Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
US military spending essay
US military spending essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: US military spending essay
Bad Budget Cuts
The budget cuts being put into effect soon are all wrong. The government should not be putting the cuts on the military the cuts should be on something else. The military needs that money for a number of things. The government is coming up with the plan to cut the military’s money, cut a large sum of soldiers, make it to where the country will not be able to be protected, and puts thousands of soldiers in trouble because of increases in healthcare and decreases in pay.
A plan to cut the military budget has been made and will most likely be put into effect soon. A debt in the United States has been increasing for years so the government thinks the best way to get it to come down some is to make cuts and use the money from the cuts to get rid of the debt. So the military is the first place they look to and the military is the one being squeezed for its money. Although we spend more money on the military then the next ten countries combined does not mean they can just take that money. Congress and the rest of the government is taking money away from the soldiers and putting a heavier burden on their backs. $75 billion will immediately be put into savings because of automatic cuts know as sequestration (Shinkman 2014). Obama has asked for an additional $26 billion in the year of 2015, and another $115 billion from the military in 2016 to 2019 (Kramer 2014). The budget control act reduces defense spending by what number we have now of $487 billion over the next ten years (“Obama Administration”). The budget cut for the military is always the first thing put up it has happened before. The military finds this money important because they need it to maintain weapons and equipment. Military soldiers are being cut as w...
... middle of paper ...
...e Washington Post. N. P., 25 Feb. 2014. W. 11 Mar. 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/02/25/pentagon-budget-would-affect-cost-of-living-for-troops/
Kramer, Mattea. “National Priorities Project.” National Priorities Project. N.P., 4 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
“Obama Administration Defense Priorities.” International Debates 10.7(2012):7. MAS Ultra-school Edition. Web. 4 Mar. 2014. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspy?direct=true&bd=ulh&AN=82130707&site=src-live
Shinkman, Paul D. “Pentagons Massive Budget Cuts would Redefine U.S Military.” US News & World Report, 24 Feb. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
Stone, Sgt A. “What Do you think about the Military Budget Cuts?” Personal Interview. 12 Mar. 2014.
V, Tom, En Brook, and Locker Ray. “New Pentagon Budget calls for smaller Army, Pay Changes.” USA Today. Gannett, 24 Feb. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014.
Stewart R. W. (2005). American Military History (Vol. 1). The United States Army and the
“The Price of Military Folly.” U.S. News Online. 1996. 10 April 2000 . Robinson, Linda.
O'Shea, Brandon J. "ARMY.MIL, The Official Homepage of the United States Army." "OPERATION POWER PACK. N.p., 20 Apr. 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
The country needs to start monitoring how the government is spending the federal budget and they need to start splitting it fairly to benefit our country. 83% of the federal budget is spent on the Big Five which are the main expenses in the budget. We have to stop spending it all on the Big Five. Our government should really pay attention to what we need most of in this country and focus on the needs. The government needs to take away 20% of the Big Five and split it to categories that need it.
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).
In all its years of fighting the US military has never looked so lean. The fat boy of the world’s militaries is being forced, by congress, on a diet plane not even Jenny Craig would suggest. Congress has told the US military simply, with looming budget cuts, to Charmin up because less simply has to do more. The US military is experiencing an unprecedented troop reduction due to lack of funding. Consequently, as newton stated so accurately so many years ago, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. As our military shrinks and generals are being told to do more with less, many are reacting by turning to advanced weapon technology to fill the void where boots once stood.
Because of this many Americans have long advocated for Military Defense cuts and redirections of funds to both the public sector and other Military Institutions like Veteran Affairs (VA) and Military Personnel Healthcare. If the U.S. were to reduce/re-appropriate the National Security Budget, they would see improvements in the public sector, in veteran care, and could improve other sections of the FDB (Federal Discretionary Budget). My first argument in favor of military budget cuts is that the budget should be reduced and funds redirected to military personnel and veteran care. The Congressional Budget Office explains the way the military divides its spending “The Defense and National Security Budget is divided into four parts consisting of the defense budget, military personnel budget, military and veteran’s health care budget, and weapons
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
Forsling, C. (2014, September 9 ). Task and purpose . Retrieved November 16, 2017, from Task and purpose : http://taskandpurpose.com/real-problem-military-salaries-compensation/
Wheelan, C. (2011). Introduction to Public Policy (1st ed.). United States: W.W. Nortion & Company, INC. (Original work published 2011).
Soldiers, both men and women, risk their lives fighting for our country and when they come home they receive far fewer benefits than would be expected. Throughout history the support for veterans has lessened. The amount of money that is provided to veterans for healthcare and housing after returning to the states has severely decreased since WWI.
... Washington, DC. Congressional Research Service. Marosi, Richard. A. (2011, July 26)
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, Joint Publication 1 (Washington DC: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, March 25, 2013), V-17.
Lall, Betty G., and John Tepper. Marlin. Building a Peace Economy: Opportunities and Problems of Post-cold War Defense Cuts. Boulder: Westview, 1992. Print.
Flannagan, Michael. "Foreign Policy Better with Obama than Bush" The Lantern - Ohio State University. College Publisher Network, 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. .