http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/news/economy/defense-budget/index.html?iid=SF_E_River
The pentagon has proposed some much needed cuts in government spending. They are proposing a 526.6 billion dollar cut in some weapons programs and infrastructure. They would be terminating the lower priority weapons programs while consolidating the existing infrastructure. These proposals are looking to side step the forced cuts from the sequester that wasn't avoided. Since the US is spends the most money on the military than many of the other top countries combined, it begs the question if this is enough cut backs or if there should be more. Also, how will these cut backs effect the troops already stationed overseas and other more important defense programs?
3 comments:
On the face of things it would certainly appear that we overspend on defense. According to business insider, we spend more than the next fifteen nations combined on defense. Based on that fact I would say there has to be a way for us to reduce spending without putting our nation's troops at increased risk of harm.
I think current defense spending is important, but definitely bloated. Cutting spending would encourage more efficiency within the defense sector and not necessarily weaken America. Over the past few years, it seems like funding defense has been equivalent to writing a blank check. Given our current economic situation and the high stakes politics of modern warfare, I think reducing our defense budget is a sensible decision.
I think it is interesting that you bring up how the US spends the most on military related activities, and I agree that this might be a good thing in some ways. However, I hope these cuts are not taking out necessary goods and protections from the US citizens.
Post a Comment