The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute host a Republican presidential debate on CNN this Tuesday at 8 p.m. on the subjects of foreign policy and national security. At a time when domestic issues dominate the headlines, Tuesday’s debate offers an opportunity to refocus our attention on matters of constitutional significance.
The Founding Fathers spelled out in the U.S. Constitution that the federal government must provide for the common defense. Yet defense spending has fallen below its 45-year historical average. It is projected to drop to 3.4 percent of gross domestic product in just a few short years.
Presidential candidates will have an opportunity to share their thoughts on this trend Tuesday night. It should be a timely topic with the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction expected to announce its plan — or lack thereof — by Wednesday. Democrats have already suggested that it wouldn’t be bad thing if automatic cuts to defense were trigged by the lack of a deal.
In anticipation of defense cuts, last week the Foreign Policy Initiative, American Enterprise Institute and Heritage warned that the future of America’s national security hangs in the balance. Heritage has strongly advocated for the Super Committee to fully fund defense or risk a dangerous readiness crisis.
Presidential candidates will have an opportunity to share their thoughts on this trend Tuesday night. It should be a timely topic with the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction expected to announce its plan ,http://bit.ly/uYpdya
Wow, what a surprise! Just remember, when this supercommittee fails and our defense budget is cut
even more, it was Republican that voted along with Democrats to do this to us, knowing full well their
was never a chance this bunch will ever reach any agreement on anything.
Did Panetta send his letter to any Democratic members of the House or Senate?
defense spending dwindles under obama? obviously concerned with his protection over the protection of we the people!
Actually, total military spending is already lower than 5% – it's actually 4.6% of GDP now, and the core defense budget amounts to just 3.5% of GDP, the lowest level since FY1948 if you exclude the late Clinton years.
The constitution stipulates that the federal government will provide national defense and only national defense. It does not stipulate the the federal government will provide general welfare or other programs. Therefore, it is the one fund that should not be jeopardized and should be contributed to by all adult citizens. In my opinion, generally, all other funds should be subject to competition and individual choice.
How would you rate the performance of military and military operations under Obama? I'd have to say it's been quite succesful. Seems to be spending the money wisely to me.
oh yes so very well, you have to be kidding. he is prematurely pulling out of Iraq, shorting our military in afghanistan. going to war in libya, while ignoring similar problems. Preparing to hand our foreign policy over to the UN yes fabulous job
This is incredibly misleading. First off, if you are interested in seeing what the actual numbers are ( I am not sure where they got their graph, here is a link to find out what the outlays are for past and future years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Sp… Secondly, if we are really talking apples and oranges, relative to how much we spend compared to other countries, we are spending hundreds of times more compared to the closest second country of China. Refer to this chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by…
Please present a comparison of non-defense & defense spending as a percentage of GDP – same for spending as a percentage of tax receipts – throw in deficits and debt. Should be a a super chart – the last 50 years should do.
if countries want the presence of America's military, how come they aren't paying the bill? this would tell all if American troops are wanted overseas or not!
Wow! I am sure that we are supposed to be alarmed and offended that our country is being surrendered to the Evil Empire; however, that supposes that we are ignorant, fearful and gullible. Many of us are not. We are well aware that America retains a qualitative and, in the case of some sophisticated weapons systems, a quantitative lead in defense assets.
Furthermore, for those so concerned about defense spending, then propose raising taxes. Patriotic Americans such as myself will certainly support taxation for this purpose. Why is it that conservatives have been reluctant to pay for the wars of the last ten years from taxation? Why depart from the historical tradition of paying for war as we go? Of bond drives and appeals to patriotic fund-raising and sacrifice? Why cut benefits to veterans? Americans are much more patriotic than conservatives acknowledge or actually want.
Love how they include the vietnam war in here in calculating the average…why not throw in WWII while you're at it…hilarious the manipulation of statistics by the right wing corporate think tanks…guess what obama killed OBL, khaddafi, and also 25 of the 27 top al qaeda officials…plus iraq is over. no wonder they needed to spin the numbers.
Bunch of right wing dorks !