The implied hypothesis is that the decisions taken by the administration regarding maritime budgets in the FY 2011 budget are against the maritime industry in America and insensitive to homeland security. However, it does not throw any light on the performance of the maritime agencies in America. The hypothesis of the author appears to be skewed since it does not mention whether the budget cuts are uniform throughout various programs or specifically maritime agencies have been targeted.
Also, the article glorifies the budget cuts and discounts the increase in spending on maritime agencies and programs by phrases like ‘aging academy, and ‘“difficult tradeoffs” between men and women and machine’ (Bondareff, 2010)
The article does not answer the question regarding the impact of the budget cuts on maritime agencies and programs. The central argument of the article is that allocations in FY 2011 budget, to maritime agencies is reduced to make up for the budget deficit. Though it mentions the programs which have been denied funding in the FY 2011 budget, the article does not mention the importance/contribution of those programs to the maritime industry in particular and country in general. It does not mention the progress in the programs from the previous funding; is it the case that the programs were running excellently and now their growth would be stunted due to decreased funding or since the programs were not performing up to the expectations so the funding is decreased. The study undertaken is useful in a limited way in the sense that although it highlights the budgetary decisions of the administration regarding maritime agencies and programs, it does not throw any light on the implications of these decisions and the justifications given by administration for taking such decisions. The study appears to be a collection of