Multiply by Ten

A reminder about opportunity costs:

Now and Forever, by Bob Herbert, Commentary, NY Times: Most of the time we pretend it’s not there: The staggering financial cost of the war in Iraq, which continues to soar, unchecked...

A report prepared for ,,, the Joint Economic Committee of the House and Senate warns that without a significant change of course in Iraq, the long-term cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could head into the vicinity of $3.5 trillion. The vast majority of those expenses would be for Iraq.

Priorities don’t get much more twisted. A country that can’t find the money to provide health coverage for its children, or to rebuild the city of New Orleans, or to create a first-class public school system, is flushing whole generations worth of cash into the bottomless pit of a failed and endless war. ...

President Bush’s formal funding requests for Iraq have already exceeded $600 billion. In addition to that, the report offers estimates of the war’s “hidden costs” from its beginning to 2017: the long-term costs of treating the wounded and disabled; interest and other costs associated with borrowing to finance the war; the money needed to repair or replace military equipment; the increased costs of military recruitment and retention; and such difficult to gauge but very real costs as the loss of productivity from those who have been killed or wounded.

What matters more than the precision of these estimates (Republicans are not happy with them) is the undeniable fact that the costs associated with the Iraq war are huge and carry with them enormous societal consequences.

Far from seeking a halt to the war, the Bush administration has been considering a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq that would last for many years, if not decades. There has been very little public discussion and no thorough analysis of the overall implications of such a policy.

What is indisputable, however, is that everything associated with the Iraq war has cost vastly more than the administration’s absurdly sunny forecasts. The direct appropriations are already roughly 10 times the amount of the administration’s original estimates of the entire cost of the war.

Senator Schumer and other Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have been trying (not very successfully, so far) to get other policy makers and the public at large to focus on the sheer insanity of pumping hundreds of billions — if not trillions — of public dollars into a failed venture with no end even remotely in view.

There are myriad better ways to use the many millions of dollars that the U.S. spends on Iraq every day. Two important long-term investments that come to mind — and that would put large numbers of Americans to work — are the development of a serious strategy for achieving energy independence over the next several years and the creation of a large-scale program for rebuilding the aging American infrastructure.

To get to those, or any number of other important initiatives, the country’s leaders will have to somehow get past their bizarre reluctance to end this debilitating war. ...

Youngsters who were just starting high school when the U.S. invaded Iraq are in college now. Their children, yet unborn, will be called on to fork over tax money to continue paying for the war.

Seriously. How long do we want this madness to last?

Comments

[anne]

A $2 trillion dollar war and occupation, causing suffering beyond imagination, all for deception, all driven by needless fear and a willingness to be as thoroughly ruthless as those who would willingly shock and awe can be, and a determination that war and occupation continue no matter the physical, psychological, moral and material costs.

[anne]

"Far from seeking a halt to the war, the Bush administration has been considering a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq that would last for many years, if not decades. There has been very little public discussion and no thorough analysis of the overall implications of such a policy."

From April 2003, Administration security officers were openly speaking of a permanent occupation of Iraq, permanent military bases that had been planned and discusssed in the New Yrok Times months before the needless immoral invasion of Iraq. War and occupation were envisioned as continual from the beginning but however many reports there were as often were the reports ignored. We are the new colonialists, even as Nicolas Sarkozy flits about telling Algerians of the supposed regrets of the colonialists while wondering at American opportunites to come.

[Benjamin]

I'm beginning to think that they regard the cost of these wars as a feature. Bush and Cheney would rather make a bonfire of those trillions than allow a universal health care program be established. With Democrats moving into control, the best way to hamstring them is to put them deep into a deficit hole.

[Oupoot]

I would think a space station on the moon and Mars would be more beneficial to the US and even cheaper than the Iraq experiment.

[elvis]

Seriously. How long do we want this madness to last?

The imperial we want this madness to go on indefinitely. We are doing very well, thank you very much.

[elvis]

I would think a space station on the moon and Mars would be more beneficial to the US and even cheaper than the Iraq experiment.

I agree. In fact, stuffing all those dollars down dried up oil wells in Texas as a form of carbon sequestration would have been a better plan for America.

The Dems are disappointing me. They should be sending Bush financing for the war tied to taxes on wealth. Pay-go war.

[zinc]

We at least should insist on instituting a draft. It is unconscionable to indenture our military people to fight this continuing conflict.

The publicans preach about the need for victory without defining victory. What is victory ?

Unless the US is willing to level Iraq, there can be no victory for Cheney/Bush. This war has been all about hubris and continues to be about hubris.

The American military has been victorious. Never designed to play the role of crusader, the military has achieved it's objective without resorting to Stalinesque mass execution and destruction.

Victory for America is to leave, now. Admit our mistake of aggression. The war in Iraq is between Iraqi's. We have no place there. Leaving is the true victory for us.

[bakho]

That much money only makes sense if they expect to control oil reserves in times of severe shortages in the near future.

Bush has been totally resistant to the pursuit of alternative energy in his single-minded pursuit of global oil reserves. We desperately need new leadership that has a different vision of our energy future.

[hari]

This is IMMORAL!

To waste so much taxpayer resources on a failed invasion is not only unremarkable but downright foolhardy for policy makers in this WH. How could they....?

Well, the US Congress ...along with Hillary and gang ....voted for the invasion: Yes/No?

US soldiers are not regulars - like in a conscript army.
They're not indentured either: it's foolish to use such a historical word to classify this type of "racial" war.
It's racial simply because the sons/daughters of well-to-do American families are not part of it: They can't even feel it, if I may say so. Otherwise there'd be a repugnant moral upheaval in the US Congress!

It's more a like a mercenary army..in the history of wars.

[Don Quijote]

Seriously. How long do we want this madness to last?

Until every drop of that sea of sweet crude that Iraq is floating upon is sucked dry.

[kharris]

Hari,

Yes/No? I'm afraid the answer is yes/no. Our elected representatives voted for a weaselly non-thing. They didn't want responsibility, so shed authority to the White House. The White House and its apologists claim the majority of Democrats voted "for the war" and get away with it because the actual non-thing was vague and because the public has been so flooded with dishonesty from its elected leaders that a vote for "do what you want" is close enough to "for the war" to pass for not completely dishonest. Congress critters, on the other hand, whine that they never knew Bush would actually exercise the authority to use his own judgement. Setting aside questions raised by the phrase "his own judgement", why the hell do they think he asked for authority if he didn't intend to use it?

I'd much rather have a bunch of guys who were wrong on the war than a bunch of guys who ducked the possibility of being wrong. At least guys who take responsibility offer some hope of a change of mind resulting in a change of policy. The same batch of guys who ducked responsibility back then are ducking it now. That's why Bush is going to leave office with a whole mess of US troops still in Iraq, leaving us with some new one-man/woman-show calling all the shots. Craven, self-serving blow-hards.

[johnchx]

I know, I know: I've said it before. But it bears repeating. If the Republicans had had to vote for a tax increase to pay the war, does anyone believe that the war have been started in the first place?

If you want peace, work for fiscal responsibility.

[barry payne - economist]

One of the best explanations for the war was provided by Norman Mailer in "White Man Unburdened", explaining how war provided the perfect release for the resentment and hostility built up among disenfranchised young white men after subjection to years of political correctness.

In that context, while Afghanistan may have qualified as a "demand-pull' war, Iraq was certainly a "supply-push" war. With 60-80 nation states designated as "harboring terrorists", Iraq was NOT one of them and we attacked it.

Even the most eloquent supporters of the war, such as Victor Hansen and Christopher Hitchens, avoid serious discussion of the economic cost.

It was amusing recently to watch the Pentagon representatives responding to Democratic threats to cut up the war funding into smaller pieces over time.

They'd run a straight line of spending out and then cut it off, spigot-like, with an image of troops running off the edge of a cliff or suspended in some cartoonish way when all supplies were suddenly frozen.

In effect, they were admitting that such a massive, embedded spending machine cannot be stopped, so don't even try - it's useless.

So for war spending Bush style, limits, economic scarcity and redistribution via taxes are generally irrelevant to satisfy his demented protector and democracty-spreading fetish, which also applies domestically via the exploding security industry.

But when it comes to something like Social Security, suddenly the cheerleader from Yale seems to grasp dimly from his MBA a notion that "it's your money ... ".

[ScentOfViolets]

I think the convenient tag history will remember Bush by will be as the wastrel scion who was the first person in history to run through one trillion dollars (of other people's money.)

That's a factual statement, and cannot be gainsayed by historian, no matter how far to the right.

[Bob]

I don't want to hear one word out of conservatives about how we need to cut social programs for the lower class.

Those idiots have no problem throwing away money like drunken sailors as long as it doesn't go to american citizens who are poor.

[Francois Theberge]

"It is unconscionable to indenture our military people to fight this continuing conflict."

And to show how grateful the country is, the same fate suffered by the Viet Nam Vets is awaiting the Iraq-Afghan vets. They shall make up 25% (if not more) of the homeless in the USA.

Where is the outrage? Why don't the Democrats force Bush to accept a repeal of the tax cuts to the wealthy to finance reinsertion programs for the Vets?

I'd love to see how this Administration would spin that! *evil grin*

[Gil]

Yep, elvis pretty much hit it on the head. There are a handful of elites who are profitting handsomely from war games. Even worse is that the same elites wouldn't be able to profit from peaceful ventures such as education or health. I'm sure of us have known that over the aeons that there's always been enough money for war. Never have the military ever required cakes sales and lemonade stands to get their funding.

[J. Gawel]

It’s interesting to think about our country’s economic situation in terms of how it would be different if the war did not exist. It’s mind-boggling to think about all of the hidden costs and long-term, unforeseen implications that go far beyond any dollar amounts that have been calculated. How will our economy be affected in 10 years? In 20 years? Will we ever fully know the true extent of these effects?

[calmo]

No surprise anne is first and most on this thread...you go girl!
Herbert I like, but anne's reply:

From April 2003, Administration security officers were openly speaking of a permanent occupation of Iraq, permanent military bases that had been planned and discussed in the New York Times months before the needless immoral invasion of Iraq.

to Herbert's statement:

"Far from seeking a halt to the war, the Bush administration has been considering a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq that would last for many years, if not decades. There has been very little public discussion and no thorough analysis of the overall implications of such a policy."

turns my attention to the messengers --not just Bob, but the NYT and the media's complacency complicity over the years in not marshalling behind Herbert's

How long do we want this madness to last?

Bob, like most of us, (not anxious to be recognized and detained as a possible terrorist) (preferring to tolerate a difficult war-time period where civil liberties et al suffer) [an extendable period administered by the clock-keepers, the media], prefers to suffer the loss of reputation...as a responsible citizen.

Isn't that the real cost? --the world's future generations have learned to fear us as bullies, not respect us as leaders...and we have learned to tolerate our shame? You want to talk about the cost of dealing with a bully or the benefits of co-operating with a friend? You want to talk about what you can do with love and affection in your heart or the shrivelling that happens when you are beset with fear and loathing? [this first bit from Suzuki, the violin teacher]

[TigerPaw]

Until such time as the ones that started this up are sitting in the dock with charges being read out against them nothing will change. They all know they will never bear any responsibility so they will continue to do it again and again. That means everyone in the White House that had their finger in this both elected and appointed personnel, the suits at the State Department, the suits at the Pentagon, and yes the generals as well. "I was just following orders" is simply an excuse to act like a mindless robot and facilitate the crime.

None of that will ever happen of course, and all this will happen again - it probably won't even take 10 years for the pattern to repeat.

[BigDon]

A Short-Short Story -

All US military personnel were permanently home from the Middle East and his troubled presidency was drawing to a close.

On this evening of December 24, 2008, concluding his final televised speech to the American people, and as multi-megatons of mushroom clouds suddenly billowed over Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, a satisfied George Bush announced in those immortal words of Michael Corleone:

"Today, I settle all ‘family’ business…"

[Brooks]

How's this for an idea to promote rational public consideration of fiscal priorities: Once every year, every citizen (including children) and every other taxpayer (of income tax or just SS for those who pay no income tax) should receive a letter-size (i.e., cheap postage) annual report showing:
- Total publicly-held national debt per capita, per current (i.e., prior year) taxpayer on average, and, based on the individual taxpayer's share of total revenues the prior year, that individual's share of the publicly-held debt.
- Total spending and spending breakout by category and major line item: total dollars and per capita.
- Total revenues and breakout.
- Total unfunded liabilities in present value dollars, and per capita, along with relevant basic information.

All of the above with brief descriptions of items and instruction on finding out more.

Why do the above? Why would it promote rational consideration of fiscal policy options? Well, to use the Iraq war as an example, while I'm not stating a personal policy preference, if everyone had the above information placed before their eyes, it would help everyone rationally consider if the war was "worth it" if, in addition to whatever they consider the net cost/benefit on a human level, the cost were about $6,666 on average (of course, much more for some taxpayers) for every man, woman and child (assuming an the ultimate cost of $2 trillion and population of 300 million).

[Brooks]

We also need to adopt a new, more rational (albeit more complex in application) paradigm in which we view security spending decisions in a way that really reflects the ultimate benefits we seek: viewing such spending decisions holistically in terms of cost-effectiveness for economic security/benefit and physical security/benefit (and physical security would include not just military, not just homeland security, but more broadly to police, firefighting, EMS, and even more broadly to healthcare -- anything that is a threat to our bodies or could benefit our bodies, that's the point of this broader view rather than the narrower view of security).

[Dickeylee]

Let's see, 40,000 troops in Korea, 12,000 in Japan, 23,000 in Germany, 8,000 in Kosovo, 28,000 in Afganistan, 4,000 in Sauida Arabi, 5,000 in Italy and 144,000 in Iraq. Now just how safe and secure do you feel now?

[BJ Feng]

Would it be possible for taxpayers to decide if SCHIPS is worth it? The subsidies paid to farmers to produce ethanol? How about the cost of providing preschool through Head Start? Or is only the War not worth it?

[BJ Feng]

Pretty damn safe Dickeylee. You know that there is no possibility of an invasion or hostile air strike. Can the people living in Iran say the same? You never have to worry that some foreign soldier will come into your home and drag you and your family out while they're sleeping. Can the people in Somalia or Darfur say the same? You know that there is no way that any country can invade and occupy the United States, or even come close. Can the people in Taiwan say the same? Yes, I feel safe and I bet you do too.

[anne]

"How about the cost of providing preschool through Head Start? Or is only the War not worth it?"

Questions of a monster.

[anne]

Oh, and about the invasion and occupation of Somalia. We encouraged and supported Ethiopia in insanely invading and occupying Somalia, even allowing Ethiopia tyo purchase and use North Korean weapons in the terrible task that has ruined tens of thousands of lives.

[Elvis]

Would it be possible for taxpayers to decide if SCHIPS is worth it? The subsidies paid to farmers to produce ethanol? How about the cost of providing preschool through Head Start? Or is only the War not worth it?

Yes.

Longer answer: Perhaps ethanol subsidies are not worth it--But at the end of the day, ethanol has some uses. Contrasted with the war on Terror and the War on Iraq which are not producing anything but liabilities (unfunded ones at that).

[Bob]

>> Or is only the War not worth it?

Have you been in a coma since the election in 2006.

The voters sent a pretty clear message that they don't like the typical GOP priorities (war over taking care of things at home).

And if you pay attention to the polls they still would rather see money spent for social programs at home over the war.

You (todays cons and yourself)had your day and blew it.

Next time try being at least a little bit competent.

[baileyman]

Does anyone seriously think if we are lucky enough to get a President Hillary that any of this will substantially change?

[hari]

Hillary will change damn little ....except the rhetorics!

[Bob]

>> Does anyone seriously think if we are lucky enough to get a President Hillary that any of this will substantially change?

Nobody knows. Thats the only true answer.

But if you look at the economic mess Bush I left us in and the way Clinton was able to turn it around I'd say we certainly stand a better chance with the dems than the repubs.

[Brooks]

As always, candidates for president want to spend too much, tax too little relative to spending, or both, and I'm left holding my nose and voting for least/lesser evil among fiscally irresponsible candidates who lack the integrity and morality to tell the truth about our long-term fiscal outlook and the need to start making major sacrifices. Apparently, if a candidate were to speak honestly and propose realistic, responsible plans to address our long-term fiscal imbalance, he/she would lose, so the blame really lies with the voters (and the media). People don't want to hear bad news or consider major sacrifices if another candidate is telling them something less uncomfortable or even proposing a free lunch. Unfortunately, our elections reflect a reverse Darwinism: survival of the least responsible.

[Patricia Shannon]

Bruce, well and truly said.

Anne, wasn't Somalia in a horrible state of anarchy before Ethiopia invaded?

[anne]

"Wasn't Somalia in a horrible state of anarchy before Ethiopia invaded?"

Important question, to which the answer is absolutely not. Somalia was finally after years unifying and quieted and building. Since the Ethiopian invasion and occupation the United Nations has recorded 1 million Somalis displaced. We were repeately warned against war by other African nations. Even now, Secretary Rice is trying to arrange for African peace-keepers so that Ethiopians can withdraw. Imagine the irony.

[anne]

There are no African peace-keepers to be had, by the way, and there too we find the desperation we have created. We fought a war in and occupied Somalia by proxy, and almost no one noticed beyond Africans.

[anne]

Can anyone conceive of Somalia being a threat to America? Therein we find the craziness of the Bush Doctrine by which we, and we alone, can imagine a threat and invade other countries. I can only be thankful that the American intelligence report confirming the several thorough but ridiculed IAEA reports has made bombing Iran impeacable.

[BJ Feng]

Anne, Somalia was in a civil war between the UN recognized government and Islamic militants who had managed to fight their way into the capital. They were not in the process of rebuilding. Ethiopia invaded for many reasons, but one of them was to restore the recognized government and stop the Islamic rebels who were supporting and spreading terrorist activity into other countries. Is there ever a point where force is justified to you? You call for peacekeepers, but how come peacekeepers have guns? Ironic that it sometimes takes force to ensure peace isn't it?

By the way, President Clinton first sent our troops into Somalia strictly on a peacekeeping mission. We had nothing to gain; it was just a good deed. We left for political reasons, not because we lost militarily. Since then, Somalia has remained almost perpetually in civil war. Your portrayal of a Somalia wrecked by our forces and then peaceful afterwards is just simply a fantasy.

Brooks, you are correct, no candidate nowadays has the courage to propose a limit to spending increases. Strike that, only Ron Paul has that courage. Conservative commentators have noted that candidates talk about limiting spending, but then they propose program after program when asked about a specific topic.

[anne]

"Ethiopia invaded for many reasons, but one of them was to restore the recognized government and stop the ------ rebels who were supporting and spreading terrorist activity into other countries."

This is a complete and vicious and prejudiced lie, among the rest of the lies. What is important is evidently to always at all costs spread malicious prejudiced lies. Always vilify, always create an excuse for spreading fear and hatred and destruction. Always lie.