How about a scrub? From top to bottom? Why do we need over 700 military bases around the world? Why do we have multiple intelligence agencies at the undisclosed cost of undosclosed to watch over " the terrorists". We should learn from the lesson of Rome that at least lasted 500 years? We have waged many useless and costly wars after the one good one that ended in 1945. It is time to reexamine our situation in the present world...If we don't get our economy under control, dea with urban poverty and massive inequality, we will not be able to compete in the world anyway...

There are two key aspects of the military budget that - accidentally, on purpose, or accidentally on purpose - Barney does not address. Patronage and infrastructure.

The "Eisenhower precedent" of a highway system funded as a defense measure is plenty on which to base the infrastructure investment critical to both short and long term employment. Universal fiber optic has a real value in both national defense, environmental protection, and employment, particularly if, once built, like the interstate highway system it remains publicly owned and available.

And the flexibility the President has in investing in such defenses ought to be plenty to force Republican (or Democratic Recalcitrants) to comply and "work well with others." Why, for example, there are ANY defense contracts in Bachman's district, or how the President justifies even a post office in Boehner's goes against basic politics today, just as it did in the days of Lincoln (or, at least, Lincoln: the movie). Politics is not all money, but most money is, in fact, political.

Beyond agreeing with Barney's analysis and proposal, I have question: How much does the Navy spend on guarding the sea lanes for oil tankers bringing oil to the US? Should this be paid by the oil companies as part of the cost of doing business. Moreover, as we are moving to an oil-exporting country, do we need the Navy to perform such a task? About a decade ago, I heard an estimate that the Navy spent about $47 billion dollars on protection for the oil companies. I dont know if that was accurate or what the figure is now. But it would be interesting to find out.

Does anyone know of some edict that prohibits the press from including the military in discussion of budget downsizing. The total lack of including the military is the natter of budget reduction is more than chance. Who is controlling the press and how on the issue of reduced military budget?

As far as jobs go, defense is relatively inefficient compared to other ways the government could spend money (http://afsc.org/story/infographic-creating-jobs). In particular, not only would shifting money from defense to education double the effectiveness in job creation, it would also increase future military preparedness. The key is not how large is our standing military, but how quickly can we increase the size of the military to meed an unforeseen demand. To the extent that these days both being a soldier and a defense contractor are high-skill labor, increasing the skill level of our workforce is probably more important than how many aircraft carriers we currently have deployed.

Good article, if too carefully polite to President Obama. It's frustrating that most conversation about defense "cuts" is really about smaller increases in spending. While I'd like to see commenter Sabine Atwell's top-to-bottom scrub, that seems unrealistic if today's rah-rah "patriotic" environment. So, kudos to Barney Frank for publicly making the suggestion that's been privately obvious for so long.

The core of the progressive argument on defense spending is that they don't like US policy on military affairs. I don't say they a priori dislike the military, but they are gut level anti-war. That is why Congressman Frank's article is so valuable. He's explaining the strategic reasons for our military spending. He's giving us a basis for an argument that gets at why we spend on the military. Knee jerk anti-war sentiment has done nothing to inhibit defense spending because it ignores the real reasons for it. Take Mr. Lakoff's observation for example. The Navy protects our oil supply, not for the exclusive benefit of oil companies, but because our whole way of life that each of us enjoys absolutely depends on cheap energy!! Force oil companies to pay for the Navy and listen to people howl about high gas prices. No, Mr. Frank's article gives us a chance to change policy based on why we actually have a big defense budget. That is a step forward in my opinion.

Ron Paul makes Frank look like an idiot for not addresing the first pus filled bag of military spending,565 bases spread around the world, and 500 navy ships patrollig every stretch of ocean. I would add serious cuts for the rogue NATO,CIA, state department, and FBI, and why does the White House need a $500,000 a year restaurant?

Tell me Congressman Frank, do Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae still look totally healthy to you like they did in 2003 when you helped cause the financial meltdown by blocking reform of the two institutions?

You have the blood of the financial meltdown on your hands sir, and that has destroyed your credibility and driven you from Congress to the great benefit of the nation.

Good riddance!

Your wisdom will be missed in Congress, Mr. Frank. Please continue to write articles like this one.

Rogue NATO? Are you serious? I worked in NATO planning and policy, and there is no one there who doesn't understand where NATO's power comes from. Hint: It's not Estonia. The United States has become so closely defined by its military power, that we seem to have forgotten that there are other ways to have influence in the world. The Defense Department should not be deciding foreign policy.

As long as there exists a Military/Industrial Complex spending on the military will be far to excessive!