Running head: Argument Research Paper
Argument Research Paper
Adam S. Tsegga
Crafton Hills College
ENGL Composition 102-40
1
Argument Research Paper
2
Throughout the past three decades within the United States of America, the federal
government has immensely allotted billions of dollars per year to finance military spending. Due
to this morbid defense allocation, much conflict has arisen due to this uneven distribution of
federal expenditure. If this significant amount of governmental assets were to be redistributed in
a more even manner, prosperous and beneficial fields of studies such as but not limited to
medical research and advancements in aeronautic technological would become significantly
more feasible. Though it is crucial to fund military defense in order to provide necessary aid for
combatant equipment, reduction in defense allocation is equally as imperative to more evenly
allot federal spending.
As previously mentioned, the government of the United States of America has immense
federal allotment to fund military defense. Before continuing upon military defense allocation, it
is imperative to first provide background information upon what this federal allotment
encompasses. There is a basic breakdown of defense spending that the United States government
adheres to. According to the National Priorities Organization,
The United States treasury divides all federal spending into three groups: mandatory
spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt. Mandatory and discretionary
spending account for more than 90 percent of all federal spending, and pay for all of the
government services and programs on which the populace of the United States rely on.
Interest on debt, which is a much smaller amount than the other two categories, is the
interest the government pays on its accumulated debt, minus interest income received by
the government for assets it owns (Foundation P.G., 2015).
Within realm of discretionary spending, there are 12 subdivisions. From greatest to least amount
of federal allotment, these subdivisions are comprised of: military, government, education,
Argument Research Paper
3
healthcare, veteran’s benefits, housing and community, international affairs, energy and
environment, science, transportation, and food and agricultural spending. Discretionary spending
has an allotment of $1.11 trillion per year to fund these various subdivisions. Within this
discretionary spending, the military accounts for 53.71 of the percentage of spending.
Furthermore, $598.49 billion is designated solely for military spending. According to the
Peterson Organization, a faction that analyzes federal spending of countries worldwide, “The
United States spends more on defense than the next seven countries combined” (Project, 2016).
China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, France, India, and Japan collectively spend
approximately $567 billion per year to fund their defense spending while the United States alone
allocated $31.49 billon more than the next seven countries combined to fund combatant
spending.
A vast majority of citizens within the United States find it quite difficult to believe that
their country that they reside in designates such an astronomical amount for military defense.
Though the validity of defense spending may be questionable, former president Barack Obama
explicitly stated in his last State of the Union address on January 12, 2015, that the budget
designated for United States defense is indeed true. Obama declared,
I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is
all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker,"
Let me tell you something: The United States of America is the most powerful nation on
Earth. Period. Period. It’s not even close. It’s not even close. We spend more on our
military than the next seven countries combined (Carrol, 2016).
Former President Obama’s words were an affirmation to the statistic that the United States alone
spends more on defense spending than the next seven nations combined.
Argument Research Paper
4
There are several companies that specialize in producing defense weaponry and supplies
for the military of the United States. Though the United States allots these various defense
industries billions of dollars to supply combatant equipment, these various organizations are not
required to provide information upon how they use the granted defense funding. According to
the news organization The Daily Dot, three major defense corporations that supply combatant
equipment for United States defense are allegedly misappropriating funding. The Daily Dot
states,
It’s not just the amount of money that the United States is paying defense companies
that’s so egregious, it’s that there’s no accountability for how defense companies spend
that money. The Raytheon Company has been fined more than $479 million for
fraudulent waste. Lockheed Martin has been fined more than $600 million for
misconduct. And Northrup Grumman has been fined over $850 million for
misappropriation of funds (Ostendorf, 2015).
These defense corporations not being held accountable upon how they use U.S. defense funding
has resulted in more than a billion dollars in waste. Though this negligence of accountability
from these major defense corporations is a pressing concern, this misappropriation of funding is
only one of the many issues that have come into existence from the extreme waste of financial
resources due to defense funding of the military.
Due to the absence of accountability from major defense corporations, a notable amount
of conflict has manifested. This conflict derives from excessively purchasing combatant supplies
that is unneeded for the United States. A plethora of avoidable issues have arisen due to the
purchased surplus of military equipment. According to the Breaking Defense Organization,
Argument Research Paper
5
We waste enormous sums on military hardware, some of which we need and some of the
services are bought even if we may not need it. Though the taxpayer is routinely
promised savings, every generation of hardware costs more than the one before and the
cost to operate that hardware is uniformly greater with each generation. We overengineer what we plan to buy, then strip out capability because it becomes too expensive.
We end up buying fewer, better aircraft, ships, missiles than we planned. (Some say this
weakens our military, but you can’t convince any other nation of that; we’re still the
toughest kid on the block and everyone else is smaller.) We do this because the
acquisition incentives are perverse: The services promise savings because that gets the
program into the budget, and the contractors play along, because “buying in” wins the
contract. Everyone hopes to get fiscally healthy later, and yet we never do. (Adams,
2012)
By purchasing military equipment that is over-engineered, the U.S. is putting themselves into an
even deeper countrywide deficit. The more debt the United States accumulates due to
misappropriating military defense funding, the lesser the amount the subdivisions within the
section of discretionary spending get funded. An additional problem that has occurred due to
excessive military spending is redundantly purchasing defense equipment so that the allotment
for military defense is “fully utilized.” Buying a surplus of combatant equipment does not make
any logical sense whatsoever especially when a plethora of supplies are already existent on
military bases. According to The Daily Dot,
We buy forces and technology redundantly, because the services do the budget planning
and the buying and each is still dedicated to self-preservation and autonomous
Argument Research Paper
6
capabilities and support (like medial and financial services). The services captured the
planning system forty years ago and have never let go (Ostendorf, 2015).
Purchasing a surplus of unneeded defense equipment is once again, misappropriating funding. If
the act of purchasing already preexisting combatant equipment was to be reduced, the financial
resources saved from the defense allotment could be redistributed to various facets within the
subdivisions of discretionary spending.
The military of the United States supports the notion of purchasing a surplus of
equipment in the instance of war or international defense conflict. The strategy behind this
ideology is to be overly prepared for battle rather underprepared and lacking combatant
resources. Due to the extreme amount of United States combatant equipment being purchased,
“Only three-fourths of the supplies end up getting fully utilized” (Pollin & Garrett, 2012). In
other words, 25 percent of the defense equipment is not used in actuality. Though having reserve
equipment on stand-by is imperative in order to maintain a reliable and dynamic military
squadron, a fourth of the military supplies provided for United States defense should not be
wasted. A crucial element of the military is exemplifying effectiveness. With one-fourth of the
combatant supplies not being utilized, a surplus of equipment is essentially going to waste.
Thereby, the military of the United States is not exemplifying complete effectiveness of
utilization of their defense equipment.
The first step in resolving an issue is admitting that there is indeed a problem. In order to
resolve an issue completely, a viable solution must be manifested into the problem at hand.
Renowned author Robert Dreyfuss proposes a potential solution for resolving excessive defense
spending for the United States in his article, Taking Aim at the Pentagon Budget. Dreyfuss
proclaims,
Argument Research Paper
7
In 2010 a series of high-powered reports called for big cuts in military spending, with
each projecting reductions of 15–20 percent of the Pentagon budget. In June the
Sustainable Defense Task Force, organized by Representatives Barney Frank and Ron
Paul, outlined a plan to cut $960 billion between 2011 and 2020, including cuts in the
nuclear arsenal, troop deployments in Europe and Asia, the size of the Navy, a wide
range of costly weapons systems and reforms in military pay scales and the Pentagon’s
healthcare system. In September the libertarian Cato Institute published a report,
“Budgetary Savings From Military Restraint,” that outlined $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten
years, including a one-third reduction in the troop strength of the Army and Marines. In
November a debt-reduction task force organized by the centrist, establishment-oriented
Bipartisan Policy Center released a plan, “Restoring America’s Future,” that proposed a
five-year freeze in Defense Department spending at current levels and then a cap on
future growth, which would save $1.1 trillion (Dreyfuss, 2015).
By reduction in the funding for the nuclear arsenal, deployments of troops, slightly marginalizing
the amount of soldiers within the military, and establishing a more feasible limit for United
States defense spending, are excellent proposed viable options to reduce the amount spent on
U.S. defense, thus increasing the amount of funding saved that can be dispersed in the
subdivisions of discretionary spending.
There are several individuals within the populace of the United States that are not in
favor of reducing the defense budget for the military. “The preeminent fear is that if the defense
budget is indeed reduced, so will the strength within the military” (Auerbach, 2014). The fact of
the matter is quite the contrary. The facet of information that is most commonly overlooked is
the arsenal of combatant equipment the United States military already is in possession of. The
Argument Research Paper
8
quality of the combatant equipment will not suffer due to the reduction in defense spending. In
actuality, the aspect of defense would essentially diminish partially due to the surplus of
equipment for U.S. defense. As previously mentioned, the United States military does not utilize
25 percent of their supplies that is funded for their defense budget. By the reduction in United
States defense budget, not only will a substantial amount of funding be saved, but also the
materials used in order to make the combatant military supplies. These saved materials could
then be used in a more effective manner such as using the composition of the equipment to help
create composite materials in order to supply building equipment for citywide infrastructure such
as buildings and bridges. Although power can be measurable through the amount of financial
resources that are available, power is not only attained through monetary assets. Power is
facilitated through the avenues of the amount of individuals within a group, intelligence, a
fixated mindset upon succeeding, and physical strength. An imperative cornerstone of the United
States’ foundation is “strength within numbers.” A plethora of troops have served for the country
of the U.S. and succeeded in doing so through there intense training protocols, and the amount of
soldiers within their designated faction. Throughout the history of the world wars that the United
States was a part of, they were able to emerge victorious with a significantly smaller defense
budget and limited combatant equipment. If this feat was attainable in these unfavorable
circumstances, then reducing and adjusting the military defense budget within the year of 2017
should be realistically attainable in the foreseeable future.
As previously mentioned, the defense funding for the United States accounts for 53.71
percent of discretionary spending. This allotment thereby creates an astronomical budget for
defense funding of $598.49 billion solely designated for the military. Most individuals can agree
that spending nearly $600 billion on defense is outrageous. If this funding for United States
Argument Research Paper
9
defense was to be reduced, the saved finances can be dispersed into the various sections of the
subdivisions of discretionary spending. It was previously stated that the United States does not
use 25 percent of their combatant equipment surplus. Therefore, the funding used to purchase
this military surplus can and should be reduced to more effectively fund other facets of
discretionary spending. Due to the military needing some reserves of equipment to adequately
supply their faction, a reasonable percentage to cut the defense budget by would be 10 percent.
This means the defense budget would be cut from $598.49 billion to $538.641 billion. The
proposed percentage cut in defense spending would alleviate $59.849 billion to be used for
funding of the facets of discretionary spending. Since the military defense funding is getting cut,
the 11 other subdivisions of discretionary spending would get additional funding rather than the
military that already has copious amounts of funding. The $59.849 billion that would be saved
due to cuts in defense would then get divided into 11 parts so that the discretionary subdivisions
are funded equally. In other words, $5.44 billion would each be granted to these 11 subdivisions,
thus equally allotting the funding of defense budget cuts for the military.
An immense amount of monetary assets are funded for the defense of the United States.
Much uproar has manifested due to the 11 other subdivisions of discretionary spending being
allotted a significantly lesser amount than compared to the military. If the proposed solutions
were put into effect in order to reduce defense, then the budget for other aspects of discretionary
spending can be increased. It imperative to realize that the strength of the military does not solely
come from an extensive defense budget. A cornerstone of America was built upon the strength
within numbers. Though financial resources may help in establishing power, monetary assets are
only a part of creating a powerful military. The essentials of creating a dynamic military force
revolve around attaining intelligence, and having a mindset of wanting to succeed and prosper. If
Argument Research Paper
10
the military utilizes this cornerstone piece of our nation and continue to use their combatant
training effectively and fully utilize their large arsenal of weaponry rather than continually
purchase redundant materials, then the United States defense budget will no longer need to have
such an immense allotment.
11
Argument Research Paper
Works Cited
Auerbach, A. J. (2014, November 13). Effects of fiscal shocks in a globalized world. Retrieved
May 15, 2017, from
https://www.imf.org/external/np/res/seminars/2014/arc/pdf/auerbach_gorodnichenko.pdf
Adams, G. (2012, July 12). We spend too much on defense. Retrieved May 15, 2017, from
http://breakingdefense.com/2012/07/we-spend-too-much-on-defense/
Carrol, L. (2016, January 13). Obama: US spends more on military than next 8 nations
combined. Retrieved May 15, 2017, from
http://www.politifact.com/statements/2016/jan/13/barack-obama/obama-us-spends-moremilitary-next-8-nations-combi/
Dreyfuss, B. (2015, June 29). Taking aim at the pentagon budget. Retrieved May 15, 2017, from
https://www.thenation.com/article/taking-aim-pentagon-budget/
Foundation, P. G. (2015, February 04). U.S. defense spending compared to other countries.
Retrieved May 15, 2017, from http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defensecomparison
Osterndorf, C. (2015, December 11). Why Bernie Sanders is right about defense spending.
Retrieved May 15, 2017, from https://www.dailydot.com/via/bernie-sanders-defensespending/
Pollin, R., & Garrett-Peltier, H. (2012, May 28). Benefits of a slimmer pentagon. Retrieved May
15, 2017, from
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/magazine___journal_a
rticles/Pollin--Garrett-Peltier--Military_Spending-Jobs_for_Nation_5-28-12.pdf
Argument Research Paper
12
Project, N. P. (2016, February 21). Federal spending: Where does the money go. Retrieved May
15, 2017, from https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget101/spending/