If Congress gets its act together and passes an appropriations bill before the new year, it will be three months late, which would actually be an improvement for a governing body long mired in partisan dysfunction.

But we have major concerns about the priorities likely to be reflected in the anticipated $1.1 trillion discretionary spending budget. If President Donald Trump’s budget and the National Defense Authorization Act are guiding principles, the outcome is likely to increase military spending at the expense of other domestic programs.

The Senate last month sent a $700 billion defense policy bill to Trump, indicating Republicans hoped to boost military spending by roughly $70 billion this fiscal year. Meanwhile, negotiations for the spending bill that would actually make that budget increase a reality are pinned on a two-year increase of between $180 billion and $200 billion.

We can see the writing on the wall.

If overall spending is going to increase by only $90 billion over the next nine months of fiscal year 2018, and $70 billion of that is going to defense, that leaves a paltry amount for the rest of the federal government to share.

We think that’s a misguided emphasis on defense.

America needs a strong military. We are engaged in conflicts across the Middle East, hedging against escalating tensions in the Pacific and struggling to respond to Russia’s increasing military aggression. But defense spending hit an all-time high after 9/11 of nearly $800 billion, which, even after adjusting for inflation, far exceeded what we spent during the Vietnam War. Following draw-downs and sequestration efforts, the budget returned to closer to $600 billion. A budget of $700 billion would put this nation’s defense spending on par with wartime expenditures.

It is also a budget increase that would be over and above limits set in the 2011 Budget Control Act, meaning Congress will need to act in a bipartisan fashion to exceed spending limits aimed at getting federal spending under control.

We think Congress was right to call for austerity in 2011, not just for our military spending, but the entire discretionary budget. But as we said then and echo now, the threat of severe cuts without a master-planned deficit reduction scheme in place was a lie. Congress never intended, it would seem, to stay within the limits of the Budget Control Act, or do anything else to curb the rate of growth for our debt.

Now looming over the budget process is the question of how the Republicans’ proposed and pending $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years could impact the spending authorization. Sadly, the answer is that the imprudent decision not to have revenue-neutral tax reform probably won’t curtail it. Cutting spending is hard, and even Republicans and their fiscal hawks don’t seem to have the discipline or the will within them.

But certainly, if cuts are to come, we would hope to see them divided fairly and evenly among defense and non-defense spending in the discretionary budget and also through reforms of the nondiscretionary, or entitlement, systems.

Increasing spending for the military at the expense of other departments is unacceptable, as is holding our military harmless from cuts that need to be made, while ensuring other programs will suffer more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.