(published 3/3/00)
  What happened to the peace dividend?
   by Mischa Gelman
  
    Once in a blue moon the libertarians get things right. Here is one
recent example - the Cato Institute has called for a Pentagon budget of
$175 billion. This would be three times as hugh as Russia's military
budget, far more than what America needs, especially in this post-Cold War
era. Bill Clinton, though, has called for a $291 billion Pentagon budget
and the biggest increase in military spending since the early 80s. This
would lead to a larger expenditure than the next twelve biggest militaries
*combined*. Doesn't it seem a bit..err, silly..to ask for so much money?
Why must we spend so much more than any other country? What vital
conflicts is our country involved in that it needs more money than it did
during times of far greater involvement in warfare?
    Since we have balanced budgets now, we tend to overlook the national
debt. By cutting military spending, we could help in seriously trimming
this debt. 23% of our tax dollars go towards maintaining our armed forces
- given the extravagant waste in that spending (which mostly is in the
form of weaponry, rather than money to our dedicated soldiers), we could
help further fiscal responsibility by redirecting a good amount of that
money towards repaying the debt. Why do Republicans who claim to believe
in sound budgets argue otherwise, wanting to inflate an overly large
budget instead of helping solidify our fiscal future? How they can push
for more government waste and irresponsible arrangements while claiming to
be against "big government" is beyond me.
    Of course, our Democratic president is being just as irresponsible,
living up to his reputation. Clinton doesn't just want a huge raise in
waste this year. He wants our country to add $112 billion to the Pentagon
budget over the next 6 years - Chinese spending would have to grow about
1000% to equal US spending. Put another way, even if the Chinese military
budget doubled in that brief time, we would still be spending over 5 times
as much. Does this sound logical to anyone? Clinton's potential Democratic
successors, Gore and Bradley, aren't quite as nuts. They only want to
maintain our current excessively high level, while the lead Republicans,
Bradley and McCain, want the same insane raises as Slick Willie. It
appears "third" parties are once again our only potential options if we
want reasonable budgeting decisions for the next presidency.
    When the Cold War ended, we were told there would be a peace dividend.
Military spending supposedly would decline, freeing up money for debt
repayments, tax cuts, anti-poverty programs, infrastructure, health care,
education, environmental preservation and all that other good stuff.
Looking back in retrospect, we can see the notions of the time were silly
- it was expected that the nation would act in a logical manner. Instead,
our leaders act as if nothing has changed, despite the absence of
plausible threats on the horizon. The peace dividened has failed to
materialize - now it falls upon the citizens of our fair land to ask
"why?"
    There are some ideas. Matthew Rothschild of the Progressive offers
several good explanations: the Pentagon wants to be constantly prepared to
fight two different wars at once; it wants to maintain thousands of
nuclear warheads; and because arms companies are part of the huge
boondoggle that is corruption in our nation's capital. These companies pay
bribes (or campaign financing, if one wants to use the term favored by
pundits like George Will) to politicians, who in turn pander to their will
rather than the desires of a citizenry that wants spending to be done in
an intelligent manner. Former president Eisenhower, a man of great
military renown and understanding, warned us of the power even then being
gained by the "military-industrial complex" - that power has since
multiplied several times over, silencing voices in the tone of Eisenhower
as these companies gain more and more influence over policy.
    Another explanation could be that politicians say what people want to
hear. No one wants to appear soft on the military front. They also realize
that our national media has done a poor job of informing folks about how
bloated our military budget is, in comparison to those of other nations.
Therefore, they even make the claim that any cuts in defense (or offense, 
depending on the perspective) spending will reduce our ability to wage war
effectively. When one realizes that we currently spend more than the next
10 countries combined (and as mentioned, Clinton wants us to spend more
than the next 12 largest), one easily sees through this hyperbole which we
are routinely exposed to.
    Overall, it is most certainly a sad state of affairs. Will our
generation continue to accept levels of military spending higher than they
were during the height of the Cold War? Or will we tell our
representatives that we want rational budgets? Let's make the easy, and
right, choice.

  Mischa Gelman's only major luxury expenditures are books, as military
equiptment is a tad out of his price range.