What would you do with an extra $53 billion? This is the forecasted amount of money U.S. taxpayers will spend between 2004 and 2009 on the implementation of National Missile Defense (NMD), which excludes the billions of dollars we have spent thus far.

NMD is a military defense system that aims to shield the entire country against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), which could be intercepted by other missiles or, possibly, lasers.

Sounds good, huh?

However, the majority of experts question the technical feasibility of building an effective missile defense system.

Even with the exact coordinates known in advance, the test runs have been mediocre at best.

Since its inception during the Reagan administration, NMD (also known as “Star Wars”) has been a major venture for the Republican party. And with the end in sight for GW, the current administration has a reinvigorated interest in getting this system up and working, thus making NMD a part of his legacy.

But how much is enough?

The most recent update shows the national debt at more than $3 trillion.

During fiscal year 2006, the U.S. government spent $406 billion of federal taxes just on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt.

Compare that to NASA at $15 billion, education at $61 billion, and the Department of Transportation at $56 billion. With these dismal statistics, it is hard to understand how we have the money to fund major expenditures such as NMD.

In fiscal 2006, 28 percent of taxes went to defense spending. Don’t get me wrong, I completely support initiatives to supply our troops with the best protection money can buy, but I oppose this out-of-control spiral of military spending.

Last year, the U.S. spent more money on our military than the rest of the world combined, yet we make up less than 5 percent of the world population.

On the other hand, the U.S. spends just 1 percent of total taxes on non-military international programs. NMD is another seemingly bottomless money pit that benefits large military defense contractors at the expense of average citizens who have insufficient health care and attend sub-par schools.

At the same time, NMD has been a major issue of contention between the U.S. and the international community. Russia fears a working NMD will render its nuclear arsenal obsolete, thus halting progressive steps taken throughout the ’90s toward disarmament and threatening the beginning of another arms race.

Where do you want to see your money spent? It is important that we as citizens are asking the right questions of our potential leaders.

Are we investing in the education of the future, who will deal with pertinent issues such as global warming, or will we continue to invest in the legacy of a failed presidency?

- Nicole DeMarco is a senior from Lawrenceville majoring in international affairs and German. She is a member of the Roosevelt Institution.