Following up on Craig's post earlier this evening, I wanted to point out some of the really good points that Spencer Ackerman over at the Washington Independent and Matt Yglesias over at Think Progress have been making all day about President Obama's recently announced spending freeze. Ackerman asks why in the world defense spending should go unaffected and Yglesias adds that, while there are reasons to treat various kinds of spending and taxes differently, "the security / non-security distinction doesn’t hold up ... at all."

In his post asking why defense spending should be sacrosanct, Ackerman states, "Not a single defense wonk believes that the $663 billion defense budget contains only necessary spending" (my emphasis). To drive home his point, Ackerman, in a later post, highlights a recent paper from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) – a rather respected think tank on defense matters – that examines the unsustainability of current defense spending.

Yglesias tears apart the administration's arbitrary line of domestic versus security spending:

A lot of Homeland Security functions were in the Department of Transportation 10 years ago and thus defined as “domestic.” Conversely, many Energy Department programs actually relate to nuclear weapons research and many Justice Department public safety programs have at least some relevance to counterterrorism. The point is that if there’s a budgetary need to cap overall spending at some level and then subject things to individualized scrutiny, then that should apply to everything.

Addressing the politically calculating appearance of this move, Yglesias surmises, "It’s clearly aimed at people who don’t have a particularly firm grasp of the overall budget situation—professional political reporters, low-information swing voters, [Sen.] Evan Bayh [D-IN], etc." I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Image by Flickr user Rob Shenk used under a Creative Commons license.