Midterm elections may have brought some slight shift in the makeup of congress, but this will not alter the rapid rise in military spending. A hungry Pentagon, pork-barreling, a complaisant President, are combining to push budgets to Reagan-era levels. PNS commentator Sanford Gottlieb is author of "Defense Addiction: Can America Kick the Habit?" published by Westview Press, and has worked for over 30 years for private organizations in the field of international arms control.

Despite the Democrats' unexpectedly strong showing in the midterm elections, conservatives in Congress, most of them Republicans, and a compliant Democrat in the White House will continue to throw more money at the Pentagon than it needs for national defense.

Small shifts in the congressional lineup won't change the fact that it's pig-out time at the Department of Defense.

The balanced budget agreement capped military appropriations at a lavish $268 billion. But that ceiling was breached even before Congress adjourned, thanks to a $9 billion "emergency" add-on.

Just what is the "emergency"?

Military budgets are approaching levels of the Reagan era, when we faced the Soviets' 30,000 long-range nuclear warheads, a 5 million man army and 53,000 tanks.

Today, the USSR is gone, and no comparable adversary is in sight. Any potential military threats come from countries in the minor leagues.

What is pushing defense spending, then? The answer is pork, preparedness, Star Wars and ideology.

Pork has long been part of the military budget, but the GOP leadership has raised the practice to a work of art. When Republicans achieved control of Congress five years after the Cold War ended, they added $20 billion the Pentagon had not even requested. This included some $2 billion in military business Trent Lott secured for Mississippi contractors. Newt Gingrich nailed down production of additional C-130 cargo planes the military didn't want in a plant near his Georgia district.

Pork translates into jobs for constituents. Much of it is added in the final stages of negotiations on military money bills, without public hearings or votes. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) calls the process "a total corruption of democracy."

Preparedness was the theme of Pentagon leaders' recent warnings about the need for training, recruitment, and spare parts. President Clinton called for the "emergency" supplemental in response -- but Congress instead loaded the package with funds for intelligence agencies, Star Wars, Bosnia, weather damage and the anti-drug effort. Only one dollar out of nine was earmarked for preparedness.

In fact, if the Pentagon wanted more money for recruitment and training, it could stop buying costly Cold War weapons that have little use in today's smaller-scale conflicts. These include Seawolf submarines ($4 billion apiece fully outfitted), heavy M-1 tanks and hundreds of F-22 fighters ($160 million each) when current fighters are already superior to anything in the sky.

Star Wars took $1 billion of the "emergency" supplement. This comes on top of the $4 billion a year now spent pursuing President Reagan's dream of a complete anti-missile defense.

Over $45 billion has been spent on this program -- and the flight-intercept tests keep failing. The Air Force general in charge says more money cannot accelerate the program because it's moving as fast as technological knowledge permits.

A more realistic program, developing a defense against shorter-range battlefield missiles, is underway, but is proving difficult. As we now know, the Patriot missile was much less effective in the Gulf War than Pentagon spokesmen claimed. The rocket scientists still have not mastered the equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet.

Ideology, too, drives, military spending. The idea that military power guarantees national security did not die with the end of the Cold War. Item 6 in the Republicans' "Contract with America" urged more military spending, a missile defense, and rejected the idea of U.S. troops serving under U.N. or foreign command. Such thinking leads toward a nuclear-armed Fortress America.

President Clinton has invited defense officials to propose a longer-term spending plan. It will undoubtedly exceed the budget agreement caps. Clinton, wounded by accusations of draft-dodging during the Vietnam War and the flap over gays in the military, has avoided conflict with the top brass for six years. As the brass becomes more publicly assertive, the commander in chief prepares to write blank checks.

Why aren't taxpayers outraged? They're looking elsewhere, at domestic problems that directly affect their lives. And they figure they have no expertise in defense policy. By the time they receive the bill they'll have no choice but to pay up.