U.S. President Barack Obama did something that he doesn’t usually do on Thursday: he vetoed a bill, which he has done only five times since taking office in 2008. The defense policy bill aims to fund the armed forces and came with a $612 billion price tag, according to The New York Times. The bill is part of a bigger struggle between Democrats and Republicans to control the budget for the fiscal year of 2016. By now, Americans are fed up with the political war in Washington when it comes time to finance and the federal government, so instead I would like to look at the military spending piece of this battle.
You might be aware that the United States spends more money on their military than any other nation in the world. The difference between the United States’ and other countries’ defense budgets is actually quite large — according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, second place goes to China, which spends an estimated $216 billion on their army, followed by Russia, which spends an estimated $84 billion. China’s population is about five times larger than America’s, yet the country spends about a third of what we spend on our military. Russia is almost twice the size of the United States, yet spends $500 billion less per year to defend its borders.
The fact that we spend so much money on the military is completely unnecessary. The U.S. is blessed to have extremely defensible borders — the contiguous 48 states border just two countries. One of them is Canada, our long time ally, and the other is Mexico, which does not represent a threat to America in their posture or strength. The northern border is blanketed by heavy woods that are completely covered by snow during the winter, the southern by harsh desert and swamps. The east and west coasts are protected by vast oceans, and the heartland is protected further still by the Appalachian and Rocky mountain ranges.
In other countries, tax dollars are used more heavily to provide social services such as healthcare and college tuition. The question is not so much whether the benefits of liberal socialism are correct policy choices for the United States as much as whether these benefits are more beneficial than using that same money to buy bombs, jet fuel and bullets. Realistically, spending that money on arms is not worth it. Not all social benefits like the ones offered by European governments should be adopted in the United States, but we could adopt a few (especially free tuition).
In an era of massive national debt where the deficit grows like a malignant tumor, what could be better than working out the country’s finances? As of Sunday, the deficit on our budget stands at about $435 billion, according to the U.S. National Debt Clock. This means that we could conceivably reduce our military spending and simultaneously get rid of the deficit in our budget so we can begin to work away at the national debt.
There are a few problems with messing with military budgets. There are warhawk politicians and private citizens who view any act against the military as fundamentally weakening the United States. I disagree with this notion, because the amount being spent on military endeavors is disproportionate when compared to other countries. Another issue is that many people who have no appetite for war believe that the U.S. has a role in the world as a hegemon and that it requires a strong military to protect its interests — but I think the military’s budget can be cut down significantly before there is any risk of America becoming a second-rate power.
The groups that such decisions usually concern include current military personnel and veterans. Some politicians have equated military cuts to cutting of benefits for veterans or active duty troops because it is politically savvy to say so. However, if the government cut down on the purchase of new weapons or on the development of failed aircraft like the F35, it shouldn’t affect anyone’s pension. After all, according to Business Insider, out of the $612 billion spent on the military, only $135.2 billion is for personnel. By limiting recruitment, the United States Armed Forces could also shrink the amount of active duty personnel without jeopardizing any jobs or benefits.
At the end of the day, we must choose if we want to live in a country that cares more about its citizens than its ability to kill people or if it’s the other way around. I would never call for the dissolution of the Armed Forces, nor would I make the claims that I have made if I had the slightest suspicion that this would hurt the United States. We just need to understand that the top brass from the army are always going to make it seem like the world will end if they don’t get everything they want, and we believe them because they are experts in defending us. But perhaps we should take their suggestions with a grain of salt and make our decisions based on what would do the most good for the largest number of people.
