????提升143億美元債務上限的這出大戲已經(jīng)折騰了華盛頓的國會議員們有一段時間了。然而，自始自終，盡管共和黨人一直叫囂著要大幅削減預算，卻很少有人提及縮減軍隊開支，人們反而對于削減醫(yī)療、醫(yī)療補助、更有甚者對于削減社會保障金更為熱衷。

????圍繞債務上限的論戰(zhàn)在國會山已經(jīng)達到了狂熱的地步。上周早些時候，白宮的談判在緊張的氣氛中無果而終。然而，離8月2日提升聯(lián)邦借貸上限的最終日期越來越近。與此同時，穆迪評級（Moody’s）警告說這一僵局將有可能危及美國信用評級，標準普爾（Standard & Poors）也發(fā)表了類似的聲明。

????不可否認的是，說服國會拿國防開支開刀并不容易。共和黨人、甚至部分民主黨人在這一問題上將采取強硬立場，此舉勢必再次招來滿城風雨。畢竟當下，同意削減國防開支等于反對美國海外駐軍，其政治風險不言而喻。

????但是，正如華盛頓智囊團的政策研究員所說的，國防開支的確是當前赤字問題的幫兇。目前，根據(jù)美國進步中心（Center for American Progress）的研究，對比冷戰(zhàn)時期的花費，在計算通脹的情況下，美國國防開支（包括伊拉克和阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭支出）正以每年2，500億美元的速度增長。

????上周四該中心發(fā)表的報告稱，“10年前美國預算盈余之所以會變成今天的赤字黑洞，日益膨脹的國防開支難辭其咎”。

????研究人員估計美國即便每年削減1，000億美元的國防開支，總預算仍將與里根政府冷戰(zhàn)時期的大約5，800億美元的巔峰水平持平。他們認為即使每年削減2，500-3，000億美元，國防開支仍將保持在艾森豪威爾、尼克松、老布什和克林頓總統(tǒng)執(zhí)政時期的水平

????當然，并不是所有的國會議員，或者所有的共和黨人都反對削減軍事開支。共和黨奧克拉何馬州參議員湯姆?科布恩在3月接受《財富》雜志（Fortune）采訪時稱，“過去兩年來我的工作重點之一就是控制國防部的財政開銷。他們辦事成效卓著，但是效率低下。通過實施有效的管理，我們能從6，000億美元的預算中省下不少錢。”

????毋庸置疑，僅僅削減國防預算還不能完全醫(yī)好美國的預算之痛。問題在于，在醫(yī)療、醫(yī)療援助和社會保險可能遭到削減的今天，美國民眾能否坦然接受軍隊開支的縮減？

????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?