Don’t wanna help build bombs and that’s the facts

The Joint Chiefs probably could have thought of a nicer way to say “hello” to the next president (via Ahab):

Pentagon officials have prepared a new estimate for defense spending that is $450 billion more over the next five years than previously announced figures.

The new estimate, which the Pentagon plans to release shortly before President Bush leaves office, would serve as a marker for the new president and is meant to place pressure on him to either drastically increase the size of the defense budget or defend any reluctance to do so, according to several former senior budget officials who are close to the discussions. […]

“This is a political document,” said one former senior budget official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It sets up the new administration immediately to have to make a decision of how to deal with the perception that they are either cutting defense or adding to it.”

It’s a shame that – in Matt Yglesias’ words – military spending isn’t “real spending.”  If it were – or if we could be honest about the costs of spending so much on the defense establishment (which isn’t synoynmous with “our troops) – then it wouldn’t be such a political problem if a President Obama or President McCain were to not sign off on this.  In fact, if cutting the Pentagon budget – which, if you’re curious, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $585 billion – weren’t an act of political suicide, then the candidates would have much more flexibility in terms of new tax cuts or spending programs (primarily government benefits).  And that’s flexibility they need, considering that the federal government will need (contra my co-blogger protogoras) to spend more on services (food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc.) as states and localities scale back spending.  A ten percent reduction in the Pentagon’s proposed 2009 budget ($515.4 billion, not including war spending, for those counting at home) would be enough, in fact, to almost cover the full cost of H.R. 7110: The Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008.  Which, among other things, would provide almost $20 billion in infrastucture investments, $6.5 billion in job training funds, and close to $3 billion in additional money for food stamps. 

Of course, $50 billion fewer dollars for the Pentagon, is $50 billion we can’t sink into needless weapons systems.  And if we can’t do that, then the CommieMarxistIslamoFascists will have won.  It’s really that simple.

Update:  I’ve noticed that there are folks who claim that we ought to spend more money on “people,” rather than weapons.  But, it’s not so much that we’re spending money on people – military spending is ostensibly for the purpose of defending people – it’s that there are more cost effective ways of spending some of that money.  And yes, the picture is purposefully esoteric.