Food for Thought

Well, there you have it. The President just asked for another $66 billion to fund the war in Iraq that we won. Three times the original estimate.

The cost of servicing the debt alone will be approximately $38 billion a year.

It would cost less than $90 billion to entirely rebuild the power distribution on the East Coast (recently affected areas). (Transmission lines, substations, power distribution stations, etc.). Jobs created would be somewhere between 50,000 - 80,000 over a 10+ year period.

Which one do you think is better, even in the long run, for our economy, our jobs, and our security?

Renae, it's numbers like that that make my stomach turn when thinking about this issue.

With the combination of tax cuts and increases in spending, President Bush's policies are pushing the federal deficit to half a trillion dollars in 2004. The official projections of the Congressional Budget Office have projections that do not include the cost of spending for military and rebuilding efforts in Iraq. Democratic staffers of the Budget Committee have made projections including these costs - and they are staggering. They project a cumulative deficit of $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years, never falling below $300 billion in any year between 2004 and 2013. This compares to the official projections, which are a cumulative deficit of $1.4 trillion (NOT including spending in Iraq).

The White House argues that the 10-year forecasts are inaccurate and that improved economic growth will bring annual deficits to under $300 billion by 2008. The problem, however, are the growth assumptions - because the Democratic staffer projections DO assume a pickup in growth.

The increased package request by Bush totals $87 billion. But don't forget - we're spending about $1.5 billion each month in Afghanistan, too.

The problem I have with the war and our rebuilding plans is that with or without Saddam Hussein, the Iraqis don't want us there. The bulk of the rebuilding efforts are, of course, directed at the oil infrastructure. And anti-U.S. Iraqis just recently blew up the one working pipeline. The building we do is being or will probably be destroyed. We are not restoring order and peace, and at this point I think it best accomplished by an International group.

We've lost all credibility internationally given the false information distributed that there were weapons of mass destruction that presented an IMMINENT threat.

We spent $52 billion on senior citizens last year; our congress has rejected two medicare/medicaid bills to get drugs to the elderly.

And I have to continue this later as Lazlo is throwing up.

Sorry about that. Gary brought home a new toy today - it was a pole with long strings of mylar tinsel type stuff attached. Everyone went nuts for it - and it was clearly a toy they can play with only under supervision. I would swear one of us was watching the entire time they were playing, and neither of us saw anyone nip any of the stuff off. But Lazlo was VIOLENTLY convulsing, it looked like he was trying to get something up. Clear liquid came up. We examined the toy - and there were three ends with about 3 - 4 inches missing. I called the vet - they said bring him in. So off we went. Our new vet is 30 minutes away. We had to wait for x-rays. Everything looked good. He seems OK now. So 3 hours and $130 later, we have peace of mind. We should all put together a book: "Fun with Cats!" LOL!

Anyway, I wrote the number wrong. We spent $52 billion on education. We only spent $8.5 billion on Senior Citizens.

I would feel differently about spending $87 billion to fund a war on terror if we were spending it on shoring up our ports and borders. If we were spending the money on inspecting greater than 17% of the packages and containers that enter this country. At least efforts like that create jobs and actually increase our security.

Like I started to write before, the problem I have with us "rebuilding" Iraq is that we aren't focusing on the infrastructure they need, and some of the Iraqis are fighting against the rebuilding efforts. Blowing up the pipeline. They'll be bombing our infrastructure efforts. I think all we are creating IS a breeding ground for future terrorism. I think all we are doing now is shoring up the hate and resentment against us. The country might have had a Dictator - but they at least had water. Now they don't even have that, and they blame us. I don't think our presence there is helping either us or the Iraqis. Giving U.S. companies the contracts isn't helping either. I think it would be best served with an international committee, or whatever, and that the contracts be given by them to proper bidders. I think our presence there in the way we're managing it is further deteriorating our future security, breeding further hate, and creating future want-to-be terrorists - that because we aren't spending the money at home, have a good chance of gaining access to our country.

I think through an alternative international process, without this massive military presence, it wouldn't be costing $87 billion.

I do agree with this philosophy. I just don't think that's what is actually happening. I think we're throwing money down a hole and further destabilizing what is already a terrible situation - for the Iraqis and for us. Bush's argument for "fixing" Iraq is to fight terrorism, not to "do the right thing." Which is what we've supposedly been doing in Afghanistan. And let's face it - Afghanistan is in worse shape now. We're facing strong resistance, gaining no ground, and the country is back to warring factions. They country is exporting over 1000 tonnes of heroine again.... Notice how you almost never hear about Afghanistan in the news?

I don't disagree, Kass. The problem is what is happening versus what should be happening. And though I really HATE this comparison, what did our help and rebuilding in Vietnam gain anyone? We threw money and people at the problem, and yet it did nothing but kill our "sons" and create a huge national debt. The bulk of the money at this point is going into protecting the troops that are there and rebuilding the oil industry infrastructure. I, for one, don't understand how this is helping the Iraqis.

Renae, I must have been writing while you posted. You paraphrased perfectly. My issue IS - what is best for the Iraqis and, of course, what is best, given our need to help the citizens of Iraq, for the U.S.?

I don't have the answers, either. I just feel very strongly that the course we are pursuing isn't it.

I TOTALLY agree!