Paying for Afghanistan
Matt Yglesias is right that it sounds weirdly radical to hear Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) saying this sort of thing about Afghanistan:
As an Appropriator I must ask, what will that policy cost and how will we pay for it? We are now in the middle of a fundamental debate over reforming our healthcare system. The President has indicated that it must cost less than $900 billion over ten years and be fully paid for. The Congressional Budget Office has had four committees twisting themselves into knots in order to fit healthcare reform into that limit. CBO is earnestly measuring the cost of each competing healthcare plan. Shouldn’t it be asked to do the same thing with respect to Afghanistan?
It's fine for politics to stop at the water's edge, but accounting shouldn't. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost more than $918 billion since 2001. Not a penny of that has been paid for. Most people agree that the bulk of that money was effectively lit on fire to finance a misguided invasion in Iraq.
By contrast, the Senate Finance Committee's health-care reform bill will cost $829 billion over 10 year and is not only fully offset, but actually reduces the deficit. The degree to which the debate fails to distinguish between responsible spending and irresponsible borrowing is really poisonous.
By
Ezra Klein
|
October 8, 2009; 5:43 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Getting to a Vote
Next: The Utility of Primaries
Posted by: srw3 | October 8, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse
$918b? Wait a second....I thought it was $50b then the oil money would pay for it from there.....and we would be greeted as liberators :-)
Posted by: scott1959 | October 8, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse
Seconded. It is difficult to articulate how frustrating I find this lack of proportion.
There is an almost schizophrenic compartmentalization of different issues in our political debate.
Posted by: zosima | October 8, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse
Please tell Inhofe and DeMint about the "politics stops at the water's edge" stuff. They have obviously forgotten.
Posted by: donovong | October 8, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse
The actual cost of the two wars is much, much higher than $918B. This cost estimate omits future encumbrances, such as replacement of weapons and vehicles, medical costs for the wounded and their lost future incomes. Stiglitz and Bilmes estimated $3 trillion as the true cost through March 2008.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/stiglitz200804
Posted by: gdcassidy1 | October 8, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse
Actually, wars are much cheaper than recurring programs. A war will end and the non-recurring expenditures will cease for a war. However, the cost of a public program like health care reform goes on and on at an ever increasing rate. These types of social programs are much more expensive over the long term, 100-200 years, than a war.
Posted by: lancediverson | October 9, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
Waiting for the Dems to stand up and shout, "Where is the money to pay for medicare part d? where is the money to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Where is the money to pay for the Bush tax cuts? If there are any true fiscal conservatives in this body, they should speak up now." Crickets.....