When the Defense Department (DoD) used ballistic missiles to whack a wayward satellite out of the sky last week, much of the ensuing analysis centered on whether the move represented a proxy anti-satellite test to answer China’s satellite shootdown last year. Rattling its space saber is surely part of DoD’s rationale. However, a look at missile defense’s past and future funding suggests another, more base motivation: Money.

The 5,000-pound satellite was taken down by a modified Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) launched by the USS Lake Erie, a guided missile cruiser equipped with the Aegis ballistic missile defense system. On Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office came out with a report saying that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) did not meet goals and “fielded fewer assets, increased cost by about $1 billion and conducted fewer tests. Even with the cost increase, MDA deferred work to keep costs from increasing further, as some contractors overran their … budgets.”  No wonder MDA informed Congress last year that the program would face funding shortfalls in 2008, potentially deferring the SM-3’s next generation and reducing the number of flight tests.

Congress responded by increasing funding for Aegis in the 2008 defense appropriations bill beyond the administration’s $1.1 billion request, thanks in part to a $75 million  earmark from Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), in whose state MDA is located.  As Congress heads into the fiscal year 2009 appropriations season, missile defense is seeking more money than ever before: $12 billion, including missile defense programs throughout DoD.

Congress trimmed other elements of missile defense in 2008, however, and the specter of a new administration raises the possibility of further cuts. It appears that the Bush Administration’s strategy to protect defense spending is to accelerate funding for as many programs as possible to make it harder for the next president to pull the plug. Last week’s actions follow the game plan: Four days before the satellite operation, DoD awarded a four-year, $1 billion contract to Raytheon to produce more than 100 SM-3 missiles for U.S. and foreign markets.

And the cost to taxpayers of last week’s fantastic voyage? $100 million , including the missile, modifications, and labor of civilian and military employees from the Pentagon to the Pacific. Lest we sound cynical about the potential threat to human life used as justification for the shootdown, we should point out that analysts from the Federation of American Scientists and MIT have disputed the administration’s assertion that the satellite would even survive entry into the earth’s atmosphere. DoD officials have even admitted that the satellite exercise was performed under such managed conditions that it proved nothing about missile defense effectiveness.

The final irony is that the wayward satellite was itself part of another over-hyped, over-budget defense boondoggle called Future Imagery Architecture . A bungled boondoggle provides an opportunity for show trial to justify an even bigger boondoggle. It’s enough to make anyone’s head spin.

The dictum that spending begets more spending is alive and well, as evidenced in Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ statement that “the fact that the Congress in recent years overwhelmingly has voted billions of dollars to continue with the missile defense program is testament to the fact that issue over whether it will work is behind us.” Remember that first day of Econ 101 when they talked about “sunk costs” and how each incremental dollar spent needs to be justified on its own, not on previous investments? Well, Congress would be wise to dust off the old text books, and resist throwing good money after bad.