Are Cuts to the Defense Budget Necessary? >
Cutting Military Spending Does Not Mean Cutting Defense
By limiting expenditures, U.S. can actually solidify its defense
November 21, 2011
About Ron Paul:
Ron Paul is a former Republican congressman and presidential candidate, and is now the Chairman of Campaign for Liberty.
When asked about my intention to cut the U.S. defense budget, I am always quick to clarify that I want to cut military spending, not defense. I want America to be the most strongly defended nation in the world, but I oppose our current foreign policy that stretches our troops thin across the globe so we can play world policeman. This foolish endeavor costs us dearly in lives, and it has become far too expensive to sustain.
In the past 10 years, overall military spending has more than doubled, which should be extremely troubling for those claiming to be fiscally conservative. Frankly, it is impossible that government does not waste any of the hundreds of billions we spend on defense yearly.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit]
We cannot control government's growth without reining in the expansion of the military industrial complex. If we are really serious about balancing the budget and addressing our unsustainable debt, nothing can be off the table.
For instance, President Obama claimed we were drawing down troop levels this year and turning over operations to the Iraqis. Surely, at least a 10 percent cost savings should have come from that move alone. Yet the funding for 2011 was exactly the same as 2010, and the spending outlook for 2012 doesn't seem to indicate any reductions in this area.
We will remain in great jeopardy if we do not immediately change course. Either we make the tough choices now, or we face the even tougher consequences later.
My Plan to Restore America does not cut one penny of defense. But it helps make America more secure, and it brings our troops home to defend this country. Under my plan, America will retain the strongest national defense in the world, but we will end expensive foreign wars, overseas nation building, and foreign welfare.
[See photos of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.]
Under my presidency, the United States will still spend more money on defense than President Bush did in FY 2005. America will still spend four times more on defense than China and more than all the countries of Western Europe combined. We will continue to maintain our status as the most dominant military force on the planet, but we will do so with a much more sensible and sustainable foreign policy.
And we will be more secure.
- See a slide show of 6 vulnerable potential terrorist targets.
- Check out our editorial cartoons on Afghanistan.
- See photos of the prison at Guantánamo Bay.
- Other Arguments
-
#213268
Yes — Reducing the military budget means less war, not more
PATRICK TAKAHASHI, Director Emeritus at the University of Hawaii
-
#38144
Yes — Reductions should be a gradual process led by the military braintrust
TRAVIS SHARP, Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security
-
#46035
Yes — Military must play its part here to halt the deficit threat too
LAWRENCE J. KORB, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense
-
#55143
Yes — Cuts may be necessary, but don't shift the entire burden to the military
KORI SCHAKE, Bradley Professor of International Security Studies at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
-
#64139
Yes — Restore order at the department and bring defense budgets back into line
GORDON ADAMS, Professor at American University
-
#76280
No — The solution to the debt crisis lies in entitlements and taxes, not the military budget
DOUG BERENSON, Director of the Defense & Aerospace Group at Avascent Group
-
#84676
No — Defense budget is not large enough to cover president's foreign policy agenda
MACKENZIE EAGLEN, Fellow at the Heritage Foundation
-
#95182
No — The consequences of cutting the military budget are still not understood
J. RANDY FORBES, U.S. Representative and Chairman of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee
