MILITARY SPENDING IS NEAR COLD WAR LEVEL DESPITE BUDGET CUTS

Taxpayers say they want the federal government to find ways to reduce spending. Americans are worried about the annual deficits and the overall national debt, which currently stands at more money than anyone can possibly imagine. And there has been a response to the wants of taxpayers and the worries of Americans: The Republican-led Congress is trying valiantly to reduce both government's size and cost.

But wait a minute, some concerned beneficiaries of government spending are saying. Sure, let's whack away at federal government, but don't mess with anything that affects us. Senior citizens, for example, are concerned their old-age health protection might be reduced.

Special interests are lining up to fight to maintain government programs, but none -- not even the powerful elderly lobby -- can hold a candle to the defenders of military spending. For example:

-- A House committee has approved $553 million for B-2 bombers that the Pentagon says it doesn't want.

-- The Senate has approved $1.5 million for a third Navy Seawolf submarine that is rusting away.

-- Another House committee has approved a $267 billion defense budget, which is $9.5 billion more than President Clinton sought in his spending plan for the next fiscal year.

Much of the push for military spending at levels near those of the Cold War -- 92 cents for every dollar, adjusted for inflation -- is coming from a military philosophy that says the United States must be prepared and armed to fight two regional conflicts, each equivalent to the Persian Gulf War, at once.

But a cost analyst for the Pentagon says the two-war strategy is "just a marketing device" that justifies the heavy spending on the military.

There are other forces at work too. One, clearly, is the effort by senators and representatives to protect military bases and operations in their home states. Missouri's Ike Skelton, for example, is regarded as one of the most knowledgeable legislators in Washington when it comes to military issues, and his 4th District in west-central Missouri, including Whiteman Air Force Base and the Stealth bomber, has a fierce champion at budget time.

This entrenched attitude that military installations must be protected at all costs also is driven by a simple economic factor: The military is one of the nation's largest employers. Spending cuts always mean reductions in personnel, and the job losses can be devastating to communities whose existence depends on preparations to fight wars. This is the case in Junction City in Kansas, home of Fort Riley and the Big Red One. Plans to reduce the military personnel by several thousand will leave that town struggling to survive.

At the same time, Americans want the security of knowing that U.S. military might is capable of defending the nation and intervening around the world on behalf of national interests. Military spending, which was expected to drop dramatically int he post-Cold War era, is actually holding its own. This is an indication that the money is there, and Congress is certainly willing to appropriate it.

When it comes to overall budget cutting, there are those in Congress who say everything has to be put on the table. So far, Medicare has been exempted along with the military, two of the most costly federally funded programs in the budget.

It will take a tremendous effort on the part of Congress to strike a balance in both of those areas and accomplishes the GOP goal of a balanced budget while maintaining those programs that are considered essential by most Americans.