Air-War Spending Bandwagon

President Clinton’s request for $6 billion in emergency spending to finance the air war against Yugoslavia and aid the victims of Serbian aggression has prompted a bidding contest among House Republicans who have long been eager to increase defense spending. Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas insists that even $10 billion in new money would be insufficient given what he sees as a “national security crisis.” Armey won’t say how much more spending he favors, but Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), chairman of the armed services military procurement subcommittee, insists that an immediate boost “well beyond $20 billion” is warranted.

That’s not going to happen because, as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) points out, “there’s a limit to how much you can sensibly spend in a period of time.” The time he means is the five months left in the current fiscal year. But while the Senate might not be as rash as the House, it is not immune from political temptations. It would be surprising if both the Senate and House did not insist on loading on money for projects that have nothing to do with conflict in the Balkans.

Clinton’s emergency request would cover only future air operations over Yugoslavia. If NATO decides that ground troops have to be sent to Kosovo, another big boost in spending will be needed. But for now, the $5.5 billion that Clinton seeks for the air war--an additional $500 million would go for humanitarian aid--should meet the projected needs of a campaign that has already lasted longer, and cost a lot more, than the administration publicly anticipated.

The effort to inflate the emergency appropriation measure reflects the GOP claim that Clinton has shortchanged the military ever since he took office. Some defense needs have obviously have neglected in recent years, as the current rush to replenish stocks of advanced air-attack weapons shows. But it’s also true, as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reminds his colleagues, that the defense budget is routinely made to serve the political interests of lawmakers. McCain figures that since the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, $30 billion has been added to defense spending beyond what the military has sought or needs.

Clinton, not insensitive to the politics of defense spending, has proposed increasing the Pentagon’s budget by $112 billion over the next six years. That would raise pay and benefits by 22%, while boosting procurement spending by 53%. But no debate will be of much help in the absence of a comprehensive assessment of just what military threats and challenges the post-Cold War world presents. A decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is no consensus.

The top agenda item for now is emergency spending for the Balkans war. As the House maneuvers to bid up Clinton’s request, it should remember that every new dollar spent will come out of this year’s projected $111-billion budget surplus, a surplus that wholly belongs to the Social Security trust fund. That’s the fund that both parties have been solemnly assuring Americans they intend to safeguard.