compromised? Will U.S. enemies take it as a chance to land a brutal blow against America? Yes, these things will happen. However, they will only happen if the military budget is decreased too much, or if funds are not used appropriately. For instance, maybe the U.S. needs to invest less of its resources into meddling into foreign affairs. At some point, America became the terrorists in the “War on Terror.” Undoubtedly, America has the strongest and best-trained military on the planet. Mainly because of how many resources we’ve invested in building it. Granted, this great country will not falter with some military budget cuts here and there. Instead, it can take those funds and invest them into the leaders and workforce of tomorrow and brighten its
“However, it seems he ¬¬–Eisenhower, never considered how easily our leaders would turn to borrowing to continue feeding the military-industrial complex war beast. Look at America's financial and social conditions today and consider the validity of Eisenhower's warnings expressed more than five decades ago. One truly unfortunate side effect of the military industry's quest for growth is that wars must be fought to justify and increase demand for its products.”
No matter how important our troops are to the people of America, President Obama is cutting the benefits for our military veterans. ”President Obama put his signature on the two-year budget bill, which includes a contentious provision to pare down annual cost of living increases in benefits for military retirees under age 62, saving the government an estimated $6.3 billion over a decade”(lawmakers, veterans groups push to restore military benefits 1).
This world in arms is not spending money alone; it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”The United States spends more money in defense than China, Russia, UK, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea, Australia, and Canada put together.
The United States is facing a large military budget spending issue with the Department of Defence reporting a cost of around $525.4 billion this past year. Washington Posts announced that, "The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011." While military spending is a large part of the government budget, and there is enough room to reduce spending as long as there are a set of precautions of which necessities the government cannot cut.
The military budget alone has increased by about four hundred and ten billion dollars since 2001. That is about fifty billion dollars per year. That money has been put to use, however. A lump sum of
As America heads into a new year, we find our government tightening its purse strings and cracking down on excessive spending, with an emphasis on the US military. According to author Brad Plumer, a reporter at the Washington Post, “U.S. defense spending is expected to have risen in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then is set to fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in.” Pared with a more drastic 350 billion dollar cute going into effect over the next ten years, the military finds itself cutting what cost the most to maintain and support troops (Fact Sheet par. 2). In recent years the military has bolstered an overwhelming 1,468,364 troops (Active Duty). These numbers are to be cut substantially; the biggest cut is to be seen in the Army. The Army must deal with a reduction of 80,000 troops, cutting its force of 570,000 troops to nearly 140,000.Subsequently, the budget cuts, which have led to a reduction of troops in the military, has driven the military to turn to advanced weapons technology that requires less people to m...
The United States of America's military is currently involved in two major wars with U.S. opposition in Afghanistan and Iraq. All though both of these efforts can be said to be in the clean-up stages, many more soldiers will be needed to stabilize the regions, to provide police work, and to fight the insurgencies that have risen in opposition to the invasion of U.S. troops into foreign lands. The current presidential administration states that to adequately deal with the problems of post-war Iraq and unstable Afghanistan the United States needs to increase the number of active-duty soldiers serving over-seas. Top officials in the administration have said that a reorganization of the military is already in progress, and it will create more combat regiments, but the quoted additional 25,000 new military participants needed per year can hardly be met through these minor reorganizations. In addition, recruiting numbers are at their lowest in over ten years (?All Things Considered?, NPR News Source.) Many feel that the reenactment of the military service draft is inevitable because it is the only way to come up with the astounding number of new troops needed to finish the jobs started in the Middle-East by George W. Bush and his Republican administration. If increasing the size of the military is inevitable, then the draft is the wrong way to go. Aside from the moral objections that many Americans have to a draft, there are major logical fallacies in the reasoning that a draft would benefit the military, America, or its interests abroad; therefore, the draft should not be reenacted to increase the number of the United States? combat troops.
This imposes problems on the military and even on the government. One article states that, “Reduced budgets and the threat of sequestration create a sense of uneasiness in the ranks, and those fears are fueled by politicians willing to shut down the federal government rather than compromise.” (Army Magazine) This is because with the increase of budget cuts they start to cause problems for the ones who are working and this creates lost jobs in the military. No one wants to lose their job not even the ones that have put forth a great amount of time and effort in the military. For the ones that have been in the military for a long period of time this can actually have negative effects on their life style and even cause problems when returning
The U.S. Military is a proud institution, on which we as a nation rely on, just as it relies on the funding and directing of the United States Congress. However, when compared to the rest of the world, the United States consistently outspends other countries on Military/Defense spending. So much so that the National Priorities Project (NPP) states that in 2013 “America spent 37% of the world’s total military spending.” They go on to say that in 2015 “military spending (was) projected to account for 54% of all federal discretionary spending” which equates to about 600 billion dollars in federal spending towards defense and military. While there are benefits of spending this much on Military, many argue that such spending gives America an element
Nowadays, countries are so advanced and have powerful allies. Shifting some funding to ensure that U.S. soldiers are getting efficient training and equipment does not mean the United States of America is looking for a fight, it means that the U.S. is trying to be prepared for a fight if our country is attacked. The U.S. is only trying to give our country a fighting chance against other countries and when we are ahead of other countries in training, weapons, ect. we will try and stay ahead of others to ensure the safety of the United States of America. President Donald J. Trump’s executive order “Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces” is literally militarism in itself but is very necessary and essential for the United States of America’s critical
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
...wed for it to write the rules of the game, create well established institutions that are respected by the majority worldwide, and have inspired other countries to follow in its footsteps in search of their own version of the “American Dream”. However, the decisions that generated that American prosperity were based on the notion that concessions, accountability and investment towards the future were crucial for its later success. As seen in hindsight, somewhere throughout history, this message became heavily influence by personal gains and short term gratification. If the United States wants continue as a key player, it will need to solve its domestic qualms with in turn have and continue to affect the international community. Military dominance, cultural influence and innovation cannot sustain itself in an environment that lacks stability and long term planning.
Since the attacks a number of civil defense programs have been initiated, which leads to more departments asking for an allowance within the national budget. This ultimately is leading to a larger and larger deficit that is quickly encompassing full percentage points of our GDP. There is a debate on how much defense spending is actually needed, because during the Clinton administration there were massive cuts to the defense budget, which lead to critics saying that our military force was in question. These same critics said that without the funds that had been cut-off by Clinton the military would spiral down to not being able to defend the homeland, let alone take on any offensive. The one argument I have is that President Bush was not in office long enough for his increased defense budget to take affect when he overthrew two regimes (Afghanistan & Iraq) with the same military force that was said to be completely ineffective because of lack of funds.