The Analysis of the U.S. Financial Year (FY) 2014 Defense Budget
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The copyright to this article is transferred to the University of Public Service Budapest, Hungary (for U.S. government employees: to the extent transferable) effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. The copyright transfer covers the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, translations, photographic reproductions, microform, electronic form (offline, online) or any other reproductions of similar nature.
The author warrants that this contribution is original and that he/she has full power to make this grant. The author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all co-authors.
An author may make an article published by University of Public Service available on a personal home page provided the source of the published article is cited and University of Public Service is mentioned as copyright holder
Abstract
The analysis examines the governmental decisions that tried to provide alternatives and offer a realistic response to the current U.S. debt crisis, severely undermining those defense budget provisions that had previously been planned. First, the impact of the 2011 Budget Control Act and the ‘sequestration’ process will be examined within the context of U.S. defense planning, giving a comprehensive overview of the U.S. budget debate with regard to U.S defense policy. Then the analysis compares and contrasts the current 2013 financial year data to the 2014 financial plan proposal based on President Obama’s statement in the White House on April 10, 2013, in which he presented the key points of the 2014 financial year budget. There the President put an emphasis on his sustained effort to improve the situation of American people through social benefit programs. These will have a determining effect to the United States armed forces in the future, which operate under heavy pressure and at times financial austerity. Expenses of social welfare and medical care are important for our analysis, as these belong to more steady mandatory items of the federal budget, while the defense budget relies mostly on discretionary funding, and is subject to major fluctuations. Finally the assessment will reflect on the Obama administration’s FY 2014 proposals with regard to the US defense policy review process in order to highlight the practical effects of sequestration.