Congress, and particularly conservative Republicans who claim taming excessive federal spending is a top priority, will soon be tested. Two relatively minor programs, one involving a few hundred million dollars and the other, a few billion dollars, face debate in Congress over continued funding. If no cuts are made to these programs, which have only a few supporters, it’s clear talk about cutting the federal budget deficit is just that — talk.

The first program involves federal subsidies to small, rural airports. These subsidies allow people to buy airline tickets at prices well below the actual cost. Taxpayers pick up the difference, which can be as high as $5,000 a ticket or as low as $10, according to the federal Transportation Department.

Sen. John McCain wants to eliminate the $200 million-a-year program. But four Democratic senators, including Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, are trying to gather support to continue the program. They say elimination would have a devastating impact on some small communities.

However, studies have found that many people from smaller communities drive to airports in larger cities for better fares and more travel options.

The small-airport subsidy program benefits relatively few people, even if it does have a few ardent supporters. But this is true of every program spending federal tax dollars. Every proposal to cut spending will be fought by some special-interest group, either average citizens or corporations, benefiting from the expenditures.

The other immediate test for Congress involves a hybrid military landing craft that continues to fail performance tests, has seen cost-per-vehicle go from $5 million to $17 million, and has little support within the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has cut it from the defense budget, saving $14.4 billion. Despite the program’s many failures and skyrocketing costs, it has supporters — mostly defense contractors making profits and the members of Congress representing areas where contractors have operations.

The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) has been under development for 20 years, and most military experts now say it is obsolete in terms of how war is, or will be, fought. It’s also a part of Pentagon spending that has doubled in the past decade, without adding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cutting the EFV makes sense, even if it’s only a start. Yet, Republicans in Congress have warned Gates to hold off “precipitous action,” according to the New York Times.

Some Republicans in Congress want to slash federal spending while keeping defense, which is the largest part of discretionary spending, off the table. That’s not a reasonable approach to the budget.

It’s clear the only fans of the EFV are from the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned of 50 years ago. The support for the EFV has little to do with national defense, but plenty to do with campaign contributions from defense contractors, and jobs.

America can’t afford such distorted priorities. Defense spending has to be on the cutting block, along with just about everything else — including subsidies for rural airports.

Federal subsidies to airline passengers in rural areas and a trouble-plagued, over-budget and outdated military landing craft should be seen as low-hanging fruit in the battle to cut the budget. If Congress cannot make these two obvious cuts to federal spending, they will be signaling defeat on the deficit.