[realce]

Those figures are required expenditures, not budgets. They represent agreements between tax-paying citizens/employees and the government. The military's funding is variable and not required - the Constitution doesn't even support a centralized military. You're equating very different things.

[Turing_Machine]

> the Constitution doesn't even support a centralized military

Yes, it does. It just says that military appropriations for the Army have to be approved by Congress every two years. Congress controls the purse strings, the President has command.

Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power...To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy..."

Note that the Navy is not even subject to the two year limit on funding.

[realce]

My wording is imprecise. You're right, what I suppose I meant to say was a standing centralized military. Those powers are to originally allow the funding of armies that are later disbanded, this attitude is also reflected in the 2nd amendment support of militias.

Navy was a different consideration at the time since it protects trade, which is required for commerce afaik.

[parkingrift]

No, I'm not. I specifically said spending and outlays. If you want to lawyer your way into a discretionary vs non-discretionary argument, have at it. I find it pointless in most scenarios, and especially in the context of this article.

In this hypothetical scenario where America can't borrow money or easily run a deficit, it won't matter at all whether a line item is discretionary or non-discretionary. Cutting the military budget won't magically help anything.