There Can Never Be Wasteful Defense Spending

Yeah, I know, there's an election or something today. But first, I have a bunch of little things to get to, like, you know, the unabated rise of the defense-industrial complex, which apparently has never made a substandard weapon system:

Congress has yet to approve $102 billion left over from the supplemental for FY 2008. And so—in terms of how much Congress is being asked to authorize this year—that brings us to $713 billion.

But let's delve into the Pentagon's base line figure—the $515.4 billion that has nothing directly to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's in there? Do the U.S. armed forces really need that much for the everyday maintenance of national security?

About a quarter of that sum—$125.2 billion—is for personnel costs: understandable. Another third—$180 billion—is for operations and maintenance of equipment (a bit more mysterious, since this is apart from the O&M costs brought on by the war). But a larger sum still—$184 billion—is for what the Pentagon calls "major weapons systems." [...]

What efficiencies is the Pentagon taking to accommodate these technological risks? The "Overview" section of the Pentagon's budget document contains a section called "Program Terminations." It reads, in its entirety: "The FY 2009 budget does not propose any major program terminations." (emphasis mine)

Is it remotely conceivable that the Defense Department is the one federal bureaucracy that has not designed, developed, or produced a single expendable program? The question answers itself.

They are crackerjack over at the Pentagon. Apparently everything they make can pinpoint a terrorist at 2,000 yards, even the submarines!

We spend more on defense than every other country combined for absolutely no reason, and in fact, this is the great hole that is sinking our budget. Paul Krugman has some questions for those Republican deficit hawks:

Three words: defense, Medicare, Medicaid. That’s the whole story. Defense up from 3 to 4% of GDP; Medicare and Medicaid up from 3.4% to 4.6%, partially offset by increased payments for Part B and stuff. Aside from that, there’s been no major movement.

Behind these increases are the obvious things: the war McCain wants to fight for the next century, the general issue of excess cost growth in health care, and the prescription drug benefit.

So the next time Mr. McCain or anyone else promises to rein in runaway spending, they should be asked which of these things they intend to reverse. Are they talking about pulling out of Iraq? Denying seniors the latest medical treatments? Canceling the drug benefit? If not, what are they talking about?

The answer, of course, is that they're not talking about anything, just making vague assurances about "stopping wasteful spending of the taxpayer's money" but making sure boondoggles like missile defense don't ever enter into the equation. Which also suits members of Congress fine, as the defense contractors are spread around liberally enough so that practically everyone is beholden to them (some, like John McCain, more than others. His warmongering feeds an economic boomlet in Arizona).

It'd be nice to see a little more talk about the defense budget, which is almost a QUARTER of the entire budget for FY2009. I recognize that this would require someone in the traditional media to read.