Editor's note: This is the 10th in a series of stories examining the top issues of concern for The Eagle-Tribune's 154 voters participating in the presidential campaign coverage project. To view previous stories, go to www.eagletribune.com, and click on "On the Issues"

In the 2007 federal budget, defense spending accounts for nearly $600 billion, the second-largest expenditure after the Treasury Department.

In an Eagle-Tribune poll of dozens of voters in 16 Southern New Hampshire towns, 34 percent ranked military spending as one of their top 10 concerns when choosing the country's next president. One of those voters was Michael Corey, a 54-year old customer support technician from Chester.

Corey said the amount spent on the military is far too much, likely due to the development of state-of-the-art technology the country doesn't necessarily need.

"I would like to see them cut back on certain programs that are maybe early in the pipeline. We don't need another aircraft carrier. We don't need a new type of cruiser," Corey said. "The weapons that we have are far superior to anyone else. I want to see them stop missile defense program research. I think it's a financial boondoggle. Bring some rationale to the military budget."

A few presidential contenders agree with Corey. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said in a statement to The Eagle-Tribune that his goal as president would be to review the current weapons systems and match them to the country's needs.

Democrat Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, said he would look at the current state of spending and cut programs that aren't needed in this day and age.

"My plan cuts outdated Cold War weapons systems and wasteful programs, and renews the focus on the real threats posed to our nation," Richardson said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., agreed, pointing out there are Cold War weapons still active and unnecessary.

Patricia Kiley, a 75-year-old retiree from Atkinson, said the United States spends too much time and money focusing on events abroad, rather than dealing with problems right here in this country.

"I think there's a lot of tragedy in our own country and the money should be spent here," she said. "I'm not one of these persons that says we shouldn't help other people. The U.S. has bent over backward. We have our own devastation, homeless, young people out of work who can't get work in this country. I know neighbors of mine who are out of work. ... That doesn't seem right."

If the military budget were trimmed, Kiley said, she hopes some of the money would be redirected to education.

"I think the hardship on married couples whose children are going into college is astronomical," she said. "It's really a heavy burden. I think (the government) should make education more available."

Democratic contender Mike Gravel of Alaska said military spending must be curbed and money should be funneled into areas such as health care and education.

Windham's Steven Donovan, a 21-year-old college student, said the government is spending far too many resources on the military. He doesn't have specific ideas for where that money should be spent, but is adamant that military funding must be cut.

"We could be spending a lot less on it," he said, "and doing a lot less with it."

Donovan said there are numerous areas of government that could use more funding.

"(The money) could be spent anywhere else," he said. "It's more a matter of there are other things. We shouldn't be spending so much money on just (the military)."

Gary Reynolds, a retiree from Newton and former government employee, said he does not view military spending as a pressing issue, only because there is no apparent way to curb it.

"We have no control over that at all," said Reynolds, 60. "It's the same as the gas prices - there's no rules or regulations. There's nothing anybody can do about it. You could have it on the headlines every day, and the government will say, 'Tough crap.'"

Reynolds said he is most concerned about the country's leadership. He has yet to commit to a presidential candidate.

"The people that we are voting into positions could care less about the American people," he said. "Everything's based on business and how much money they can make."

Jeanne Robey, a retiree from Windham, said when initially thinking about the campaign, military spending wasn't high on her list of priorities. But when the question was posed to her, she changed her stance a little.

"When I think about it, it's a top priority," she said. "If (the troops are) there, you're going to have to fund them."

Robey said she isn't sure whether there is too much or too little money being spent on the military.

"It's hard for me to say," said Robey, 66. "I'll leave it to the military personnel who are there."