The F-35, one of the Pentagon's largest budget black holes (image via Wikipedia).

Even though the U.S. military spends more than 6 times that of our next competitor (China), the GOP is still pushing the narrative that any more cuts in spending to the Pentagon’s budget would be “disastrous” and spell “doomsday” for the military. The Hill reports House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif) said he’d even be willing to support tax increases before more cuts to the military’s budget. Predictably, 13 freshmen Republicans on McKeon’s panel, many of which are Tea Party darlings, feel “enough is enough” and believe federal spending cuts need to come from entitlement programs.

McKeon said “It’s time to focus our fiscal restraint on the driver of our debt, not the protector of our prosperity.”

In addition to McKeon’s doomsday forecasting, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) also voiced concerns earlier this month regarding proposed defense spending cuts. In a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Chambliss warned that a “draconian budget cutting exercise” towards the F-35 fighter program would risk the United States’ advantage in aerial warfare. At present, the U.S. Has a 20 to 1 advantage in airpower over China, even without the most expensive plane in U.S. History.

Much like the Bank of America CEO who has most of his fortune staked in Bank of America stock and signed 30,000 pink slips to bolster profits, the wolves are in charge of the henhouse when it comes to defense spending. Since 1994, Chambliss received nearly $100,000 in campaign contributions from Lockheed Martin’s PAC or individuals from the company, which is the prime contractor for the F-35. McKeon’s top 4 contributors in his reelection campaign this cycle are companies with big defense contracts, including Lockheed Martin.

Is it any wonder why politicians like Chambliss and McKeon ring the doomsday bell every time someone hints at cutting the military’s budget? And while a record number of Americans live below the poverty line, politicians like Buck and Saxby are more than willing to sacrifice what little social safety nets still exist, supposedly in the name of “protecting our prosperity.”

Many military officials are less than enthusiastic about the F-35 and other pet projects defense invested politicians love to tout. When former Defense Secretary Robert Gates put a 180 plane cap on the F-22 program, Senator Chambliss attempted to lobby Gates to lift it. Even though the Senate approved a $513 billion defense appropriations bill for 2012, Both Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter they would need input on additional spending cuts from the DOD.

The more the GOP whines about spending and rails against taxes while dodging real cuts to the military budget, the more they prove their only interest is in keeping themselves rich while the rest of America foots the bill. After all, shouldn’t we find better ways to spend $720 million the Pentagon paid in late fees for rented shipping containers used in Afghanistan and Iraq? Should we wonder where the $193 million military contractor KBR spent on personnel deemed unnecessary could’ve gone? If the GOP and other hawkish politicians are serious about fiscal responsibility, taking a long hard look in the black hole where billions of dollars go to waste would be a no brainer. However, it’s become painfully obvious that they’re more interested in protecting their own prosperity at our expense.

                          

Leaders of the program Lockheed Martin spat back on Twitter, contending “The F-35 team is focused on reducing costs of the jets and is showing significant improvement in key areas,” to which the ranking Senate Armed Services Committee member McCain said “taxpayers deserve better.”

So while Democrats and Republicans fight over who to blame for our economy once again heading towards the brink of destruction, the machinations of war continue to roll. As I pointed out back when the GOP first released their suggested budget cuts: the Pentagon spends nearly $122 million per plane building the F-35 fighter jet. The 2011 budget calls for more than $11 billion for the planes, none of which have been delivered since development and production began ten years ago. By 2016, the military wants 2,443 F-35s at an estimated cost of close to $329 billion. In other words, by scrapping just one percent of that order, a number that wouldn’t even dent our 20 to one lead in planes over the Chinese military, we would save most of the aforementioned social programs.

Of course, the Defense Department and its pet contractors believe any kind of spending cuts, even on a program to build a plane that has no mission, would be catastrophic. Top defense trade organization Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) President Marion Blakey argued in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner “understand the unique national security threats posed by skyrocketing debt, but we believe those threats will only be compounded if funding for the Department of Defense is cut precipitously during this critical stage of budget reduction negotiations.” Blakey went on to say “Any cuts to defense must be generated in a careful and thoughtful manner, guided by our military leaders.” In other words, if we stop spending mountains of money on pet defense projects, we’ll tank the economy, which will threaten our national security. If Congress really needs to perform a song and dance to show that everyone is pitching in, even the Pentagon, they need to let the wolves guard the hen house.

All of the bluster, talk of “tough decisions” and suggestions of sacrifice surrounding our continually sinking economy come with one big fat exemption – defense spending. If we’re truly nearing an economic apocalypse, why is one third of the budget still off the cutting board?