The area that was difficult to make cuts on was Health Care. The reason for that is the availability of many options of cuts that are different in terms of the impact of the cut. I was surprised that Investments did not get cut much, as it seemed that there were significant cuts in this area. Nevertheless, cutting on investments can lead to significant negative consequences, and this seems to be an adequate decision. The defense cuts can be justified due to them being cut back the funding in 2017 (CRFB, n.d.). That funding was appropriate, and there is no adequate reason for it to be at the level it is currently. Health care cuts are mostly related to the inefficient programs adopted by it. It is evident that the current health care system is defective, as a significant part of the budget is spent on it, yet the results are not as obvious. It is necessary to look into the policies adopted by health care and fix them, and in that case, the cut won’t negatively affect the well-being of people.
Regarding what was kept, investments are a significant area in the current economics. Cutting them down would lead to slower economical growth, which would make other cuts insufficient to fix the debt. The possible consequences of cuts in defense and health care do not seem to be crucial. As mentioned before, the level of defense budgeting was adequate in 2017, and there is no significant reason or threat to spend the current amount. In terms of health care, it is evident that current policies and programs are inefficient and should be modified, as it is both expensive for the government and citizens. If I was a politician, I would try to justify to my constituents the cuts that were made, as the reasons mentioned seem to be reasonable, and the debt is a significant issue that the nation has to address.
Reference
CRFB (n.d.) Fix the National Debt. Web.