Military sequestration and the U.S. Budget

The U.S. Budget Control Act calls for dollar reductions of $1.2 trillion for all federal government departments, including $500 million in military cuts. The legislation’s intent is to impact all four branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines) of the U.S. military.

With country-sponsored military buildups in Russia, North Korea, Iran, and sponsored terrorism, e.g., ISIS, many government observers, including the U.S. Defense Secretary, consider these legislative cuts to be the "biggest strategic danger" to national security. Future events will test the veracity of this dire prediction.

What Sequestration Really Means

The term, "sequestration," has come to mean austerity programs created by the U.S. Congress, not the original legal meaning of "protection of valuable property by an agent of the court." The U.S. Treasury Department fills the role of "agent" and reducing the "budget deficit" taking on the role of valuable property.

The Treasury Department manages the sequestration (the difference between budget spending caps and the dollars actually appropriated by Congress). Not publicly targeted to the military, this technique theoretically applies to every government agency.

However, much of the ongoing debate among supporters of the policy and detractors from sequestration involves the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the risks to national security that allegedly increase due to massive military cuts. The question: Is U.S. national security reduced by dollar cuts in military spending?

Sequestration supporters say "No," while sequestration opponents emphatically say "Yes!" Which camp is right? This remains the unanswered issue.

U.S. Budget Considerations

While few disagree that targeting a balanced federal budget (only spend what you make) is a worthy goal. There are a wide range of different opinions about how to achieve this objective.

The U.S. has many supporters of a strong military. Believing in a volunteer versus mandatory military, supporters contend the nation should allow the leaders of the military, the Joint Chiefs, should determine the amount of money needed to maintain the world’s best military.

Others maintain that military spending cuts are required to have the money available for various social programs that are now neglected, causing undue hardship on many Americans. Which group is right? Probably both of them. Many on both sides argue that the military should be more competitive by taking out bids from more suppliers.

Yet, in the backwash of the great recession of the first decade of the 21st century, when tax revenues dropped dangerously, U.S. economic recovery has still not caught up with recession monetary shortfalls. However, the nation needs a viable military to keep the U.S. secure from outside threats.

Congress Seems to Understand the Dilemma

Both arms of Congress (Senators and Representatives) appear to understand (finally) the problem. They have delayed real sequestration, but just raised the federal budget, which is also dangerous. To this date neither Congress nor noteworthy economists have espoused a plan that garners public support.

Legislation, to date, has been ineffective in bringing the federal budget into balance. Military supporters contend that efforts have only weakened the military to dangerous levels. Their contention: Countries that are governed by "loose cannon" leaders, e.g. North Korea, have threatened U.S. national security that put our citizens at risk.

Only time will reveal if they (military supporters) are correct. Is it really worth the risk of waiting for history to prove (or disprove) them correct?

Author Bio:

The writer is an expert in the field of 4810000087327 with focus on Pacific Shore Parts LLC.

Pacific Shore Parts. pacshoreparts.com. It's an aerospace distribution website that allows users to search millions of parts and request a quote directly and immediately for the parts they are looking for.