The Twisted Politics of Deficit Defense Spending

Many of the expansive programs funded by Congress emanate not from explicit powers granted by the Constitution but from a century of erosion of the limits specified in that seminal document. In contrast, of the 17 powers specifically delegated to Congress in Section 8 of the Constitution, no fewer than seven relate to defense.

One cannot argue that defense is not the federal government's job. But one can certainly ask whether we are getting our money's worth for the 5% of GDP that our military consumes. And that will be a key test for the recently rejuvenated Republican Congress.

Will Washington insiders revert to form and borrow money from our children's children to pay for questionable arms programs while assuming international defense burdens that are not properly ours? Will they swear off earmarks on the one hand while feeding pork to home state defense contractors with the other? Or will they heed the will of the voters and pare down the bloated military-industrial complex just as they must reign in middle class entitlements if we are to have any hope of regaining solvency.

One piece of lame duck theater that speaks to Washington's twisted ways is the fight over ratification of the new START II treaty. Republicans were apparently in favor of START II before they were against it, a flip-flop aimed at denying President Obama a foreign policy victory. Obama is against wasteful defense spending and favors nuclear disarmament but is willing to bribe vocal right wingers with $84 billion to build a new generation of nuclear bomb factories so he can chalk up an accomplishment - any accomplishment - to bolster his cratered approval ratings.

If ever there was a time to pray for gridlock, this is it. Why do we need this treaty to thin out our stockpile of redundant nuclear weapons, and why must we pay for it by building yet more bombs?

The Soviet Union was our enemy, which we defeated without a shot when the economic system they championed imploded. Today's Russia is not our enemy and has nothing to gain by attacking us. The biggest threat from Russian nuclear weapons comes if some rogue general sells one to a jihadist. Spending taxpayer dollars to help secure loose nukes would be money well spent, but that is not the focus of START II. Rather, this cold war relic is designed to maintain a specified balance of warhead capability.

Who cares? Whether or not we have a treaty the US should keep however many warheads on station required to convince any adversary that we can vaporize them. A handful of MIRV equipped Trident submarines should be plenty. The rest are wasteful excess and should be dismantled. If the Russians want to pay for their own wasteful excess in the absence of a treaty, let that be their burden.

Republican hawks want to spend $84 billion on new nukes claiming the old ones are degrading and many might be duds. Who cares? If 25% of our nukes are duds is that going to make an adversary more eager for Armageddon? If someday we need to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against the capital of a rogue nation and the first bomb turns out to be dud, how long does it take to launch another one?

How can Republicans who correctly claim that stimulus spending is a detriment to our economy turn around and defend building hellaciously expensive bombs that add nothing to our national security?

Supporters of START II claim the treaty is necessary so we can convince Russia to let NATO build a missile shield over Europe to defend against Iranian nukes. Why are American taxpayers paying to protect countries that helped Iran build its nuclear capability? Let them pay for their own missile shield. Maybe that will get them to think twice before they ship madmen aluminum centrifuge tubes.

Speaking of which, why are we paying to defend Korea and Japan from their own neighborhood lunatic? Are we doing this to reduce their domestic tax burden so Asian companies can enjoy a competitive cost advantage?

How's this for a constitutionally sound and fiscally prudent foreign policy - send every nation we are defending a bill. If they don't pay it, bring our troops home. Make sure we include a hefty markup to cover the pension benefits for all those soldiers we keep stationed overseas. If we can no longer afford to pay policemen at home how can we afford to play policeman around the world? If China wants to step in and pick up the slack, let them have at it.

Aghast at that idea? Why? The fear that China is a military threat to the US is ludicrous on the face of it. If Wal-Mart were a country it would be China's seventh largest trading partner. Who in their right mind launches an attack on their most important distribution channel? Not to mention the fact that the trillions China holds in T-Bills become worthless the moment they start shooting at us. As for Taiwan, in less than a generation they will be begging for political re-unification if nothing else but to acknowledge their de-facto economic integration with the mainland.

Republicans have a golden opportunity to stop putting our money where their mouth is by slashing wasteful government spending wherever they find it. Making an exception for military pork will only prove that they have learned nothing from their time in the wilderness.