Socialist Views on U.S. National Defense Budgetary Allocation
Socialism espouses the principles of equality, individual freedom, community ownership, and democracy (Roemer, 2017). Such an environment assures every citizen access to the things they need and the means of achieving such ends. As an economic system, socialism ensures each individual owns a factor of production, which then eliminates cases of exploitation as the gains of trade are equally distributed based on individual contribution (Bevir, 2016). This system works well under central planning by either the government or a union of workers. Socialism aims to address community problems rather than individual issues, portraying it as a system that cares for the general welfare of its people. National defense is a public good that the U.S. offers to its citizen regardless of an individual’s contribution to taxes. However, this leads to a free-rider problem, which many consider a social benefit to citizens. The allocation for the defense department can only be substantiated by America’s overarching foreign policy and the perceived threat that terrorism can suffer on the lives and property of its citizens.
The U.S. defense budget allocation for the fiscal year 2020 stands at $ 713 billion (Under Defense Secretary (Comptroller), 2020). This allocation aims to address the growing threats from China and Russia and to deter terrorist threats (O’ Hanlon, 2019). This budgetary allocation translates to 11.50 percent of the total U.S. budget for the year 2020 (Under Defense Secretary (Comptroller), 2020). Furthermore, O’Hanlan (2019) argues,” this U.S. national defense budget does not capture all major government activities that do influence American Security.”It would need another allocation for the Department of Homeland Security, foreign affairs, and other programs to keep Americans safe. This allocation is generally high compared to what other nations allocate for their military. Such massive funding allows the military to avert regional threats, keeps the security organs on the forefront. Additionally, it has given the defense a competitive edge in a global environment, guarding vital U.S. interests, defending allies from attacks, or coercion (Department of Defense, Washington United States, 2018). These roles that the defense department play has made it incomparably strong.
The allocation for the defense department should be trim so that other core departments can also receive adequate funds. The U.S. health care sector is mainly private, with private health insurance accounting to 56 percent of the total health insurance coverage (Jiles, 2019). Reducing budgetary allocation would ensure access to health care services by Americans who currently find the cost of private insurance packages cost-prohibitive. Although the government controls the defense department, the large allocations tend to benefit contractors and private companies. Sander (2019) opines, “it is time to invest in the working families of this country and not a bloated military budget; we ought to address income and wealth inequality and change national priorities.” It is a zero-sum game to defend the national borders and vital interests when many families are going homeless, student debts, unmanageable (Sanders, 2019). Putting effort into promoting the social welfare of the people should take precedence.
A democratic approach to national defense budgetary allocation can eliminate corporate price-fixing, ensure auditing of the spending and programs run by the department. A democratic approach would also re-consider a revision of the fiscal distribution once private companies eyeing for tenders through backdoor are locked out (Sander, 2019). Since most of the interests guarded by such massive military funding are owned by a few elite, focus in a democratically run defense department would ensure the decision-making process is dully followed instead of leaving much decision on the presidency. Finally, socialists would prefer a democratic approach to defense budget allocation and control of programs undertaken by the department and eliminate the unilateral decisions on foreign policy issues, which are always covert and not apparent to the citizens.
References
Department of Defense, Washington United States. (2018). Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD1045785
Jiles, N. (2019). Basics of the U.S. Health Care System (4th ed., pp. 31-37, 65-68). Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2019.
O’Hanlon, M. (2019). Is U.S. defense spending too high, too low, or just right? [Blog]. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital
Sanders, B. (2019). Deficit hawks once again show their hypocrisy on military spending. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). (2020). OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)/ CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER FEBRUARY 2020 (p. 4).