I’m in favor of a strong, flexible military that can handle many types of operations.
That said, when the U.S. national debt stands at $16 trillion, and the U.S. is spending $711 billion on its military annually, and 41% of the world’s total, it’s time for a change. There’s no Nazi Germany or USSR as a military rival, our enemies are now NGOs that don’t require $711 billion be spent in order to reckon with them.
In addition to releasing badly-needed funds, a smaller military would discourage the kind of adventurism and global policing that’s helped exacerbate the debt in the first place.
The voters would have to desire such a reduction in military spending for it to occur. Were this the case, Congressmen would need to make the cuts to keep their jobs.
I agree, but many voters in DC, VA and MD would be voting against their interests if they were to vote to reduce the military budget. Certainly that’s true in many other parts of the country.
It we could get from $711 billion to $200 billion or so, that’d be a great help, though last year’s budget deficit was $1.1 trillion, and this year’s projected at $901 billion.
Undoubtedly so, but it can be done. One problem is that the debt is harder to get emotionally fired up about, it’s too abstract. Losing jobs is more immediate and sensational.
I’m not looking to play the devil’s advocate here. I agree that military spending is higher than it should be and that means testing is a good way to reduce entitlement spending growth. I would love to see the money moved from the DoD and put into NIH or public schools (for example). But that isn’t what happens… Or does it?
My concern is entitlements. And that spending alone is on place to keep us in debit, no matter what else happens to the federal budget. And until we get that under control, meaning telling people that they are getting less than they have been promised but gutless politicians, we can’t realistically afford new ideas, no matter how good.
SS and Medicare have their own taxes though. While in the future they’ll be out of balance, they’re basically self-funding now, and have contributed very little to the current debt (indeed, SS has been a net reducer of the debt). The same isn’t true of military spending.
Military spending is a very inefficient means of stimulating the economy. Spend the money on something else for more jobs. Or even just hand the money out as welfare - because let’s be honest, if we are spending money on the military just for “jobs”, all that is is an extremely inefficient version of welfare.
…until there’s a new war and the Army has to jump through hoops bring in untrained corpses to fill the ranks, the same way they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. It can be $100b, $200b, or $300b… whatever your arbitrary goal is, it does us no good if it depletes the force to the point that the military becomes ineffective.
If you have a magical idea for maintaining military superiority AND fighting global terrorism AND cutting the budget all at the same time, there are some people in Washington who would like to talk to you.
The biggest barrier to cutting funding is that the people in charge clearly understand that cutting budget means losing capabilities.
US healthcare spending is 2 600 billion. Other countries get better results from half the amount, per person or as a % of GDP. Generally, roughly half, or 1 300 billion, is considered to be wasted. That is almost twice the US military budget.
Reducing the amount that an already ridiculously bloated budget line *increases *in future years is not “slashing” it.
Cutting military spending is not the only solution, but it’s unfortunate nobody has the yarbles to even suggest genuine cuts, particularly when its our meddling that causes many of the problems which we the respond to with military action. Spending is creating instability in order to justify itself. People can see this with other aspects of government spending but when it comes to the military the choir of angels comes out. It’s nothing special, it’s just another business.
None of this gets fixed until we roll back to pre-1980 tax rates and means test entitlements and end our imperial overreach, and anybody who tells you different is just selling something.
Okay… I agree. To reduce entitlement spending we should raise the retirement age, implement means testing, find a way to keep the aging population healthier and in the work force longer…etc.
But the OP asked about reducing military budgets to 1/3rd of current levels and I think it’s too one sided of a solution.
YES, if the US could get national healthcare expenditures under control it would go a long way toward making Medicare solvent in the long term. SS just needs a few tweaks, it’s Medicare that is unsustainable under our current system.