In Response to: Government Cuts on Security

This blog post is in response to Brandon Nguyen's editorial: Government Cuts on Security

Brandon, I agree with you that a long-term solution means a careful evaluation of each budgetary item. We, as a country, have gotten used to the idea of surplus spending and expect someone else to solve our financial woes. The reality of the situation is that we are in debt and in desperate need to cut back our spending to help our economy recover. Our national security and defense expenditure is one of the largest elements of our budget. The United States recognizes that a powerful military is important in maintaining our safety. However, we spend more than many of the most industrious nations combined and accounted for 43% of global military expenditures in 2010. [1] I feel national defense is one area where there is a need scale back our spending. I do agree with you that the safety of the people needs to be upheld but at what cost?

Ron Paul, current Republican presidential candidate, has been vocal in his stance of scaling back America’s military footprint in foreign nations. I think this could be a reasonable option. We currently operate in over 100 countries and this is very costly. This also adds to the notion that as a country we need to “police the world” which can create a negative view on what America truly stands for, diplomacy and democracy. By bringing our troops back home we can hope to secure our borders at a lower cost and help balance our national budget. [2] Of course this idea seems simple and could have potential drawbacks. The best method to test this theory would either be a temporary scale back or a minor scale back of certain bases. Either way, Congress needs to find a way to successfully decrease military spending without losing the national security we have upheld as a nation.

[1] http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

[2] http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Ron-Paul-foreign-policy/2011/11/20/id/418626