Defense Resolutions: Spend Strategically

Catching up on the news from over the holidays, I wasn't sure where to start with how wrong-headed Martin Feldstein is when he suggests in an Op-Ed from the Wall Street Journal to use the Department of Defense's spending as a stimulus. Stan Collender rebuts the Op-Ed in more detail from an economic perspective, but I would like to contest it from a policy perspective, in particular from the perspective of POGO's recommendations for good government reforms for the presidential transition team.

The first problem we point out is that some federal agencies are no longer accomplishing their mandated missions. The stated--and correct--mission for the Department of Defense "is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country." Despite the apparent confusion of many members of Congress, this mission suggests that weapons procurement by any other name is not a jobs program. And to state the obvious, as GAO's transition suggestions also point out, we shouldn't continue our trend of spending that "lacks a strategic, risk-based framework for determining priorities and making investment decisions." Using defense spending to stimulate the economy, without strategic needs as the paramount concern, leads to supporting arguments that the Boeing tanker lease deal is sound policy (for those who don't remember, the deal was proposed as a stimulus, but was implemented as a bailout for Boeing).

If we're going to keep treating defense spending like a bailout or a stimulus, it looks like staffing the Special Inspector General Office for the Trouble Asset Relief Program is becoming more important than ever. But moreover, the fact that people are de-emphasizing the need to shape spending around strategy while we are fighting two wars leaves me flabbergasted. I advise those who are interested in good defense spending advice to check out what former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney published the same day.

-- Mandy Smithberger