It seems to me that if stricter percentage limits were placed on the amount of the federal budget that can be spent on the military, many problems could be solved.

First, it would force the president and the legislature to make sure that we have a strong economy here at home before waging a war. With a military spending limit, the only way that the government could get enough money to pay for a war would be to have an economy strong enough to provide the necessary tax revenue to finance it.

Second, it would force government to be more wary of waging an unnecessary war in the first place. With a military spending limit, it seems reasonable that a government would wage war only if there was a good reason for it, and if they have a clear plan to win the war. If not, they run the risk of running out of money to pay for a “war gone wrong.”

This would most likely deter them from waging war without careful planning. In the event that we absolutely must go to war but the economy is unable to finance it, the government could always raise taxes as recourse. This would not be a problem with the public, because everyone who claims to support our troops would not balk at having to pay more taxes in order to do so.

Third, imagine the things that we could spend the saved money on. The prospect of more discretionary spending for non-military purposes should appeal to everyone, regardless of political ideology. Almost any way Congress spends the money would be more beneficial than spending it on oppressing innocent civilians in a sovereign nation.

This is just an idea; I am not advocating it as pragmatic or even possible, but simply as a consideration.

Casey Muhm

Senior

Political Science