DEFENSE SPENDING AND AMERICA’S FEDERAL BUDGET RESEARCHED BY DOUG S COMPILED BY JAMIE W MR. BOURJAILY’S 5 TH PERIOD

OVERVIEW Currently President Obama and Congress are trying to work towards an agreement over cuts to the Federal Budget in order to reduce deficit spending and debt. While many are fearing disrupting huge funds such as Social Security and Medicare, one Department whose funding is most definitely on the chopping block is the Department of Defense (DOD). Outgoing Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, proposed up to 200 billion dollars’ worth of cuts to the DOD, including cutting new weapons and transportation systems, and reducing officer personnel. America’s armed forces cannot expect to maintain the current level of involvement in the Middle East and Libya if their resources are cut so drastically.

THESIS Making such heavy cuts to National Defense will be detrimental to America’s budget in the long run because outmoded equipment and reduced personnel will have to be replaced at a higher expense the next time conflict arises, and using the DOD as a quick fix to an unbalanced budget will ultimately unravel it again when America goes to war.

CUTS TO WEAPONS AND TRANSPORTATION F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, projected for 6.43 billion but expected to run into 963 million dollar overages. Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments says “Overruns might be necessary… The Joint Strike Fighter is the only fighter program we have right now… old planes can’t fly indefinitely. (Francis 1)” “A contract to build an aircraft carrier or a fighter jet can make a business for decades,” however Harrison also worries about the production of aircraft carriers specifically. “Do we need 11 air craft carriers when the most any other nation has is one? What role will aircraft carriers play in the future? (Francis 1)”

CUTS TO PERSONNEL Gordon Adams, a professor of foreign policy at American University, proposes cutting many troops in ‘commercial functions,’ i.e. education, facility management, and relocation services, stating “these troops consume 42 percent of the Pentagon budget. By eliminating or reducing this kind of work – much of which is redundant – the Pentagon could cut billions. (Francis 1)” To use Germany as an example; thousands of troops stationed in Germany are necessary for transport in and out of war zones via Ramstein AFB, in addition to medical troops in Landstuhl aiding those wounded in combat. However the current level of troops numbered at 50,000 in Germany may not be necessary two decades after the end of the Cold War (Francis 2).

CUTS TO BENEFITS In the past decade, dealing with two wars has led the Department of Defense to value the individual soldier even more. So much so, that retention benefits for those who extended their time of service took totaled 174 million by only “Under pressure from the Tea Party, Republicans in Congress are acknowledging that these benefits might be on the chopping block (Francis 2).” Full healthcare for dependent family members will also not be sustainable in future years. Incoming TRICARE members will have to pay additional fees to receive benefits.

RE-ANALYSIS Ultimately what lawmakers are trying to do with National Defense is cut it down to a more accommodating size in regards to other aspects of the Federal Budget. This has forced some positive changes within the Department, especially in terms of maximizing efficiency by eliminating unnecessary attributes. However cutting back too heavily and sacrificing more weapons systems in the present will results in higher cost in the future.

PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE In the 1980’s, Defense spending increased dramatically in Reagan’s attempt to end to Cold War. Afterwards, in the 90’s, spending was reduced in order to balance the Federal Budget. As a result, soldiers were facing new threats with outmoded equipment, many of their families were living in deplorable base housing, and rearming for the war on terror cost more than it should have. Therefore throwing the budget out of balance again Adjusted Defense Spending spanning the past five decades is shown on this graph.

DEFENSE SPENDING FROM

CONCLUSIVE ANALYSIS As the graph shows, Defense Spending spiked during Vietnam, the end of the Cold War, and the War on Terror. This pattern outlines poor fiscal preparedness for future wars and will unravel America’s budget every time there is a new attack on the nation. Maintaining and supporting the Department of Defense during peacetime will constantly keep America ready to respond to threats and will make National Security a more permanent part of Federal expenditures.

WORKS CITED Francis, David. "Defense Budget Cuts: $687 Billion Spent in 2010." Editorial. The Fiscal Times. The Fiscal Times, Web. 7 June Snyder, Douglas. "Defense Notes." 25 May Microsoft Word file. (Reference Only) New York Post. "Bob Gates Misfires." Editorial. New York Post. N.p., 7 June Web. 7 June (Reference Only)