????提升143億美元債務(wù)上限的這出大戲已經(jīng)折騰了華盛頓的國(guó)會(huì)議員們有一段時(shí)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(yù)算，卻很少有人提及縮減軍隊(duì)開(kāi)支，人們反而對(duì)于削減醫(yī)療、醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助、更有甚者對(duì)于削減社會(huì)保障金更為熱衷。

????圍繞債務(wù)上限的論戰(zhàn)在國(guó)會(huì)山已經(jīng)達(dá)到了狂熱的地步。上周早些時(shí)候，白宮的談判在緊張的氣氛中無(wú)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(lái)越近。與此同時(shí)，穆迪評(píng)級(jí)（Moody’s）警告說(shuō)這一僵局將有可能危及美國(guó)信用評(píng)級(jí)，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)普爾（Standard & Poors）也發(fā)表了類似的聲明。

????不可否認(rèn)的是，說(shuō)服國(guó)會(huì)拿國(guó)防開(kāi)支開(kāi)刀并不容易。共和黨人、甚至部分民主黨人在這一問(wèn)題上將采取強(qiáng)硬立場(chǎng)，此舉勢(shì)必再次招來(lái)滿城風(fēng)雨。畢竟當(dāng)下，同意削減國(guó)防開(kāi)支等于反對(duì)美國(guó)海外駐軍，其政治風(fēng)險(xiǎn)不言而喻。

????但是，正如華盛頓智囊團(tuán)的政策研究員所說(shuō)的，國(guó)防開(kāi)支的確是當(dāng)前赤字問(wèn)題的幫兇。目前，根據(jù)美國(guó)進(jìn)步中心（Center for American Progress）的研究，對(duì)比冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期的花費(fèi)，在計(jì)算通脹的情況下，美國(guó)國(guó)防開(kāi)支（包括伊拉克和阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)支出）正以每年2，500億美元的速度增長(zhǎng)。

????上周四該中心發(fā)表的報(bào)告稱，“10年前美國(guó)預(yù)算盈余之所以會(huì)變成今天的赤字黑洞，日益膨脹的國(guó)防開(kāi)支難辭其咎”。

????研究人員估計(jì)美國(guó)即便每年削減1，000億美元的國(guó)防開(kāi)支，總預(yù)算仍將與里根政府冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期的大約5，800億美元的巔峰水平持平。他們認(rèn)為即使每年削減2，500-3，000億美元，國(guó)防開(kāi)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(shí)期的水平

????當(dāng)然，并不是所有的國(guó)會(huì)議員，或者所有的共和黨人都反對(duì)削減軍事開(kāi)支。共和黨奧克拉何馬州參議員湯姆?科布恩在3月接受《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）采訪時(shí)稱，“過(guò)去兩年來(lái)我的工作重點(diǎn)之一就是控制國(guó)防部的財(cái)政開(kāi)銷(xiāo)。他們辦事成效卓著，但是效率低下。通過(guò)實(shí)施有效的管理，我們能從6，000億美元的預(yù)算中省下不少錢(qián)。”

????毋庸置疑，僅僅削減國(guó)防預(yù)算還不能完全醫(yī)好美國(guó)的預(yù)算之痛。問(wèn)題在于，在醫(yī)療、醫(yī)療援助和社會(huì)保險(xiǎn)可能遭到削減的今天，美國(guó)民眾能否坦然接受軍隊(duì)開(kāi)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?