Congress should not downsize the us military budget

congress should not downsize the us military budget Not even defense hawks were complaining about the budget being too low in 2007, says lawrence korb, a former assistant secretary of defense under president reagan at $472 billion, the us will still be spending more on its military than the next 17 nations combined, and three times more than china.

Had congress not passed this law, the united states could've defaulted on payments like social security and medicare for the first time in history subjects: debt, federal budget, military. As such, the military budget should be trimmed in a prudent fashion as part of an overall plan to downsize the government and balance the budget the current plan assumes that spending on overseas contingency operations — which will be $65 billion in 2017 — would be phased down to zero. Sequestration refers to the framework for automatic, across-the-board cuts to both military and non-military spending that were originally designed to force bipartisan negotiators in congress to.

congress should not downsize the us military budget Not even defense hawks were complaining about the budget being too low in 2007, says lawrence korb, a former assistant secretary of defense under president reagan at $472 billion, the us will still be spending more on its military than the next 17 nations combined, and three times more than china.

In effect, congress nearly obliterated all the efforts in recent years to hold down spending outlays this year will be only 34 percent below what was projected in march 2011, before the budget. The hon john m mchugh, secretary of the army, and general raymond t odierno, chief of staff, united states army, on the posture of the united states army, statement before the committee on armed services, us, senate, april 23, 2013, p. Oh i'm sure he'll propose downsizing the budget, but congress is the one that has to approve it and democrats aren't known for cutting funding to anything, even for the military theres also the fact that cutting the military budget would be seen by alot of his middle class supporters (who basically gave him this election) as attacking the troops.

Congress should listen to the pentagon's plea to approve brac by christopher a preble congress is poised to yet again deny the pentagon's request to reduce its excess overhead. Congress's official budget scorekeeper recently projected the federal deficit will rise to more than $1 trillion a year by 2020, sparking concerns among both republicans and democrats in congress that spending is growing at an unsustainable rate and could trigger higher inflation.

The united states will spend about $600 billion on national defense in 2017, according to the government's definition 1 that includes spending on the base pentagon budget, spending on overseas contingency operations or current wars, and spending on defense-related activities in other agencies, including nuclear weapons activities in the department of energy. The spending bill allocates $7 billion more than that requested by president trump's budget for fiscal year 2019 congress must pass a spending bill for defense and the other departments by september 30, 2018, to avoid a government shutdown. In other words, during a time when budgets are being cut and constrained, it doesn't really make sense to be spending so much on military bands, according to certain members of congress.

As congress and the white house gird up for another round of budget battles -- by christmas there will be another standoff about raising the budget ceiling -- it is easy for people to forget that major budget cuts are already in the works for example, the us army is preparing to downsize by 40,000 more active duty personnel. Correction appended, march 10, 2016 both the obama administration and congress are pushing for higher spending on the military next year, as are most of the presidential candidates. In a speech at the defense news conference on sept 7, wilson blamed mandatory budget cuts for forcing the service to downsize even though it remained in continuous combat operations in.

Congress should not downsize the us military budget

10 reasons the us should not cut military spending questions of commitment to the military have dogged the obama presidency since he came to office he has been accused, on a regular basis, of showing disrespect to americans in uniform. Navy rear adm john kirby, the pentagon press secretary, said monday that hagel consulted closely with the military service chiefs on how to balance defense and budget-saving requirements. The request would downsize the military, especially the army, whose active-duty force would shrink to between 440,000 and 450,000 soldiers -- and even further to 420,000 soldiers if automatic cuts.

The annual budget proposal the defense department will formally unveil next week will call for an overall reduction in the size of the military, along with some cutbacks to the benefits service. By 2023, the united states will spend more on interest than on the military the last thing we need is more irresponsibility from congress for the sake of political expediency.

The views i express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of the heritage foundation this committee has already fully explored the extent to which the us defense budget has been. The army should bottom out at 450,000 soldiers, said michael o'hanlon, a military analyst at the brookings institution cutting more would make me quite nervous, he said. The cuts proposed by mr hagel fit the bipartisan budget act reached by mr obama and congress in december to impose a military spending cap of about $496 billion for fiscal year 2015 if steeper spending reductions kick in again in 2016 under the sequestration law, however, then even more significant cuts would be required in later years.

congress should not downsize the us military budget Not even defense hawks were complaining about the budget being too low in 2007, says lawrence korb, a former assistant secretary of defense under president reagan at $472 billion, the us will still be spending more on its military than the next 17 nations combined, and three times more than china. congress should not downsize the us military budget Not even defense hawks were complaining about the budget being too low in 2007, says lawrence korb, a former assistant secretary of defense under president reagan at $472 billion, the us will still be spending more on its military than the next 17 nations combined, and three times more than china. congress should not downsize the us military budget Not even defense hawks were complaining about the budget being too low in 2007, says lawrence korb, a former assistant secretary of defense under president reagan at $472 billion, the us will still be spending more on its military than the next 17 nations combined, and three times more than china.
Congress should not downsize the us military budget
Rated 5/5 based on 40 review