Defense Spending

Seattle P-I story today states that George W. told the annual convention of the American Legion, the country needed what he called "the largest increase in military spending since Ronald Reagan was president," or $39 billion over 2001 levels.


He continued, "We have a clear-eyed foreign policy...I know this nation still has its enemies and we cannot expect them to be idle. And that's why security is my first responsibility, and I will not permit any course that leaves America undefended."


Ronald Reagan served during a time when the United States (ostensibly) still faced the biggest threat in the in the history of our country--the USSR. That union is long gone but military spending continues to rise and this year our President takes pride in increasing military spending more than his predecessors (who assumedly governed during a period of similar threats as he).


Are these increases really necessary?


Would America be "undefended" if we failed to spend on military at higher than Cold War levels? Will the Pentagon ever consider themselves fully armed and ready or are perennial increases inevitable?


Who benefits most from increases in military spending?


Is this a responsible way to spend federal money during tight economic times and a dwindling surplus?


KJS


<a href=http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/37039_bush30.shtml>story in p-i</a>