In addition to strategic deployment, the defense budget should be reformed to allocate more money towards specialized, agile units and counterterrorism efforts. By doing so, the United States would be more efficient in fighting the small terrorist groups that pose such a large threat today. In his article supporting defense reform, Berger points out, “many analysts have pointed out in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks, future threats to the United States are likely to come from relatively small terrorist organizations and not from state entities which could not realistically defeat us.” The most prevalent danger regarding military within the continental U.S. is not an invasion by another nation, but rather unexpected acts of terror. …show more content…
A much more streamlined approach would be to break down the defense budget and implement a reformation to make better use of the money that is funded. Additionally, under the Budget Control Act, other discretionary programs such as Education, Medicare, and Transportation could receive larger cuts to compensate for the discretionary caps while defense remains at a somewhat constant level. Rather than cutting domestic programs to compensate for defense, shifting towards strategic deployment and decreasing the amount of unnecessary overseas bases could free up funds. A reform such as this could decrease the defense budget enough to keep the other discretionary programs funded or even increase their funds to improve the quality of life within the U.S while still meeting caps set by the Budget Control Act. Analysts of a variety of political backgrounds can concur that a reform such as this is not …show more content…
could reform the defense budget without jeopardizing U.S. troops or assets any more than they currently are. A reformation would alleviate a financial burden and free up funds for other discretionary programs which would improve the quality of life within the U.S. The United States military budget is currently a financial burden that can be reformed to serve a more specific purpose and ensure that the military does not gain too much economic influence as Eisenhower forewarned. The current U.S. military is designed primarily for fighting other countries; however, the most prominent danger to the U.S. comes from terrorist organizations that are terminated most effectively by smaller, specialized forces. While it is true that strategic deployment would decrease the number of troops stationed abroad, the troops withdrawn would only be from regions where the U.S. has no true assets or relations. Thus, the U.S. would remain influential only in strategic areas while having more ready troops within borders. Despite the efforts of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and an increasing national GDP, no substantial decreases in debt will be made unless there is a significant reform in the military budget. While the U.S. could likely continue to fund such an expensive military budget, a better investment would be in other discretionary programs where non-military advancements can be
...in technology and tactics have made Special Forces units more reliable. For example, the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan and the incident with the Somali pirates of the coast of Somalia show the capabilities of today’s Special Forces. The author asserts that, in the future the United States will shift away from major combat operations. These large engagements have proven to be costly in lives and treasure. For that reason, she infers that the US Military will choose the “go small, go long” model for future engagements in the Middle East. Special operation forces are uniquely suited for this model. Their conspicuous nature and low cost make them politically and strategically ideal. The author also suggests that future large scale operations may look like the conflicts in Libya and Somalia rather than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The military since the Colonial Era has been an impetus for social reform in the United States. The Revolutionary War afforded Black Americans an opportunity to escape from the toils of slavery and fight for freedom. Some Black Americans even earned their freedom by fighting for the Colonists, but still the freedom they fought for wasn’t their own. However, the military was responsible for the freedom of many slaves and some of these freed slaves became legendary soldiers like Salem Poor. His performance in battle gave credibility for future arguments about blacks being allowed to serve.
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.
“President Obama’s FY2014 base budget request of $552.0 billion in discretionary budget Authority for the Department of Defense (DOD) and defense-related programs of other agencies (excluding war costs), exceeded by $53.9 billion the legally binding cap on defense funding for FY2014 that was enacted in 2011 as part of the BCA.” Similarly, in their initial actions on the annual defense funding bills for FY2014, the House and the Armed Servi...
This paper will not bore with the definition of a profession. The United States Army is about more than words, it is about action. The action of over 238 years of tradition and service. The Army is a profession. A profession requires its members to adhere to prolonged training and learn specialized skills. A member of a profession must wholly commit himself and his skills to a calling which is entrusted by the public. A profession provides its members with intrinsic value which motivates beyond financial gain. The Army is a higher calling which demands all of these qualities and more.
If the government changes the way they spend the budget, then they can change the way our government is ran. According to document C we spend 83% of the budget on “The Big Five”, which are the five main categories in the budget.We need to take 10%
For government budgeting to be effective, the process that guides it must be an evolving one. As the government gets bigger, it will most likely destabilize the existing method. Therefore, it must change to keep pace with the demands and growth of the country. The process must be capable of handling the complexity of our nation and its multifaceted needs so it will always need revisions and restructuring to face these new challenges. Its ultimate goal must be to reinforce the government and strengthen the country.
Being a military veteran can have both positive and negative effects on one’s ability to maintain a job and socialize with other people. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is usually a problem with soldiers coming back from war, although after a veteran recovers from it, it creates great job opportunities. Business leaders recognize how useful a military veteran is in the work force. Veterans tend to show great responsibility, leadership, and team work which make them the ideal employee for many jobs.
If we spent more on domestic rather than military activities, then the middle class would not vanish as quickly. The effects of technological change and globalization could be altered by political actions. We could restore and expand education, shifting resources from policies like mass incarceration to improving the human and social capital of all Americans. We could upgrade infrastructure, forgive mortgage and educational debt in the low-wage sector, reject the notion that private entities should replace democratic government in directing society, and focus on embracing an integrated American population. We could tax not only the income of the rich, but also their
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 United States has endured numerous security breaches and high security threats over the past two decades. After the attacks on 9/11, the office of Intelligence became a vital source in retrieving sensitive data and tracking down potential terrorists and their networks which could pose a threat to the American people and then forwarding that vital information to the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies. Intelligence became a key role in “assessing threats to critical American infrastructures, bio-and nuclear terrorism, pandemic diseases, threats to the borders to the nation, and radicalization within American society” (Randol, 2009, p. 7). The sharing of homeland security intelligence has become a precedence for Congress and the government. Our nation must be one step ahead of any potential terrorists that want to harm our turf. Within this text the capabilities and limitations of both domestic and foreign intelligence in supporting homeland security efforts will be explained;
In a world where people rush to purchase lottery tickets in the hopes of hitting a jackpot worth a few million, these expenditures are incomprehensible and may seem excessive; however, not everyone feels this way. In an article found on the U.S. Department of Defense’s website, the “DoD has done its best to manage through this prolonged period of budget uncertainty, the secretary said, making painful choices and tradeoffs” and that in “today’s security environment we need to be dynamic and we need to be responsive. What we have now is a straitjacket” (Pellerin, 2015). At the end of the day, it is all about who is being asked whether the defense budget is excessive; for those that do not feel an imminent threat is looming, the budget would seem over-the-top, but for those that either feel that a threat is imminent, or those working in the defense sector, would most likely be in favor of sustaining the current budget or increasing it. Furthermore, another topic to look at is how the United States compares with other countries on defense spending and is the difference validated?
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.
I will first share my ideas on lowering government spending. First and foremost I believe we must lower defense spending and downsize our military. We have the most powerful military in the world and can afford some budget cuts without risking national security or global standing. We must also cut spending on the home front. I believe we should lower welfare payments and encourage people to find jobs instead of relying on the government. We should also give tax incentive to wealthy citizens to give up their U.S Bonds therefore lowering the Federal Debt. Also the wealthy should be eliminated from the Social Security System.
Government action is vital to the removal of poverty inequality in the United States. By abolishing previously enforced laws that benefit the rich with low-tax rates and subsidies, more public funding can be generated to improve poverty-stricken communities. An additional source for funding is the excessive amount of money applied to the military spending budget in America. 41% of the world’s military expenditures are spent in the United States alone (Eitzen