I agree that Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor (a drunken RAT sailor at that), but his "guns" spending throws off a false reading.
True, the Defense Dept has had a big increase, but much of this money is going toward payroll, logistics, replacement parts, administration, troop rotation, hazard pay, etc.
I submit that the spending on the military has gone down if we talk what the dollars are buying. The Ruskies and the Chicoms are spending their Defense dollars on late generation ICBMs, strategic ICBM carrying submarines and fifth generation fighters and other advanced hardware.
America is spending its Defense dollars on payroll and logistics, etc., while cutting back on hardware procurement, eliminating some advanced weapon platforms and eliminating many military bases.
America has gotten WEAKER militarily under Bush relative to Russia and China.
That is not much "guns" spending from a factual angle.
Relative to China, yes.
I wouldn't be so quick to include Russia in that analysis.
Their military prowess took quite a kick to the groin with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But your point is well made.
That may not have included the 'guns' money being spent in Iraq in the death of a thousand cuts. The 'guns' money being spent in Iraq has not added to our strength relative to Russia/China. They must wonder at our inability to overcome the resistance of car bombs.
Defense appropriations have increased dramatically in the last couple of years, but a large portion of it goes unnoticed because Congress has been funding the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan "off-line" (i.e., these numbers aren't included in the Federal budget figures -- which is why all the budget deficit estimates you read about are a total fraud).