My response is part to Terry's question, and part to the whole anti-terrorism culture.
As a percent of total spending, "defense" has been trending lower for decades. So the portion of Defense allocable to Terry's question of terrorism is not so much. In absolute dollars it may be getting bigger, but as a percent of the whole definitely trending down, including anti-terror spending, war in Iraq, Afghanistan, covert operations, etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/Click on the "Spending by Type" (historical) button.
Defense spending has a high multiplier.
That is, how much stimulus to the economy for each dollar spent. Its been as high as 8-1. Currently estimated at 3-1 or less. The politician's know this, so regardless of what they say, they won't cut back on defense spending. Or lets say some politicians would rather give it to the military industrial complex, (hard) other politicians would give it to salaries, benefits, bureaucracy, etc. (soft) but no politician really wants to cut back.
Transfer payments, the "so called entitlements" is what is bankrupting the US and other countries. That's the gorilla in the room no one can see. Defense is a strawman.
In the US, government pensions, the "20 and out" policy, civil service unions, etc. those programs must be restructured or there is no hope. Transfer payments have a negative multiplier, are bad for the economy, but good at the ballot box.
As to the USPS, a "security surcharge" while aggravating is a drop in the bucket of the whole problem. The USPS managers are clinging to whatever they can for survival. They had tons of advantages over competing services and have squandered it, but also had it wrung out of them, by the prevailing compensation structures of quasi-government agencies. They must cut back services, raise revenue, and reduce compensation. USPS was semi-private but likely to go back to full Government under a bailout provision. USPS has had its moments in the sun. I hope it can get back there even better.
No easy answers. But to answer Terry's question: yes, many people think so. Personally I don't want to see defense go below 25% of total budget. Under Kennedy it was nearly 50%. Whether it's disguised as anti-terrorism or simply upfront preparedness. There are bad guys out there. "Common defense" has more basis in the Constitution than Social Security does. IMO
But rather than spend more (that we don't have) the allocation should be preserved by cutting spending elsewhere. I know many government workers who have been drawing pensions longer than they worked. While we can't undo on what's already happened, it has to change going forward, quickly. First you fix the deficit, then the debt fixes itself.
Or so i think.
Another interesting site:
http://www.federalbudget.com/
