Aziz 1

Nabil Aziz
Mr. Davis
18 October 2016
Government Period 4
Military Spending Bill
Living in a country with free healthcare was sought to be an unachievable goal for United
States citizens but with many European countries providing free healthcare for all of their
citizens, having free health care in the United States could be possible. The United States is the
ultimate super power in the world, spending the most on their military compared to every nation.
The United States is currently spending $607 billion dollars on their military in 2016, more than
the next seven countries combined. This money could be used in numerous ways such as curing
cancer, providing free healthcare, and science programs. Although many people in the
government want to increase the military budget for exceeding costs such as protecting our
nation or wanting to be the number one super power. Decreasing the military budget is the only
sustainable solution for a continuous thriving nation such as the United States, in order for equity
among other federal programs, free health care, and technological advances in science and
medicine.
The United States military budget is far too unjustly and overfunded compared to other
federal funded programs. Being the most powerful country on the face of the planet could offer
much more than our ridiculous funded military program. In 2016, U.S. military spending will be
$607 billion, including $59 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, the fund that ostensibly
finances wars but also funds non-war (or base) accounts.(Friedman) Spending above $600

Aziz 2

billion dollars for our military is absolutely absurd because of how much other federal programs
receive such as education which only receives 1% of the entire budget. Citizens of the United
States of America should not wonder why their hard earned paychecks are going to machine
guns in the middle east in order to interrupt other nations dilemmas. The policing and protection
of other nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq should be eradicated in order to focus our attention
to advancing as society. By concentrating defending at home we will be saving at least $100
billion dollars from consumptions of foreign countries needs. Focusing on defending our actual
nation instead of protecting Japan, Europe, and South Korea would be ideal for saving money in
our military budget. As difficult as it is passing a bill in congress, President Obama has already
put his attention to decreasing the military budget. Today President Barack Obama sent
Congress a proposed budget request of $582.7 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund
the Department of Defense in Fiscal Year 2017 (FY 2017).(Department of Defense) Although a
slight decrease by $25 billion dollars from 2016, this is not enough in order to satisfy the needs
of the citizens of the United States of America. Much more decreasement is necessary to
establish well funded programs.The exceeded military budget will bring succession to the United
States by bringing free health to all of our citizens.
The United States is one of the only well developed countries left that does not give free
healthcare to their citizens but with less funding going towards the military budget that could
change. While many Americans believe they are being taxed enough and do not want to pay
more for free health care, it is possible to have the same taxation yet receive free health care. The
sole way to do this would be to decrease our heavy funded military budget. A similar 2012
survey by three nonprofit groups, including the University of Maryland group and the Center for

Aziz 3

Public Integrity, found most of the public then backed deep spending cuts in most categories of
military spending, including air power, sea power, ground forces, nuclear weapons and missile
defense. (Chadwick) It has been established that our citizens do not want to pay more taxes but
they do want to decrease our military budget according to this survey. These ideals are
connecting in a somewhat perfect manner accordance to the wantings of our citizens. Ways to
decrease to the military budget is to begin auditing the pentagon although never done before this
could lead to billions of potential savings being discovered unlike now how much of the money
is lost or either wasted on unneeded purchases. Our history shows how unrare it is for us to
decrease the military budget since we have already done it multiple times.It is not
unprecedented for defense spending to fall substantially as we scale back or end military actions.
After the Korean War, President Dwight Eisenhower cut defense spending 27 percent. Richard
Nixon cut it 29 percent after Vietnam. (Zakaria) Nixon and Eisenhower decreased our military
budget after bigger scaled wars were implemented compared to recent wars such as Afghanistan
and Iraq. Yet recent presidents have not followed in their action by decreasing the military
budgets even though the Afghan and Iraqi wars were smaller and less important to us than
Vietnam and Korea. Free healthcare for United States citizens would only go so far as science
and medicine could allow it.
The United States is undoubtedly the best country in the world since it became one of the
biggest superpowers yet our science and medicine programs our extremely underfunded due to
the military budget. Our level of status in the world through our famous luxurious lifestyles
should be equivalent to our findings in science and medicine. Living the American Dream with
Ferraris and mansions is possible yet finding the cure to cancer is a mystery to scientists

Aziz 4

nowadays. According to Congressman John Porter ("The U.S. Should Invest") The general
public, and in particular elected officials, have failed to embrace the promise of cutting-edge
science as a means to improve health and the economy. Former Congressman Porter
acknowledged the necessary steps in order for our country to follow its successful advancement
in society. Our government has been wrongly representing its citizens when they decided that the
military is more important than health and science to us. It is shown through the funding of
programs and the priorities they hold. With the world competing for their spot at who have more
nuclear weapons, obviously with the amount of money we spend on the military. CBO estimates
the Administrations plans for nuclear forces would cost $348 billion over the next decade,
close to last years estimate. ("Projected Costs of U.S.) Considering how many diseases and
projects that could be studied and processed is unimaginable compared to the nuclear waste we
are creating actually hurting us in the end. These nuclear weapons could be new vaccines or
cures actually bettering the American People instead they are used to portray dominance among
the world. Stubbornness is one of the main reasons why our political system cannot work in
many of the scenarios that are presented to them such as moving money spent from one program
to another.
The many benefits of decreasing the military budget can only convince people how truly
beneficial it is but there are insensitives not to do it such as the military stimulates the economy
and the vulnerability of the United States.The military does indeed support our economy by
producing thousands of jobs for Americans and the purchases from private contractors. It is
extremely unlikely to have one of the best militaries in the world be vulnerable just because we
are spending less because we are still the same military except without as much money but still

Aziz 5

able to compete as number one in the world. To cut costs, DoD could transfer some of those
positions to civilian employees and then reduce the number of military personnel accordingly.
CBO estimates that doing so for 80,000 full-time positions could eventually save the federal
government $3.1 billion to $5.7 billion per year. (Those savings are measured in terms of
annualized costs. That term encompasses all liabilities, current and future, that the federal
government incurs by employing a military service member or a civilian today, expressed as
annual amounts. All annualized amounts are in real terms, meaning that they have been adjusted
to remove the effects of inflation.) ("Replacing Military Personnel in") By removing military
personnel and replacing them with civilians, the amount of money saved is worth it all together.
Another way would to help would be to replace all outside contractors with government
employees. The military could also stop duplicating existing government and private programs
like health care, recreation centers and grocery stores would save about $10 billion dollars a year
which would help indefinitely with the decreasement. Following in the ways of Bill Clinton with
his military budget plan is worth looking at especially since the economy during his reign was so
efficient.The defense budget is being reduced, and administration plans envision continuing
reductions through the Fiscal Year 1995. An integral part of this reduction is a drawdown of the
Department of Defense (DoD) workforce, including 2 million active duty military members and
1 million civilian employees.(Boesel) By limiting the amount of workers this would decrease
the amount of aid given after service in the military that way less spending on future veterans
and that be yet another potential saving.
A sustainable nation must suffice to sacrifice for the greater good of the people in order
to ensure the greatest country on the planet has universal healthcare along with the science and

Aziz 6

medicine to maintain but because the decreasement of the military budget has allowed for all of
this to happen. The best quality service from our government is expected from every law abiding
citizen so to do them with unjust actions is the worst possibility for them. The people deserve to
be heard and given what they need so we can live in sustainability and peace.

Aziz 7

Works Cited
Friedman, Benjamin H. "Restrained Strategy, Lower Military Budgets." Cato Institute. N.p., 07
Sept. 2016. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/restrained-strategy-lower-military-budgets
Department of Defense (DoD) Releases Fiscal Year 2017 President." U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Sept. 2016.
Chadwick, Lauren. "Most Voters Favor Defense Cuts. Most Politicians Don't." Time. Time, 10
Mar. 2016. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.
http://time.com/4253842/defense-spending-obama-congress-poll-voters/
Zakaria, Fareed. "Why Defense Spending Should Be Cut." Washington Post. The Washington
Post, 3 Aug. 2011. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-defense-spending-should-be-cut/2011/08
/03/gIQAsRuqsI_story.html?utm_term=.b3ec0dd0eb36
Salzburg, Steven. "The U.S. Should Invest In Science, Not War." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 16
June 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalz
berg/2014/06/16/us-should-invest-in-science-not-war/&refURL=https://www.google.com
/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
"Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2015 to 2024." Congressional Budget Office. N.p., 04
Aug. 2016. Web. 08 Sept. 2016. https://www.cbo.gov
"Replacing Military Personnel in Support Positions With Civilian Employees." Congressional
Budget Office. N.p., 27 July 2016. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.

Aziz 8

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51012-Military_Civili
an_Report.pdf

Boesel, David. "Cutting Recruits:A Profile of the Newly Unqualified." (n.d.): n. pag. Ccclib.
Web. 18 Sept. 2016. http://ccclib.org