One of the big difference between President Obama and Governor Romney (that has stayed different during these strange changes in Governor Romney’s political stands during the presidential debates) has been about what are our military and defense spending means for our nation and the world.
Romney believes that by having a larger defense, we will be able to create more peace. Might makes right. But does it?
On a smaller scale, I think of neighbors and fences. The higher I make my fence and the more barking dogs I have behind it, the less likely my neighbors are going to believe I want to talk to them or listen to them or not attack them. Yes, they may stay out of my yard. Yes, they may smile at me. But they won’t trust me.
Of course, countries aren’t people although they are run by people and overthrown occasionally by people. And if we want to grow peace and democracy, which both candidates espouse, we need to build trust even from people we don’t like.
In a less touchy-feely sense, our defense budget is already huge.
Defense spending has shrunk in the last 50 years, but it continues to be the largest single component of our spending although clearly Social Security is not far behind. However, it is a bad thing to have a country that focuses more of it’s income to take care of our elderly instead of building up a military for the theory that might brings peace? And when compared to other countries, we are overspending on defense as though we are very afraid.
Why is it not enough?
Our government is constantly being chastised by conservatives (and rightly so at times) for not using money wisely and well, yet the Pentagon spent $11 million dollars to investigate the use of psychics until 1995 when it was deemed a failure after 20 years, or $238 billion on F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which are experiencing severe technological problems because they were rushed into production, not to mention we already had the best fighter planes in the world plus, unmanned aircraft are taking more missions.
I don’t understand the disconnect between a scaled-back government and military spending, which seems like one of the worst offenders. The Department of Defense should learn how to use money wisely, too. The sequestration (i.e., automatic budget cuts explained here) is going to be learning to turn the lights off when they walk out of the Pentagon with the amount of money this department throws away as well as with the ending of two wars. Yet, Romney believes the military needs more money, we all need tax cuts, and to balance the budget, we should cut the programs that help our elderly and poor because that’s the kind of country that seems to have great priorities.
Priority debates aside, what am I missing with his budget plan on defense? Because the overall picture of Romney’s defense plan seems to be: The United States Department of Defense is allowed to spend money on things we don’t need or plan to ever use because in the end all this might is really to bring peace to the world, which we are saying out loud, but will still work against our enemies.
While the some people like defense contractors may want the world to work this way, it doesn’t. Peace does not begin with guns, controlling the government spending does not begin with having more money to spend, and prioritizing building new ships over the veterans, who once manned the retiring ones, is not an ideal of the country I love.