Cutting Defense in the Face of Trillions

The growing debt of the United States is something we Americans have become accustomed to. We know that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have added to it, and that under Obama the debt has increased by $4 trillion. So yes, something has to give. We simply can’t go on at this pace. However, cutting Department of Defense funds is not the way to go. At a time when we’re finally making progress, such as finding and killing Osama Bin Laden, how can cutting DOD funds even come into the mind of our president? The military in itself is a lifestyle. Our servicemen and women must eat, sleep, and train together, or the necessary bonding and overall mindset that they need to succeed in the field will never manifest. Never mind the fact that the development of better, more efficient weapons that can cut down civilian loss would all but cease. And what if we had another 9/11? What if, by cutting DOD funds, there aren’t enough personnel to monitor security threats? What if we didn’t have the personnel to respond to those threats?

Now I’m not completely ignorant. The military, as with any organization that has been around for a long time, could probably make a few cuts here and there. The government should give the DOD time to work on this, and in the meantime take from other, less absolutely necessary departments. We as Americans need to recognize the substantial protection our military gives us, as well as the immense sacrifices they make to do so.

The Price of Freedom

The title of this article, “Why Topeka, Kan., repealed its ban on domestic violence”, immediately caught my attention. Mark Guarino explains that Topeka stripped the district attorney’s office budget by ten percent. On September 8^th, “District Attorney Chad Taylor… said he no longer had the money to prosecute misdemeanors, including domestic battery.” This meant that many misdemeanors were dropped because they weren’t able to be prosecuted in a timely manner. Because of this, the DA had to choose which cases would be heard, and as a result, many people were upset.

To show how they felt about misdemeanors such as domestic battery being dropped, Topeka repealed its ban on domestic violence, prostitution and animal cruelty. They did this in an effort to force the DA to hear more cases. It worked, but at what cost? The financial crisis still remains, and this isn’t the first incident of extreme action in the face of budget cuts. “Prosecutors in North Carolina's Wake County had to fill in as receptionists this summer to cover staffing cuts.”

Guarino seems to hold the importance of the cases over the strain on the workers. He points out that “most domestic-violence cases in the county are misdemeanors ‘perpetrated by extremely dangerous offenders’”, and that “victims rely on the criminal-justice system to hold their abusers accountable.” Guarino is appealing to the public’s sympathy for the abused, since he focuses on this issue and not prostitution or animal cruelty.

I can see the point the city of Topeka was trying to make. After all, who would follow the law if they knew their charges were just going to be dropped? On the other hand, how can we expect cases to be heard fairly if all the DA is thinking about it getting through them? If courthouses are so understaffed that lawyers are serving as secretaries, how many hours would they have to work a week to hear all the cases? If the city of Topeka is going to react so strongly to the DA not hearing cases, they need to provide him with the means to do so.