Under Ronald Reagan the war budget (also known as the defense budget) increased by a staggering 43 percent. It’s done nothing but go up since then. That’s why I felt like applauding in the privacy of my living room when I read Barney Frank’s article in The Nation.

I am a great believer in freedom of expression and am proud of those times when I have been one of a few members of Congress to oppose censorship. I still hold close to an absolutist position, but I have been tempted recently to make an exception, not by banning speech but by requiring it. I would be very happy if there was some way to make it a misdemeanor for people to talk about reducing the budget deficit without including a recommendation that we substantially cut military spending.

Frank points out that it isn’t just conservatives who are unwilling to consider cutting this bloated creature. But he feels it is critical that we do so.

Current plans call for us not only to spend hundreds of billions more in Iraq but to continue to spend even more over the next few years producing new weapons that might have been useful against the Soviet Union. Many of these weapons are technological marvels, but they have a central flaw: no conceivable enemy. It ought to be a requirement in spending all this money for a weapon that there be some need for it. In some cases we are developing weapons–in part because of nothing more than momentum–that lack not only a current military need but even a plausible use in any foreseeable future.

It is possible to debate how strong America should be militarily in relation to the rest of the world. But that is not a debate that needs to be entered into to reduce the military budget by a large amount. If, beginning one year from now, we were to cut military spending by 25 percent from its projected levels, we would still be immeasurably stronger than any combination of nations with whom we might be engaged.

(……)

The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Hear, hear! And read, read … the rest of the (short) article.

Matt Blunt is still campaigning, even though he’s off the ballot. Blunt attacked Barney Frank’s recent comments that an economic stimulus package was necessary and would have to be offset in the government’s ledger by increased taxes on the wealthy and a 25 percent reduction in military spending. Sayeth the Boy Blunder, “It is difficult to see how a 25 percent reduction in military spending would not undermine the ability of our Guard to help win the Global War on Terror, support the active duty components and respond to natural disasters.”

Gee, Matt, it’s also hard to see how sending Guard units out repeatedly on extended tours in a war of choice, in a country where you know, Osama Bin Laden is not located could possibly have helped Guard readiness.

As for Frank’s comments, it’s worth examining them more closely. He didn’t call for an across the board cut, he called for a withdrawal from Iraq, where we are currently spending $10 billion a month, and for the Pentagon to start picking and choosing which of its lavish weapons programs the US government will continue to support. Where does National Guard funding come up in Frank’s comments?

It’s always easier to attack your opponent when you are allowed to make things up, like Blunt does.

I would.

…Question: Uh, at the Republican press conference…specifically pointed to your speech on the floor, saying that they thought they had an extra dozen Republican votes…held up your speech, said this is the reason why they lost those votes…

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D): …Um hmm…

Question: …could you address that?

Representative Barney Frank (D): I will address that. I am appalled. Frankly that’s an accusation against my Republican colleagues I would never have thought of making. Here’s the story – there’s a terrible crisis affecting the American economy. We have come together on a bill to alleviate the crisis. And because somebody hurt their feelings they decide to punish the country. I mean, I would not have imputed that degree of pettiness and hypersensitivity. I mean, we also have, as the leader will tell you, been working with them. We don’t believe they had the votes and I think they are covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this, “Somebody hurt my feelings, so I will punish the country.” I mean that’s hard to be plausible. And there were twelve Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interests of America, but not if anybody insulted them. I’ll make a, I’ll make an offer. Give me those twelve people’s names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them. [laughter] And tell them what wonderful people they are. And maybe they’ll now think about the country…