{"id":19176,"date":"2013-02-27T09:10:36","date_gmt":"2013-02-27T14:10:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=19176"},"modified":"2013-02-27T13:26:42","modified_gmt":"2013-02-27T18:26:42","slug":"sequestration-and-the-defence-budget","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2013\/02\/27\/sequestration-and-the-defence-budget\/","title":{"rendered":"Sequestration and the defence budget"},"content":{"rendered":"

At the Cato At Liberty<\/em> blog, Christopher Preble<\/a> graphically refutes the notion that sequestration will automatically weaken the US military:<\/p>\n

\"Click<\/a>

Click to see full-size infographic at Cato At Liberty<\/em>.<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n

Military spending will remain at roughly 2006 levels \u2014 $603 billion, higher than peak U.S. spending during the Cold War. Meanwhile, we live in a safer world. The Soviet Union has been dead for more than two decades; no other nation, or combination of nations, has emerged since that can pose a comparable threat. We should have a defense budget that reflects this reality.<\/p>\n

To be clear, sequestration was no one\u2019s first choice. But the alternative \u2014 ever-increasing military spending detached from a legitimate debate over strategy \u2014 is worse. We should have had such a debate, one over the roles and missions of the U.S. military, long before this day of reckoning. And politicians could have pursued serious proposals to prudently reduce military spending. Instead, they chose the easy way out, avoiding difficult decisions that would have allowed for smarter cuts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Update<\/b>: Nick Gillespie explains why you shouldn’t worry too much about the sequester:<\/p>\n