Spending Spree at the Pentagon

No one wants to shortchange the Defense Department at a time when the nation is facing acute foreign threats, but the Pentagon's latest budget proposal seems to glory in its excesses. The $380 billion proposal throws billions around indiscriminately, financing the weapons of tomorrow, the weapons of yesterday, and a middle generation of weapons headed for obsolescence even before they begin rolling off production lines. The budget doesn't include spending for possible combat in Iraq, but once this, the war on terrorism and defense programs in other agencies are added, total military spending next year seems headed well over $400 billion.

At next year's projected level, Washington will be spending nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. With Al Qaeda not yet defeated, war looming with Iraq and tensions mounting with North Korea, America obviously needs to spend generously on defense. The armed forces deserve decent pay, up-to-date ships, planes and tanks, and cutting-edge technologies designed to minimize vulnerability and assure battlefield superiority. But all of that can be had for tens of billions of dollars less than what President Bush proposes.

The $15 billion increase in next year's Pentagon budget is almost equal to the entire increase proposed for domestic discretionary spending. It's a bonanza for defense contractors, a wish list come true for the military services, and a costly extravagance for a nation sorely in need of more federal spending on education, health, and other concerns.

As a candidate, Mr. Bush rightly proposed skipping a generation of technology devised for cold-war battles. But that's not what he's proposing now. The administration is requesting roughly $135 billion for weapons development and production. Only about $15 billion of that will go to new military technologies and useful weapons systems like pilotless drones and submarines and advanced communications and information technology, along with an additional $9 billion for missile defense.

The decision to finance three variants of advanced tactical fighter aircraft defies common sense. Tactical fighters lost much of their military mission when the cold war ended more than a decade ago. In particular, the Air Force's F-22 should be phased out in favor of the cheaper and more versatile joint strike fighter, designed to meet both Air Force and Navy needs.

Another mistaken purchase is the Marine Corps' accident-prone V-22 Osprey vertical takeoff aircraft. The $14 billion budgeted next year for the tactical fighter programs and the Osprey represents just one installment. The overall cost of these four programs is $391 billion. That is clearly unsustainable. Spending of that magnitude will squeeze out money available for more advanced systems that will be increasingly needed in future years.

If Congress were doing its job, it would reshape this budget to meet America's real defense needs. Unfortunately, legislators of both parties are addicted to military projects and nobody wants to face an opponent in the next campaign accusing him of cutting defense. With Republicans now controlling both houses, breaking that pattern will require the intervention of Republican defense experts like Senator John McCain and Senator Charles Grassley. By challenging the Pentagon's spending priorities, they can fortify America's defense.