When the political administration of the United States changes from one party to another, drastic changes to policy and decision making occur. One of these changes includes the federal budget and the amount that the government chooses to spend on “guns,” or defense, versus “butter,” or civilian goods, with the finite amount of resources available. With changes to the political climate from mainly democratic to republican, proposals for the upcoming 2019 fiscal budget have included requests for increases in defense spending. The increases to federal defense spending proposed by the current United States administration will harm the United States; therefore, the United States government should redirect some of the budget for defense towards funding for diplomacy and the State Department.
The allocation of federal funds has always been a topic of debate, and with each change of federal administration, the federal budget also fluctuates. The federal fiscal budget for 2019 has been under dispute ever since President Donald Trump made a proposal that contained sharp decreases to the State Department, the executive department that represents the United States in international affairs and foreign policy issues, and foreign diplomacy while increasing the federal defense budget. If these proposals end up in the finalized budget, the effects will prove detrimental to the United States, whereas diplomacy and better foreign relations will be beneficial to the United States in the long run.
One reason that the increases to federal defense spending proposed by the current administration will harm the United States is by contributing to the federal deficit, which in itself is a potential threat to the nation as a whole. In President Donald Trump’s 2019 fiscal budget proposal, he requested $23 billion in funding for increased security along the United States’ border with Mexico. The predicted federal deficit as a consequence of the proposal is projected to easily surpass $1 trillion (Taylor and Crustinger). While the pros and cons of building the Mexican-United States border wall are largely unknown and often debated, the effects of the budget increase on the federal deficit have been estimated to result in negative consequences. According to Damian Paletta, a journalist for The Washington Post, “In 2019 and 2020 alone, the government would add a combined $2 trillion in debt under Trump's plan.” Since this plan contains border security spending in the name of defense, the proposed increases will dramatically impact the federal deficit.
Another way increased federal defense spending will harm the United States is by depriving other important federally funded programs of proper finances. According to Dr. Mark R. Rank, who studies poverty, social welfare, economic inequality, and social policy, “The United States has the weakest safety net among the western industrialized nations.” In other words, while the United States spends the most on defense out of every other industrialized nation, the United States spends the least on safety nets, such as medicare, medicaid, and welfare, for citizens than any other developed country. In addition to adverse effects on social safety nets, President Trump’s proposed budget cuts for 2019 include a twenty-nine percent decrease in State Department spending and a twenty-five percent decrease in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding (Washington Post Staff). The impacts of proposed budget cuts to social safety nets, the State Department, and the EPA will end up proving detrimental to the United States.
Furthermore, the current amount of money being spent on defense in the United States is not being used efficiently, so if the allocation of defense money is corrected to be more effective, there would be no need for an increase. Ruben Gallego, democratic United States Representative of Arizona, stated, “It’s shameful that President Trump wants to waste DoD [Department of Defense] resources on a pointless parade and a National Guard deployment to the border” (Cohen). Simply put, President Trump wants to deploy the National Guard to the Mexico-United States Border while the spending for that excursion could more effectively be allocated towards training and equipment for defense personnel in order to increase military readiness. During his presidential campaign, President Trump made comments regarding the wasteful spending on wars in the Middle East (Vanden Heuvel). He is now committed to spending more on the same wars, namely in Syria, further exacerbating the inefficiency of defense spending.
Supporters of increased federal defense spending claim that with rising tensions between the United States and other countries, the United States needs to have the funds to defend itself. China has announced that it plans to increase military expenditure by just over eight percent (Lendon). In response, propagators of defense spending increases believe that reactive measures to potential threats, which in this case is China increasing its military budget, must remain an option. In other words, defense spender enthusiasts maintain that the United States needs to be prepared in the event of any conflict with other foreign nations.
There will always be potential threats looming over the United States; however, just because another country has decided to increase their military budget does not mean that the United States needs to follow suit, especially since the federal government already spends so much more than other countries on national defense. The United States accounts for thirty six percent of the share of the world’s military expenditure, while China, the second highest spender, only accounts for thirteen percent (Lendon). In other words, the amount that China will spend on military with the increase is still less than half of what the United States spends on defense. Other possible threats, such as North Korea and Russia, only spend a fraction on defense compared to the United States, with Russia being the third largest contributor to the world’s military expenditure (McCarthy). Comparatively, the United States spends more than all of these three countries combined on defense. Since the United States allocates so much funding compared to other possible threats, it is more than prepared to defend itself, clearly indicating that there is no need for an increase.
In order to mitigate the potential negative impacts of increased defense spending proposals, the United States should redirect some of the current federal defense budget towards foreign diplomacy efforts, such as the State Department. Christiane Amanpour, a chief international correspondent, stated, “The only way a military campaign in Syria can have a lasting impact is if it is a part of a wider diplomatic and political strategy.” In other words, diplomacy is just as important, if not more so, than defense and military presence because it provides a long term solution. The United States’ stance on diplomacy action has been relying on reactive measures for too long. In order to sustain interest in the pursuit of peaceful and successful diplomacy with other foreign countries, the United States needs to move towards a proactive stance on foreign relations (Kraley). The benefits of diplomacy will far outweigh the benefits from reactive defense spending, and should be taken advantage of by the United States government.
In an attempt to effectively navigate foreign conflict and avoid economical predicaments, the United States needs to redirect its current spending on defense towards diplomacy and State Department spending. Increases to defense spending will prove to be detrimental to the United States, whereas funding for diplomacy, rather than slashing the budget, will improve the overall well being of the United States for a longer period of time.