Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for the $886 billion defense budget, military readiness, Pentagon accountability, and servicemember quality of life.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares defense approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.
The United States spends more on national defense than the next ten countries combined — roughly $886 billion in fiscal year 2024. The Pentagon has failed every audit since Congress mandated them in 2018, unable to account for roughly half of its $3.8 trillion in assets. Meanwhile, servicemembers live in substandard housing, military families rely on food stamps, and the veterans the military produces are underserved by the VA system they were promised. The question isn't whether America should have a strong military. It's whether spending more than anyone else in history, with less financial accountability than any other government agency, is actually making us safer.
The three major approaches differ fundamentally. Republicans generally push for defense spending increases with minimal scrutiny, viewing a larger budget as synonymous with a stronger military. Democrats have been reluctant to challenge defense spending for fear of appearing "weak on defense," often voting for budgets that exceed Pentagon requests. The Common Good Party proposes something neither party will say: the military can be stronger with smarter spending, genuine accountability, and resources redirected from Cold War hardware to 21st-century threats.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — what it gets right, what it misses, and what it would actually mean for military readiness, servicemember quality of life, and taxpayer value. No spin, no talking points, just the policy.
How the three approaches stack up on the issues that matter most for defense policy.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Budget level | Maintain or modest increase | Significant increases; 3-4% GDP | Audit-based right-sizing; smarter not bigger |
| Pentagon audit | Support in principle; limited enforcement | Support in principle; fund regardless | No increases until clean audit; binding accountability |
| Overseas bases | Maintain; strategic repositioning | Maintain and expand; show of strength | Strategic review; close Cold War relics |
| Nuclear modernization | Support modernization; arms control | Full modernization; expand capability | Maintain deterrent; pursue arms reduction |
| Cyber defense | Increased investment; CISA expansion | Offensive capability focus | Major expansion; priority over legacy hardware |
| Military pay | Support raises; family support programs | Support raises; hardware over people focus | Above-inflation raises; housing, childcare, spouse jobs |
| Contractor oversight | Support reform; limited action | Generally oppose; market-driven | Competitive bidding; cost-overrun clawbacks; revolving door ban |
| NATO burden-sharing | Diplomatic encouragement; maintain commitment | Aggressive demands; conditional support | Fair sharing; strengthen alliance; reduce US share |
| Force structure | Shift toward technology and special forces | Larger force; more ships, planes, troops | Threat-based; invest in cyber, AI, and readiness |
| Veteran transition | Support TAP improvements; education | Credential recognition; apprenticeships | 18-month supported transition; guaranteed services |
Sources: Department of Defense, Government Accountability Office, Congressional Research Service, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats generally support maintaining current defense spending levels with modest increases, while advocating for some reallocation of resources toward diplomacy, development, and new threat domains like cyber. Democrats have been stronger on arms control, supporting nuclear treaties and diplomatic engagement. They have also supported military family programs, CISA expansion for cyber defense, and Pentagon reform rhetoric. However, Democrats have consistently voted for defense budgets that meet or exceed Pentagon requests — including during the Biden administration.
The emphasis on diplomacy and development as complements to military power is sound — the cheapest security is conflict prevention. Investment in CISA and cyber defense addresses a genuine emerging threat. Arms control advocacy is responsible stewardship of nuclear risk. Military family support programs address real quality-of-life shortfalls that affect recruitment and retention.
Democrats talk about Pentagon reform but don't follow through. Democratic members of Congress routinely vote for defense spending that exceeds the Pentagon's own request — often to protect jobs in their districts. The fear of being labeled "weak on defense" makes Democrats unwilling to challenge the fundamental assumption that more spending equals more security. No Democrat has seriously conditioned defense spending on passing an audit. The result is a party that calls for accountability in every other government agency while giving the Pentagon a pass on the most basic financial transparency.
For more on defense spending trends, see the full defense explainer.
Republicans generally advocate for significant defense spending increases, a larger military force structure, full nuclear modernization, aggressive NATO burden-sharing demands, and maintaining or expanding the overseas base network. Republicans have generally opposed arms control agreements and favored offensive military capabilities over diplomatic alternatives. Some Republicans have pushed for defense spending at 3.5-4% of GDP, which would add hundreds of billions to the current budget.
The Republican emphasis on military readiness is valid — a military that cannot fight effectively is worse than no military at all. NATO burden-sharing is a legitimate concern: most NATO allies have historically spent less than the agreed 2% of GDP target. Investment in nuclear modernization addresses aging systems that need updating. And the Republican willingness to use military power when necessary, while sometimes excessive, reflects a genuine strategic reality that deterrence requires credible capability.
The assumption that more spending automatically means more security is contradicted by evidence. The US already spends more than the next ten countries combined. The Pentagon cannot account for half its assets. Weapons systems routinely cost 50-100% more than projected and arrive years late. The F-35 program alone has cost over $1.7 trillion — the most expensive weapons system in history — while being plagued by reliability problems. Throwing more money at a system that cannot account for the money it already has does not produce better outcomes.
Republicans who demand fiscal accountability from every other government agency exempt the Pentagon entirely. This is not pro-military — it is pro-contractor. The beneficiaries of unaccountable defense spending are not servicemembers, who live in substandard housing and rely on food stamps, but defense contractors whose stock prices rise with every budget increase regardless of whether their products work. Supporting the troops and supporting the defense budget are not the same thing.
For contractor spending analysis, see our defense explainer.
The CGP proposes a defense policy built on three principles: accountability, modernization, and people first. No defense budget increase until the Pentagon passes a clean audit. Competitive bidding for all major contracts with cost-overrun clawback provisions and a five-year revolving door ban. Strategic review and closure of unnecessary overseas bases. Major investment in cyber defense, AI, and 21st-century threat domains funded by reducing Cold War-era hardware. Above-inflation military pay increases, guaranteed quality housing, universal military childcare, and spouse employment portability. An 18-month supported transition for every separating servicemember. Fair NATO burden-sharing that maintains the alliance while reducing the disproportionate US share.
Unlike Republicans, the CGP does not equate more spending with more security — it demands the same financial accountability from the Pentagon that both parties demand from every other agency. Unlike Democrats, the CGP actually follows through on accountability by conditioning budget increases on clean audits. The CGP plan redirects resources from contractor profits and Cold War relics toward the things that actually make America safer: cyber capabilities, servicemember quality of life, and genuine military readiness.
Countries that spend less per capita on defense but do so more efficiently — including Israel, South Korea, and the UK — consistently achieve higher military readiness per dollar spent. The US military's own internal assessments have identified over $100 billion in annual waste that could be eliminated without reducing capability. The Project on Government Oversight and Government Accountability Office have documented hundreds of billions in contractor cost overruns that produced no improvement in military capability. Smart defense spending is more effective than simply large defense spending.
The CGP approach is pro-military and pro-security — but it is anti-waste, anti-corruption, and anti-profiteering. A dollar spent on a servicemember's housing or training makes America safer. A dollar spent on a contractor's stock buyback does not.
Defense policy affects servicemembers, military families, defense workers, and every taxpayer. Here's what the different approaches mean in practice.
Want to see how CGP fiscal policies affect your household?
Open the Tax CalculatorCommon questions about how the three approaches to defense spending compare.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full defense explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into defense policy with these pages.
$886 billion a year. Zero clean audits. Servicemembers on food stamps while contractors post record profits. Read the full plan for a military that's accountable, modern, and truly strong.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.