That was done in 2011. and that is why we have these numbers in place today that contain spending but are being violated by this act. Finally. the deal submits the unacceptable precedent that every dollar of increased defense spending should be met with a dollar of increased nondefense spending. How silly is this? What possible logical argument can you make for this? This is upside down. If an emergency requires more defense spendingas I think it doeswe could dispute the amount. but we have had the Russians in Crimea since 2011. Russians in Syria. refugees by the millions in the Middle East. ISIS threatening the very government of Iraq. Afghanistan is still a problem.
Keywords matched
refugees