Congress moved quickly to approve $40 billion to help America rebuild and
respond to Tuesday's attack. All agree that now is not the time to worry about
the Social Security "lock box."
However, the Defense Department and other agency budgets are scheduled for
mark-up in the next few weeks, and spending priorities – some questionable to
begin with – must be reassessed. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld certainly
must recognize this. The defense review he has been preparing no doubt has been
damaged along with parts of the Pentagon. Yes, the country needs to prepare for
tomorrow's threats, but it must first address today's. The country will need
missile defense for the long run, but it also needs to keep terrorists out of
airline cockpits.
The sad fact is that the U.S. government has long recognized the threat of
terrorism, but has been hard pressed to change the way it functions and spends.
Government studies have been going on for decades and continue. This month the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations opened a series of hearings on "homeland
defense and protecting America's military forces" and the Congressional Research
Service issued a report on terrorism.
But Tuesday's horrid attacks demonstrate that the threats are no longer
hypothetical Hollywood stories. More than new studies are needed – bureaucracies
finally must change.
Harvard government professor Andrew Moravscik aptly notes the United States
has spent 50 years building the best fighter-bombers but hasn't put that level
of effort into addressing newer concerns. He asserts that although the Pentagon
has been well aware of the changed threats, federal spending patterns haven't
changed due to a "complicated relationship" between Congress and the Pentagon
and what Dwight Eisenhower called the "military industrial complex."
State leaders also complicate matters by lobbying to maintain defense
production industries. Military dollars generate a lot of income for states –
approaching $40 billion just in Texas. Closing bases or canceling military
hardware often proves political anathema.
We should have changed spending priorities sooner. Now we must.
A new round of base closings – paring more bases that were geared toward the
Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union – should be initiated.
The structure of the national defense strategic review should be changed. It
should not be left just to the Defense Department. The need for
more interagency and intergovernmental collaboration – and competition
for dollars – has been boldly displayed. Funding for civil defense
at all levels, for security in transportation and communication,
for public health protection from biological warfare is as important
as the next generation of Army artillery. Legislators must consider
U.S. needs over parochial interests and bureaucratic inertia. It's
just too bad it has to take a crisis to precipitate change.
- This editorial was originally published in The Dallas
Morning News 09/17/01.