Christopher A. Preble wishes Ryan's budget had tackled military spending:
Defense is an undisputed core function of government—any government—and spending for that purpose should not be treated on an equal basis with the many other dubious roles and missions that the U.S. federal government now performs. But please note the emphasis. The U.S. Department of Defense should be focused on that purpose: defending the United States. But by acting as the world’s de facto policeman, we have essentially twisted the concept of “the common defence” to include the defense of the whole world, including billions of people who are not parties to our unique social contract.
Noah Millman ends up in a similar place:
The debate about Medicare isn’t a pure spending debate, and neither is the debate about defense. We talk about Medicare in the context of a larger debate about how to drive better health outcomes for lower cost. We talk about defense in the context of a larger debate about America’s overall foreign policy. We could, in both cases, let budgetary necessity force policy choices upon us, but I do think we’d get better results if we actually talked about policy with the budgetary necessities in mind, and vice versa.