Overhauling the defense budget

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended a broad overhaul of military spending that would increase the Pentagon's overall budget by 4 percent, but still slashing some giant weapons programs and the gold-gilt private-sector jobs that go with them.

The Pentagon should stop buying the F-22 -- a futuristic, radar-evading jet fighter that hasn't fought a day in either Iraq or Afghanistan -- and scrap an expensive new presidential helicopter, Mr. Gates said.

Instead, the defense chief said he's gearing Pentagon buying plans to the smaller, lower-tech battlefields the military is facing now and seems likely to confront in the coming years.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, called the proposals an important and overdue attempt to balance want and need at the Defense Department.

But Congress is unlikely to go along with many of the program cuts in Mr. Gates' proposed $534 billion budget for the 2010 fiscal year, which already represents an increase over the $513 billion allocated for 2009, The Associated Press reports.

"I am extremely disappointed in this decision by the Obama administration," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., of the proposal to quit buying the F-22 Raptor plane beyond the 187 already in the pipeline.

"America has maintained air dominance in every conflict since the Korean War, and now this administration is willing to sacrifice the lives of American military men and women for the sake of domestic programs favored by President Obama," Sen. Chambliss said.

Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed, the nation's largest defense contractor, says almost 95,000 jobs -- mostly in California, Texas, Connecticut, and (yes) Sen. Chambliss' Georgia -- could be at stake if the Pentagon doesn't buy more of the F-22 fighters at $140 million apiece. Mr. Gates plans to buy only four more. But members of Congress who fear losing high-tech jobs with salaries between $60,000 and $80,000 per year want the Pentagon to buy 60 more F-22s, whether they need them or not.

This is an oft-repeated struggle, and while congressmen will doubtless pull out their fiddles and play sad tunes citing the current economic hard times, the fight would be little different if everything were coming up roses on Wall Street.

The question is whether the defense budget is meant to fund a military adequate to defend American territory and vital interests at the lowest cost possible -- or whether contractors wise enough to divvy up their programs among congressional districts have managed to turn this particular piggy bank into a giant jobs program, building fancy hardware whether it's what the military really needs or not.

Actually, there are plenty of jobs in Mr. Gates' proposed budget, including as many as 82,000 direct new jobs from ramping up production of the F-35 Lockheed Joint Strike Fighter, which the Pentagon finds more useful than the F-22.

They're just different jobs, often in different congressional districts.

Yes, if the Congress ever decides to limit its spending to match actual revenues, Sen. Chambliss will be right to guard against Draconian defense cuts designed to spare domestic handouts. But this budget hardly represents the American equivalent of the apocryphal Danish defense plan -- hook up a weekend answering machine that says "We surrender" in Russian.

Mr. Gates said he hopes Congress will resist parochial temptations and look at the larger goal of refocusing defense spending on the needs of soldiers now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And he's right. They should.