提升债务上限陷僵局，削减军费开支或可行

    提升143亿美元债务上限的这出大戏已经折腾了华盛顿的国会议员们有一段时间了。然而，自始自终，尽管共和党人一直叫嚣着要大幅削减预算，却很少有人提及缩减军队开支，人们反而对于削减医疗、医疗补助、更有甚者对于削减社会保障金更为热衷。

    围绕债务上限的论战在国会山已经达到了狂热的地步。上周早些时候，白宫的谈判在紧张的气氛中无果而终。然而，离8月2日提升联邦借贷上限的最终日期越来越近。与此同时，穆迪评级（Moody’s）警告说这一僵局将有可能危及美国信用评级，标准普尔（Standard & Poors）也发表了类似的声明。

    不可否认的是，说服国会拿国防开支开刀并不容易。共和党人、甚至部分民主党人在这一问题上将采取强硬立场，此举势必再次招来满城风雨。毕竟当下，同意削减国防开支等于反对美国海外驻军，其政治风险不言而喻。

    但是，正如华盛顿智囊团的政策研究员所说的，国防开支的确是当前赤字问题的帮凶。目前，根据美国进步中心（Center for American Progress）的研究，对比冷战时期的花费，在计算通胀的情况下，美国国防开支（包括伊拉克和阿富汗战争支出）正以每年2，500亿美元的速度增长。

    上周四该中心发表的报告称，“10年前美国预算盈余之所以会变成今天的赤字黑洞，日益膨胀的国防开支难辞其咎”。

    研究人员估计美国即便每年削减1，000亿美元的国防开支，总预算仍将与里根政府冷战时期的大约5，800亿美元的巅峰水平持平。他们认为即使每年削减2，500-3，000亿美元，国防开支仍将保持在艾森豪威尔、尼克松、老布什和克林顿总统执政时期的水平

    当然，并不是所有的国会议员，或者所有的共和党人都反对削减军事开支。共和党奥克拉何马州参议员汤姆•科布恩在3月接受《财富》杂志（Fortune）采访时称，“过去两年来我的工作重点之一就是控制国防部的财政开销。他们办事成效卓著，但是效率低下。通过实施有效的管理，我们能从6，000亿美元的预算中省下不少钱。”

    毋庸置疑，仅仅削减国防预算还不能完全医好美国的预算之痛。问题在于，在医疗、医疗援助和社会保险可能遭到削减的今天，美国民众能否坦然接受军队开支的缩减？

    Throughout the drama that's stalled Washington lawmakers in raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit, there's been little talk of slicing military spending as Republicans call for big budget cuts. Reductions to Medicare, Medicaid and possibly Social Securityhave been the bigger focus.

    The talks have reached a frenzy on Capitol Hill. Earlier this week, White House negotiations ended on tense notes as the clock ticked toward an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the legal limit on federal borrowing. All the while, Moody's has warned the stalemate could jeopardize the U.S.'s credit rating and Standard & Poors has made similar statements.

    Admittedly, getting an agreement on cuts to defense will not be easy. It will certainly incite more drama as many Republicans and even some Democrats remain hawkish -- being perceived as unsupportive of U.S. troops abroad right now is a political risk.

    But then again, as policy researchers at a Washington, DC-based think tank suggest, defense spending helped create today's fiscal problems. Today we spend about $250 billion more per year in inflation-adjusted dollars (counting war spending that includes funds for Iraq and Afghanistan) than during the Cold War, according to the Center for American Progress.

    "This ballooning defense budget played a significant role in turning the budget surplus projected a decade ago into a massive deficit," according to a report released by the center on Thursday.

    Researchers estimate that the U.S. could cut $100 billion in defense spending annually and still keep the military budget at the Reagan administration's peak Cold War levels of approximately $580 billion. They believe reducing the defense budget by $250 billion to $300 billion annually would still bring spending down to levels seen under presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, George H.W. Bush and Clinton.

    Of course, not all lawmakers, or even all Republicans, are against cutting military spending. As Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma told Fortune in March: "One of the things I've been working on for the last two years is to put financial controls in the Defense Department. They're highly effective at what they do but they're highly inefficient. There's a lot of money in that $600 billion budget that we could save just through good management practices."

    Needless to say, the country's budget woes can't be solved by cutting defense spending alone. The question is can Americans -- already faced with possible cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- live with less military spending?