Crooked Talk on Iraq Cost
MORE
Joe Conason
As a presidential candidate, John McCain stands out not only for his vocal endorsement of the unpopular war in Iraq but also because one of his own sons is a Marine Corps officer on active duty there. He supports the war even at the price of his own career or the life of a child he loves.
Yet although the senator from Arizona is obviously no chicken hawk, he carefully avoids “straight talk” about the real costs of this war in dollars and debt. Like every other politician who agrees with the Bush policy of prolonged war and occupation, he still pretends that we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this endless misadventure without collecting enough tax revenue to pay the actual costs.
Hundreds of billions? Sorry, but that vague estimate is probably far too modest, according to a new book by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes. In The Trillion-Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, they warn that the war’s “true budgetary cost,” excluding interest, “is likely to reach $2.7 trillion.” Aside from the price of munitions, contractors, transport, fuel and other fixed costs, their calculations are based on the government’s continuing obligation to provide medical care and disability payments for the thousands of wounded Iraq and Afghanistan veterans over the coming decades.
Those costs represent a moral debt on which we cannot default—and they will grow larger every day that we maintain the occupation. Even if the war could be ended immediately, the fiscal obligations incurred by the invasion and occupation will continue. Beyond the mandatory disability payments, medical and psychiatric care and additional benefits to which our vets are entitled, the nation will face years of increasing military budgets to restore the equipment and readiness of our battered armed forces, especially the Army and the National Guard.
Even in the “best case” scenario envisioned by Mr. Stiglitz and Ms. Bilmes, with our troop presence declining rapidly, the U.S. commitment in Iraq is still likely to cost no less than $400 billion over the next several years, on top of the $800 billion or so that we have spent to date. Those figures, which don’t include veterans’ benefits, add up to $1.2 trillion. What the authors call their “realistic-moderate scenario” for a prolonged presence in Iraq will cost twice as much or more.
Having served at the highest levels of the federal government, both authors understand that the Bush administration’s war budgeting has been a travesty—aided and abetted by lawmakers such as Mr. McCain, who have gone along all the way. Instead of accounting honestly for the war’s costs and requesting the necessary funds to pay for them, the White House has routinely used “emergency” supplemental requests as a device to hide the truth. The emergency process prevents the Office of Management and Budget as well as Congressional staff from thoroughly reviewing the data. Inevitably, they explain, this lack of transparency and competence has resulted in waste, fraud and corruption in payments to contractors, most of them politically wired, while essential equipment and veteran care remain underfunded.
Compounding the disgrace is the fact that the Bush administration and Congress financed these “emergency” budgets by borrowing, rather than raising taxes, as the United States has traditionally done in times of war. The Bush administration has insisted on reducing taxes, with most benefits accruing to the wealthiest individuals, while piling on debt for succeeding administrations and generations (and leaving the nation’s infrastructure to rot away, too). The politicians who have cooperated in this outrage, such as Mr. McCain, should tell us why they still call themselves “conservative.”
Back in 2001, when he was still in his maverick phase, the Arizona senator voted against the Bush tax cuts. Today he says that he objected to the budgetary flimflam that cut taxes without reducing program costs, but at the time he claimed to worry about the excessive premiums for the very rich. Now he runs around promising “no new taxes” just like every standard right-wing Republican.
In an unguarded moment, Mr. McCain once confessed that he doesn’t know much about economics. Even he should be able to comprehend the disastrous fiscal effects of the Iraq war, which its proponents originally promised would cost us almost nothing. Perhaps he should ask an economist to calculate the real cost of occupying Iraq for a hundred years, as he imagines—and how many generations will pay dearly for this mistake.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Somebody, anybody, please get us the hell out of there.
Sorry folks. Even with savior Obama in office, there is not going to be an immediate pull out. Just like Nixon in 1969, Obama is going to see the realities of the situation once in office, and be forced to rethink his position. Governing is not campaigning, sorry to say.
As far as costs go, I look forward to the day, very soon, where our federal budget cannot support our role as world policeman. The sooner we turnover security in Europe to the Europeans (that's a laugh) and other places, the sooner that money can be used elsewhere in this ailing corporation we call the US of A.
Joe, along with our primary contenders who don't understand economics, add your name to the list. How many times does the federal treasury have to take in more revenue when tax rates are LOWERED before you believe it? Lower taxes, generally, mean more investment, greater economic activity, more taxes paid. This isn't an opinion, this is a constantly supported economic fact. Not only do higher taxes, in and of themselves stifle investment; as a cost of doing business, they also add to inflationary pressures which lead to rises in interest rates. This is why Bush has advocated reducing tax rates during a time of war.
Ross, if lowering taxes increases revenue, at what level should they be for optimal revenue? Could they be lower still? Would zero taxes increase revenue? Of course not.
Ross,
Sorry, you've been listening to Rush Limbaugh who is, as Al Franken pointed out, a big fat liar. Cutting revenue in the Reagan administration increased federal debt from 900 billion to 4.5 trillion by the end of the first Bush administration. Bush tax cuts have helped us to a $9 trillion national debt. This fiscal irresponsibility is a major reason for conservatives to oppose the neo-cons. A few rich families interested in cutting taxes on the rich have donated over $5 billion to convincing the public through bogus think tanks like the Cato Institute etc. that low taxes are wonderful. Since GW Bush cut their taxes by a trillion they got a pretty good return on this investment in lobbying and misinformation. And they fooled you too.
To Ross:
Sometimes revenues go up and sometimes they don't. Bill Clinton raised taxes and we had a surplus when he left office.
I have better questions for you:
Why has our national debt climbed from over 5 trillion dollars to over nine trillion dollars under Bush?
Why didn't all of those revenues keep our debt from getting so high as you stated in your post?
Also, why is it that Bush is the only president in history to lower taxes during wartime?
How resposible is it to borrow money from the Fed or a foreign nation (with interest by the way) to finance a war we could pay for through taxes?
If the War on Terror is the essential struggle of our lifetimes, then why aren't we asked to do more and pay more?
Is our security really not important enough to pay for ourselves? Why isn't it?
Which is more responsible: tax and spend or borrow and spend?
Just curious.
Peter
To Ross:
Please, stop right now, step away from the keyboard because you have no idea what you are talking about. Gee I wonder why? In case you havn't noticed Ross our National debt ( as stated numerous times above has almost doubled under Bush. How did his lowering taxes lower our debt? Answer it didn't. It almost doubled. That my friend is a FACT not your incorrect assertion that reduced taxes leads to greater revenues. Step out of your bubble and take a look around you.
Steve G.
oh oh don't look now but Bush's ratings are down again:
"George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has dropped to a new low in American Research Group polling as 78% of Americans say that the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group".
"Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove".
About this Survey -
Survey Sponsor: American Research Group, Inc.
The American Research Group has been conducting national surveys of consumers since 1985.
Gee all you Bush supporters need to shut the F&%K up! It's over for Bush. He's already irrelevant.
John
To Steve G.
When Reagan cut taxes, revenue doubled, but the democratic congress spent it and more to go with it, same with the current congress of both parties who couldn't keep away from the trough. Taxes have increase with Bush's tax cuts also but spending go out of control.
You guys need to focus. I'm talking about a very specific economic principle here, how changes in taxes result in changes in economic activity. First, if you read my comment you'll see that I said taxes "generally" result in increased revenue, etc. And I defy anyone to show me that that's the exception rather than the rule.
I'm not claiming to be an economics wizard, but a lot of economics is simple common sense: If businesses and those earning high incomes find themselves with fewer costs (e.g., lower taxes) and more money to spend, they will generally (remember, I said generally) spend it. If they invest it, even better. Either way, the result is a greater circulation of currency, more economic activity, and eventually higher employment. The result of all this activity is more federal taxes paid into the treasury, helping to fund things like Medicare and other entitlements. The lie that tax cuts benefit only the rich will persist in the minds who want to divide us. Tax cuts benefit everyone.
Maybe the best way to understand why lower taxes are better than higher taxes, is to periodically study your pay stub over the next few years. If your taxes rise and you see greater proportions of your income taxed away, take note of your emotional reaction, then closely observe your subsequent spending and saving habits.
And remember, if you want to pay more in taxes, the IRS will gladly oblige you. You'll not only be making an intellectually honest statement, you'll be working for change!
The lower the taxes, the higher the revenue! I know! Lets cut ALL taxes, thereby reaping an infinite amount of lovely green! Sounds like the Republican version of Sound Fiscal Policy...
this is the biggest lie ever told, and it keeps recycling. cutting taxes does NOT increase revenue. it does not do that, and when you get these guys pinned down, some will either admit that, and some will lie retardedly about it. In an article by Sebstian Mallaby called "Republicans Ignore Their Experts on The Cost of Tax Cuts", he quotes Republican economists:
"Okay, so let's review this issue with the help of some experts. I'd like to cite Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, because his work inspired this column. But to win over reasonable conservatives, I'm going to choose N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large."
How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue. Hello, Mr. President, that means that the other half of the lost revenue translates into bigger deficits. Mankiw also calculates that the comparable figure for cuts in taxes on wages is 17 percent. Yes, Mr. President, that means every $1 trillion in tax cuts is going to add $830 billion to the national debt.
Let's engage in what Bush might call the soft bigotry of low expectations and cut Republicans some slack. Hey, maybe they just overlooked that Mankiw paper? Or maybe, despite hiring Mankiw to head the Council of Economic Advisers, they later acquired reasons to doubt his judgment? In that case they should at least have listened to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another conservative economist who worked in the Bush White House and who went on to run the Congressional Budget Office.
In a study published under Holtz-Eakin's direction last December, the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it could muster, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss."
sorry, lies, lies, and more lies fed to the Republican electorate who will vote for any ridiculousness, not realizing that taxes pay for the commons, and without the commons, we have nothing.
Ross,
Your understanding of macroeconomics is apparently fairly limited and your analysis is excessively restricted by it.
Many factors contribute to economic growth. When marginal tax rates are excessive, a tax cut can, but will not necessarily lead to economic growth. However for tax cuts to be the much posited engine for economic growth, current tax rates have to be high enough to actually restrict growth.
An example in point is the European Union. Their economic growth and strength of their currency has exceeded ours on average for at least the last decade. This has occurred at very much higher marginal tax rates. Comparatively, if lower tax rates alone was the answer, our economy should be running on nitromethane. It isn't and has not been.
Another case in point is the post WWII boom in this country. Now, according to the theory, high tax rates stifle economic growth and low tax rates promote it. However, it is important to remember that this period in US history was a time of the highest tax rates ever on record. Marginal tax rates on the wealthiest few were as high as 90 percent during this period. When Kennedy cut taxes, it is important to remember that it was a cut from historically high rates.
A major component of economic growth in any economy, and in particular ours, is government spending. Government spending accounts for about 30 percent of GDP in any year and has done so for a very long time. In short, it is roughly one third of our total economy.
Now when you do what Reagan did, specifically cut taxes and raise government spending, you get the synergistic effect of a massive demand side stimulus combined with the creation of massive amounts of new money (deficit spending). Given the massive size of the actual demand side stimulus provided by Reaganomics, economic performance was actually fairly poor, some growth occurred but actual wages for workers stagnated to declined. The reason for this is that the wealthy, instead of building new industries, got into stock arbitrage deals and asset speculation, in short, the rich man's sport.
Reaganomics counted on giving money to a vast and aspiring group of Henry Fords, but ended up giving the funds to a sad sack of Kenneth Lays.
On the Bush tax cuts, it took 7 years just to get back to the revenue level collected in the year prior to them taking effect. Current estimates indicate that the economic growth stimulated by them resulted in a return of roughly 10 cents on the dollar spent. As the study in the original article states, tax cuts have proved to be a very poor way to stimulate economic growth.
The public has to know the meaning of the cost of the occupation and the fighting in Afghanistan-the cost of endless wars is supported by MC Cain who says he willing to fight on for "100 years" Are we ready to do this? Is this the kind of person we want as president? Absolutely not.
Typical Republican smoke screen that saddles the Democratic Congress of the 80's with all the blame for the rise in the federal deficit. Reagan signed those bills and worked with Congess to raise SS taxes. You can't blame one branch of government for those deficits, they are equally responsible.
Our current fiscal disaster can be blamed on the Republicans because they controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches.
Oh, they invested alright -- in jobs overseas and junk mortgage bonds. That slippery slope actually started with Bill Clinton repealing bank regulations in the late 1990's, but the Republicans just adored it. You "economic facts" are often skewed by ideological economists. Because no matter how you try to spin it, we're in deplorable deficits, oil is $101/barrel, the housing bubble has crashed, our dollar is weak, health care costs are spiraling out of control, inflation is creeping up, and our defense spending is out of control.
What is a fact: every president in history has not cut taxes during wartime. You can whine about tax and spend liberals. The borrow and spend Republicans are even worse.
even if tax revenues eventually go up after a tax cut [not always the case, of course], they never actually recapture all the money the tax cuts lost. everybody, including white house economists, agree to that.
I see Steve G. Snapperhead is at it again.
Listen Snapperhead, the reason there is a deficit is because the US is fighting two wars, we created a whole new department (Homeland Security,) President Bush signed into law a ridiculous prescription drug health plan. The same thing happened with Reagan: he reduced taxes in 1981, and wanted a huge military, but the Demoncrats controlling congress wouldn't give up their precious social programs. All but one of Reagan's budgets was considered Dead on Arrival when it reached congress.
But the blame where it belongs, Snapperhead, on congress, who have the power or the purse; do your homework, or go back to your porn.
To Asshole er assblaster:
You've already been debunked! Your girlfriend Ross Odom had his ass handed to him by numerous posters who disproved his statement. and yet....you decide to make the same lame argument (it's Congress's fault). Let me remind you that Bush never vetoed any piece of legislation while his Republican Congress was in charge. I thought Republicans were the party of small government. Hypocrites. Funny how the only time we had a surplus was under a Democratic President.
Bush has been a huge failure so why don't you, Ross and the other 19 percenters kiss my ass!
Steve G.
To Steve G:
Once again you're right! I just got through listening to Rush Limbaugh so I was feeling all manly and tough. In reality there is nothing manly about me! I apologize for being such a compelte dumbass.
Actually, I apologize to everyone for being a complete tool.
Please forgive me.
GayAss
I apologize to all readers for being so ignorant.
Please feel free to curse me and my pinko anus.
Steve G.
What's wrong assblaster....er I mean Steve G? Did someone still your identity? Does it really matter considering nothing you say is original or correct?
You have the intellect of a child and it shows. I know, why don't you post as Sean Hannity or El Rushbo. Or maybe just a wingnut wannabe. That's all you are is someone who wants to be relevant but you know deep down you aren't. You can't even come up anything original.
I feel sorry for you. Life in a bubble is no way to live.
Your pal
Me
Nearly a century ago an author explained that no one will understand anything that imperlis his job and income.
McCain will obfuscate, mislead and even lie in order to get the job he seeks. Once in that job he will be forced to keep up with his lies. He will have no choice but to keep in the same vein. He wants the job not because he a vision but rather because he lacks one.
Qbill,
Thank you for your thoughtful response and, given the many oafish posters to this column, relative civility.
You're certainly right that many factors are involved in the workings of the economy. Monetary policy, spending/saving, various resource elasticities, etc., play their roles. I'm not claiming that reducing taxes (marginal or average) causes miracles to play out. But simply that there are human behavioral supply-related effects of lowering taxes that have had, in the past, positive effects on overall economic growth. You know this.
You also know that the tendency of leftists such as Joe Conason to rely on the view that raising taxes translates linearly into better economic health, is naive and wrong.
The bottom line is this: I believe that one's hard-earned income belongs to the individual first, not to the government first. And that, because economics is plagued with so many slippery slopes and uncertainties, policymakers should err on the side of the income earner--individual and business enterprise--when designing policy.
BUSH IRAQ WAR FAUCETS
The American Neo-Con Republican president, George Bush, got elected on his solemn promise that there would be “no nation building”; then, on the pretense of a nuclear threat, he illegally turned on two faucets: out of one flows the American People’s precious wealth, and out of the other faucet flows their priceless blood, to the sole benefit of Israel: nearly 4000 sons killed and 1 trillion dollars spent.
This treasonous betrayal of the trust of the American People is a black mark on his name, which can never be erased, will damn him forever in history.
Google: “Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”; and, “Human Events Ron Paul Interview”
To Ross Odom:
You stated:
"Thank you for your thoughtful response and, given the many oafish posters to this column, relative civility".
umm excuse me but my response was civil and I even asked you a serious of questions that you choose to avoid so I'll ask again:
Why has our national debt climbed from over 5 trillion dollars to over nine trillion dollars under Bush?
Why didn't all of those revenues keep our debt from getting so high as you stated in your post?
Also, why is it that Bush is the only president in history to lower taxes during wartime?
How resposible is it to borrow money from the Fed or a foreign nation (with interest by the way) to finance a war we could pay for through taxes?
If the War on Terror is the essential struggle of our lifetimes, then why aren't we asked to do more and pay more?
Is our security really not important enough to pay for ourselves? Why isn't it?
Which is more responsible: tax and spend or borrow and spend?
What's wrong Ross, cat got your tongue?
Peter
ENTRAIL DYSLEXIA? GUT-CHECK BOUNCING CHUNK HURL?
OPERATION SUCKERHUNCH: McCAINING AMERICA
(assume...The POSITION!)
"...What Hellbent Vision Thing,
its Power come round at last,
$louches towards Liberty to be Borne?"
--The Second Succumbing ~
Apologies to W. B. Yeats: "The Second Coming"
http://atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3354/1/
Republicans in congress laid down and let the Bush agenda overwhelm them. The war on terror was used as a catch all for many things that will have serious repercussions later down the line. Against better judgment, they supported several deficit creating programs.
Our next president and congress will have very little wiggle room in terms of working with the federal budget, short of raising income taxes, as well as payroll taxes which are far more onerous, and less progressive.
I love America, but for tax purposes I'm a citizen of the Dutch Antilles.
'The politicians who have cooperated in this outrage, such as Mr. McCain, should tell us why they still call themselves "conservative." '
Let's not forget the politicians who have cooperated in this outrage, such as Hilary Clinton, who still call themselves "liberal".
Or "progressive" because they fear being called "liberal".
Who scheme to avoid the appearance of weakness by meekly, weakly, submitting to the outrages of the Bush war-mongers.
Joe, we all know the current crop of Republicans are "the problem". Unfortunately, the current crop of Democrats seem to be the only "solution".
Conservatives favorite mantra is "its my money". If that were true, we would all be living as lone wolves in lean tos in the forest. Its really just a front for the unconscionabe selfishness that permeates the conservative philosophy of life. We are a society. We all live together. We all work together to have a very comfortable and advanced system in which to live and thrive as never before in human history. The biggest social fallacy is that of the "rugged individual". Nothing in the modern US would exist were it not for heavy government subsidy, ie "social programs" beginning with the first colonies of the European crowns in the Americas. And nothing in the Western US would exist if not for US troops that pacified it, the Rural Electrification Act that subsidized electric power to remote regions like Montana, and the Federal Highway System. Conservatives who rant about "their" money should put it where their mouths are and refrain from using the roads, power grids, Emergency response system and air transport system that "our money" created. They could cease navigating their yachts by the GPS system, relying on teh Coast Guard and army Corps of Engineers to protect their interests, and even pick up their own guns to defend themselves from foriegn enemies, then busy themselves personally overseeing the securities industry so their investments are not stolen by other "rugged individuals" and similar pirates who likewise abhor government regulations. Then they would have a true case for tax cuts. And once enacted, we could all get to building our dark little lean tos in the forest. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a peaceful and prosperous society. The outrage lies in the hideous waste and abuse of taxing power, not in taxes themselves. That is what has to be adressed and brought to accountability. The Republican party has failed in this respect and conservative philosophy lies in ruins, exposed as a front for thievery and appalling abuse of power. That is documentable and to the extent Democrats did the same, they should be held accountable as well.