The Unites States economy has been a subject of debate for as long as American politics have existed, however it has never been as closely scrutinized as it is in these times. As the global economy becomes more boundless, actions taken to adjust our economy are felt as ripple effects world-wide, or even as a tidal wave. With a current and future prediction of austere budget environments in the U.S. for the foreseeable future, we must examine the global impact of our internal budget decisions. Undeniably, even with the most careful considerations given, there will be unintended consequences that were not thoughtfully considered.
The Defense Budget
The military budget of the United States is always a topic of discussion when a significant economy debate is evolving. This is because of the substantial portion of our national budget that is devoted to sustaining and building our present and future national defense structure. The military budget structure is extremely complex. It is not only broken down by service branches, it has hundreds of organizational subcategories within the service branch divisions. Funding is allocated by functional areas such as personnel pay and benefits, operation and force sustainment costs, research and development, weapons system procurements, shipbuilding, developmental and operational testing, ordinance, and military equipment disposal. The debate of increasing or decreasing our military budget must be eventually carried down to this functional areas to decide what programs will see either an increase or decrease (Axe, 2011). Inevitably, those charged with the management of the myriad of subprograms associated with the functional areas in questions, will have specific arguments to defen...
... middle of paper ...
...time progresses, military budgets will certainly continue to be center stage in deficit reductions discussions. It is my sincere hope that Congressional leaders carefully explore all avenues when making critical decisions and fully understand and convey the consequences of their actions. It is incumbent on the American people to elect leaders who possess the character and insight to do the right thing for our nation, while considering the larger global impact as well.
References
Axe, D. (2011). US Bomber Plan Questioned. The Diplomat website. Retrieved July 18, 2011, from http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/07/18/us-bomber-plan-questioned/.
Hulse, C. and Cooper, H. (2011). Obama and Leaders Reach Debt Deal. The New York Times website. Retrieved August 01, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/us/politics/01FISCAL.html?pagewanted=all.
“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...
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...
To meet future challenges and opportunities the Department of Defense (DOD) must decide how to adjust the armed forces structure in an austere economic environment. Based on current strategic direction and fiscal constraints, the general force structure and capabilities necessary to rebalance Joint Force 2020 is a smaller but fully integrated joint military organization. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasizes US military power will evolve and remain modern, capable, and ready while accepting some increased risk through force reductions. Rebalancing will require innovative approaches and solutions to protect the homeland, build global security, project power, and win decisively with a leaner organization.
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
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is an agency under The Congress that helps in synthesizing the budgetary information by providing options that are implemented and bring about savings in the initial budget. The document provides choices in the following areas: Mandatory spending apart from health-related programs, discretionary spending apart from health-related programs, and revenue other than health related programs and finally health-related programs and revenue provisions. In this paper, we shall focus defense spending and in particular the U.S. Air Force spending that falls into the category of discretional spending.
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
The U.S. defense budget is already quite large. In 2015, the U.S. spent $610 billion on the military, making its defense budget the largest in the world by a wide margin. The U.S. spent more on defense than the $601 billion that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, and India—the countries with the next seven largest military budgets—spent combined. If we limit our comparison to America’s NATO allies, the numbers still look quite stark. The U.S. alone accounts for a whopping 75 percent of the military spending by all of NATO’s 28 current members. Under the two-year budget agreement that the Obama administration hammered out with the Republican leadership in Congress, baseline defense spending will be $548 billion while spending on Overseas Contingency Operations will be $59 billion, for a grand total of $607 billion. That’s hardly chump change. But it’s not
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
“The Budget and Economic Outlook : Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020.” Congress of the United States
The three largest American military contractors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumann, in total employ approximately 410,000 people and produce nearly $95 billion in arms sales (Lee and Johnson). Those who support the complex recognize that this increased supply of arms eventually should lead to a global increase in demand for these arms in order to return the market to equilibrium. Those who support the military establishment also analyze this increase in supply and eventually demand as beneficial to the overall growth of the American economy. In addition to the 410,000 people working for military contractors, the military itself, the homeland security and police sectors employ over 1,000,000 people (Turley), jobs that are valuable in weak economies. The major beneficiaries of increased employment and funding include the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice (Turley). From the perspective of those who argue in favor of national security over civil liberties, strong defense, homeland security, and justice departments ensure and protect national security because the funding allows them to have the power to act appropriately and efficiently in times of national emergency. The positive influence the
Falk, Julie. “Fiscal Lockdown.” Dollars & Sense. July-Aug. 2003: 19+. SIRS Researcher. Web. 24 Mar. 2011.
NERSISYAN, Yeva and L. Randall Wray (2010). Deficit Hysteria Redux? Why We Should Stop Worrying About U.S. Government Deficits. Nova York: The Levy Economics Institute, Public Policy Brief, Nº. 111. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb_111.pdf.
Is it really worth to spend a lot of money in military spending? Like the General Peter Schoomaker of the chief of staff of the army said “what does the army really cost?” (Ford, Nelson) there isn’t no easy answer for this because no military department had ever done a full report of the cost of holding its operations. It’s something you can’t put a real limit. How then should real costs be established? By ascertaing the capability necessary to fulfil the U.S security strategy and building budgets to fund those capabilities. We already owe a lot of money to other people. Why put us in more dept. The military believes cutting the defense budget will not aid economy, but they are wrong, cutting the military budget will help out a lot of people in the U.S. people will Have places to stay and have food on their tables. They will have jobs to provide for their family. We may be somewhat defenseless but who are they going to protect if they got nobody to protect. That is why it’s not worth throwing all the money to the government to provide the defense program. We should think twice and think about the people we are putting in
After taking office in 2009, the new president presented priorities that would require reduced defense spending. This process of establishing new priorities likely began immediately after his inauguration and the 2010 National Security Strategy documents this shift. In the opening remarks, the President declares his focus on building strength at home through economic growth and national debt reduction. He also places priority on health care, education improvement and the pursuit of green energy with only cursory remarks on defense capability. Although it may not have been the President’s intent, messages like these prompted DoD leaders to closely examine budgets and identify areas of substantial savings. Under this scrutiny, the F-22 production and modernization program, at more than double its original projections of costs and time, stood
In time of economic crisis the government has a choice to cut spending or increase spending for public goods and services. “In 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Rein- vestment Act, which authorized $787 billion in spending to promote job growth and bolster economic activity”(Stratmann/Okolski 3). John Maynard Keynes, an economist of 20th century, suggest that the government should run a deficit if it will create jobs and increase capital gain. This theory support the current stimulus package that has been introduce during President Obama’s term. Although the flaw with this concept is that it makes the assumption the government has done studies and understands which areas needs the funding the most and knows where it will be beneficial, realistically that is not true. “Federal spending is less likely to stimulate growth when it cannot accurately target the projects where it will be most productive” (Stratmann/Okolski 2). This can be seen because political figures will spend money where it directly supports their needs as well. For instance, the political figure would rather spend money to things that will yield a p...