Accounting for the costs of war
Let me see if I have this straight.
If you fume and fret over the cost of progressive programs that improve the lives of average Americans — such as universal health care or a jobs bill — you’re a prudent and patriotic fiscal conservative. If you stand firmly opposed to health care reform because you believe it will saddle the nation with a financial burden, you’re to be applauded for your fiscal rectitude.
But if you worry about the soaring costs of an escalating war, you’re a namby-pamby, weak-kneed surrender monkey. If you believe that Americans might reap more benefits from a jobs bill than a build-up in Afghanistan, you must be one of those irresponsible, burden-the-grandkids, tax-and-spend liberals.
Okay. I confess. Count me among the namby-pampys because this war math isn’t adding up for me.
As President Obama begins his surge in Afghanistan — more than 30,000 additional troops — very few “fiscal conservatives” are worried about the money it will take to sustain the effort. Peter Orszag, head of the Office of Management and Budget, calculates the cost at about $1 million per soldier per year — or more than $3o billion a year for Obama’s added boots on the ground.
That does not even begin to factor in the far more important costs — the lives lost or ruined, the young men and women wounded and maimed, the children rendered fatherless or motherless, the parents who will bury their sons and daughters. How many families will open the door on Christmas Day to see the dreaded Casualty Notification Officers?
Just once, I’d like to see our political leaders engage in a lively debate over the cost/benefit ratio of the war on terrorists. Washington’s political class is captivated by the Congressional Budget Office; proposals live or die based on its projections. In addition, a small army of private analysts is available to dissect — to the last dime — the costs of every policy from Cash for Clunkers to cap-and-trade. Why does war earn so little cost/benefit analysis?
Didn’t we learn anything from the invasion of Iraq? The same Republicans who stand before the cameras now to denounce the deficit were those who enthusiastically supported the Bush tax cuts and then endorsed his decision to topple Saddam Hussein. That war will likely end up costing U.S. taxpayers around a trillion dollars, more than the cost of health care reform over a ten-year period. Iraq contributed mightily to the very deficits that the GOP attempts to lay at Obama’s feet.
Even now, you don’t hear much about the cost of adding troops in Afghanistan. Last Sunday, interviewed on ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) couldn’t muster as much concern for the costs of war as he could the economics of health care reform. Though the health care bill before the Senate has received a deficit-cutting Seal of Approval from the Congressional Budget Office, Graham dismissed it as fuzzy math that “makes an Enron accountant blush.”
But asked about the multi-billion tab for the surge, Graham was vague, suggesting that Congress “trim up the spending” and “prioritize this war.” Congress trim spending? Since when?
How about a tax increase to pay for more troops? U.S. Rep. David Obey, (D-Wisc.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has proposed a “war tax” to fund the escalation in Afghanistan. “If we’re being told we have to pay for healthcare, we certainly (should) pay for this effort as well,” he said Sunday on CNN.
But Obey’s plan to tax higher-earning Americans has already been dismissed by Washington’s chattering classes as a not-terribly-serious proposal by a peacenik who doesn’t support Obama’s war effort. In other words, if Obey wants a war tax, he’s just another surrender monkey.
It’s a very odd calculus. If you want to spend money to help average Americans pay their mortgages or put food on the table or pay their hospital bills, you’ll need to cut and stretch and pinch to prevent adding to the deficit. But if you want to spend money on war, well, it doesn’t count.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
31 comments Add your comment
jt
December 2nd, 2009
7:29 am
“Let me see if I have this straight.”
With all due respect CT,,,,,,,,,you don’t.
All of these problems and their wrong-headed solutions come from one greater problem – which is not understanding the reasons that we are here. The economy is in bad shape because of too much government intervention producing a myriad of unintended consequences and perverse incentives. Healthcare is broken because the doctor-patient relationship has been broken down by hyper regulation and too much government interference. Afghanistan is a mess because they ignored the mission approved by Congress – to seek out those who attacked us on 9/11. They have instead gotten sidetracked with nebulous interventionist tasks such as promoting democracy and nation building. Eight years later, there is no real progress.
Free and honest trade has always been the best way to do that, without fail. Not understanding the benefits of peace, freedom, and nonintervention will always bring about catastrophe.
If you keep looking for the Gang of 525 to solve your problems, you will never have a shortage of problems.
Scott
December 2nd, 2009
7:44 am
The reason for the difference. Most people do NOT want Universal healthcare reform the way it is currently being debated. Yes, money has something to do with it, but it is more about the fact that we DO NOT WANT government taking a larger role in our everyday lives. We do not want to pay more money so that we can sit around in longer lines and be seen by lesser skilled doctors. We do not trust this Congress or this Admin. Where are the open talks in front of CNN? How come there is no language to ensure illegal aliens are not included in this bill as Obama said they would be after Joe Wilson called a spade a spade?
Americans do not think we need another JOBS bill, they need jobs. What happened to the stimulus? We already see how well that worked didn’t we? Unemployment continues to rise despite the shady math the White House uses to tell us differently. And you think a 2nd one would help out even more??? Face it, government cannot and has not ever been able to create jobs. Only the private sector can do that so the government needs to just stop trying.
The war is a justified expense because it is preserving our country for future generations. And yes, we should pay for it. If I have to pay a war tax, so be it. At least with this war tax, I will see some sort of benefit….my safety.
Why is it so hard for you to get these simple concepts Cynthia? I would think that somebody who won a Pulitzer would be able to perform some simple reasoning skills to figure this out.
Road Scholar
December 2nd, 2009
7:54 am
JT:I agree with only one of your points above: Afganastan. As for the economy, didn’t personal greed by Wall Street, the lack of enforcement of the present rules, and poor decision making on approving loans cause the problem? People trading investments that they knew nothing of their contents and providing loans to those who could not afford them were the problem. Some argue that the banks were forced to give those loans; bunk. Good banking businesses would /should have made their decisions on risk. They made them to make even more money.
Healthcare is now dominated by the insurance companies. I have no problem with my doctors (my healthcare plan provides a list of approved doctors- by the insurance companies), nor with their services (healthcare companies define allowable costs for reimbursement). But the hoops and costs of their operating defined by the healthcare provider seems excessive. They are finally providing preventative care, a reaction based on pending legislation and research which shows the benefit of early intervention.
But I agree with Afganastan. We allegedly had OBL trapped and let him get away. Wouldn’t his capture reduce the reasons for our continued intervention in IRAQ and Afganastan? We went into Iraq w/o a clue for three years of waste; finally the surge was implemented, and while I was skeptical, it did work. Now we are surging in Afganastan with a clear strategy and timeline. Will the timeline be met, only time and our efforts will tell.
Turd Feguson
December 2nd, 2009
8:04 am
“If you fume and fret over the cost of progressive programs that improve the lives of average Americans”
Progressive programs for the lazy that improve the lives of the lazy American who refuses to work and is burden on those who will retain jobs. There…much better.
Where is all the wailing, knashing of teeth, screaming, outrage over Obobos troop increase. If it were McCain or Bush calling for another troop increase I would guess your column of today would be much
different.
Govt should not be in the business of creating jobs. Govt should be stimulating job growth via the private industry. Govt should not be redistributing my wealth to the lazy. Govt should not be distributing my wealth to some 19 year old with 3 kids and a daddy in jail.
The US govt has its priorties in places where they have Zero business. Like this OboboCare.
You wasted your vote on Obobo and at this very time he is sealing his fate.
El Jefe
December 2nd, 2009
8:08 am
CT, you are thinking with your wrong head.
Universal Healthcare and Cap and Tax will destroy the economy, kill jobs and weaken the already weak dollar.
It would be cheaper to just insure the needy.
The War in Afghanistan will actually has a purpose and will accomplish something useful.
Who is John Galt?
Jimmy62
December 2nd, 2009
8:18 am
1. Maybe because we’re also worried about the long-term fiscal, societal, and political costs of NOT winning the war, something you and much of the left don’t seem to consider at all.
2. $30 billion is nothing, and tiny drop in the bucket, compared to the economy destroying capabilities of ObamaCare and cap and trade. Does a war create unemployment? No. But Obama does, has, continues to, seems to embrace increasing unemployment and any action he can take to assist people in losing their jobs. Though I don’t truly believe that’s his goal, his actions are indistinguishable from that of someone who does want us all out of work and on the dole.
How many more jobs would people have if the government stopped stealing money from employers to give to special interests, failed government programs, failed corporations, and people who didn’t earn it? It’s impossible to say, but I bet it’s a whole heck of a lot more than Obama’s mythical “jobs created or saved” that counts raises and bonuses as “jobs.”
Call it like it is.
December 2nd, 2009
8:25 am
Come on Cindy, you were almost there……..Say something bad about Obama. Quit spinning everything to the right. You know you wanted Obama to pull out and you thought he would, but he didnt! He has failed you. He’s got the power, he is the commander in chief. In your own little world, you thought your man would be out of Cuba by now, out of Iraq by now and so on and so on. Wow it must keep you up at night knowing how much Obama is just another President with another agenda.
I guess he’s not the second coming after all.
Lilly-livered weenie boy
December 2nd, 2009
9:21 am
“rectitude” vs Rx reform! Great stuff, CT, I love it!
alex
December 2nd, 2009
9:46 am
We would be better off without pointless wars and morally hazardous progressive programs. At least the war will end… someday. Progressive programs will live forever.
Common Sense
December 2nd, 2009
9:57 am
Ms. Tucker:
Sorry, but I fret about spending money on people who are too lazy to get off their butts and earn it. I don’t have near the problem spending money to secure our country (even for the lazy ones).
TnGelding
December 2nd, 2009
10:08 am
We’re all going to have to pay more in taxes to fund the war and the rest of our government. What about War Bonds? We need to make it easier for the average citizen to purchase U.S. Treasuries. Also consider making the interest earned non-taxable, or else tax munies. I’d prefer the latter. Let H. Ross Perot and his ilk pay their “fair share.”
The GOP has absolutely no credibility on fiscal responsibility. They forfeited it when they rolled over for Reagan and Bush. Freeze spending and let the Bush changes expire.
"refero quattuor"
December 2nd, 2009
10:12 am
Establishing an end date to the War in Afghanistan is like saying the Atlanta Police Department will funtion for three more years but the war against crime in the city can’t go on forever.
Jess
December 2nd, 2009
10:17 am
To start the “progressive programs” you reference are not progressive at all. They are right out of the playbook of 1950s and 60s Europe. Policies which they are now trying desparately to roll back.
Secondly, hawking a jobs bill shows a real ignorance of how the US economy works. The private sector creates all the jobs that generate wealth in this country. Government jobs take wealth from the country. Now when we have an administration which is composed almost entirely of people from the public sector, [over 90%], you have an administration who doesn’t understand how the sector which provides 85%-89% of all jobs in this country works. The private sector will crank up when the government gets off their back and out of their pocket.
Lastly, you are now worried about $30 billion when we just threw $787 billion down a rat hole?
This administrations policy of taxing small business until they start hiring can not and will not work.
pat
December 2nd, 2009
10:22 am
You don’t have it strait at all. You sound like you’ve been out of the loop for two years and then want to come in and babble aimlessly. How much the health care costs is one problem. How much it will cost us is a whole other, it will be a lot more money for worse health care across the board, bottom line. The winners from this plan are the doctors and drug companies who will continue to increase prices for decreased quality service. That’s the bottom line.
Second, you’re talking 100 billion dollars a year for this piece of garbage. We could fund 20 wars with that kind of cash.
The war in Afghanistan is about saving our lives and lives of people around the world. How many people must be murdered in cold blood before you think it would be a good idea to put a stop to it? We’re not talking just 9/11, we’re talking the WTC attack in 1993, we did nothing, USS Cole, we did nothing, the embassy bombings in Yemen and Tanzania killing hundreds of innocent Africans as well as Americans. How many people have to die before you decide we may have to put a stop to this? The thing the NYPD can take on al qaeda? You think they’ll just quit? You think mayba if we abandon Israel and leave them to be slaughtered that al qaeda will be appeased enough to just quit? You live in a fools paradise. Emphasis on FOOL.
Do the 20 or so people who bother with your blog a favor and do please get it strait.
Just because
December 2nd, 2009
10:22 am
Homeland Security is not measured in the amount of monies it takes to keep Americans safe. Whatever it takes should be the goal. That is exactly why some people do not have a problem with spending the money on the Iraq and Afghanistan War. Comparing Homeland Security with “progressive programs that improve the lives of average Americans” (or in other words . . . handouts to those who have come to expect the government to take care of them from cradle to grave) is like comparing apples to oranges. There is no comparison for the two (cos of the war vs. government programs) are totally different.
El Jefe
December 2nd, 2009
10:27 am
What I do not understand, and maybe you can explain it – You whine about the extra troops and the unemployment rate – why doesn’t the President expand the military?
jconservative
December 2nd, 2009
10:42 am
Bush did the Iraq war on borrowed money – $1 Trillion to date. Every war in US history has been funded in part or in total by assorted tax increases, until Iraq. (If I am wrong tell me.) Now we will go into Afghan for another period of years on borrowed money, at the rate of $30 billion a year per Obama. (I do not trust his figures, this is probably low). And this does not include the cost of treating injured soldiers for the next 20 to 50 years.
And this is a war that apparently a majority of the American people do not want to fight. We will see if his speech last night won over any doubters. The early evidence is that the doubters increased after his speech.
I agree with Scott & TnGelding that if we are going to have a war, lets at least pay for it. I am prepared to do so.
But we will not do so. We will continue the policy of
cut taxes/increase spending that we have done since 1981.
And the deficit will continue to increase.
Jess
December 2nd, 2009
10:56 am
I could agree with the war tax if it were a tax on everyone. Since I know this will never happen, I’m against it.
What They Are Saying: 12.02.09 | AnnotatedOpinions.com
December 2nd, 2009
10:56 am
[...] Accounting for the costs of war [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] [...]
Robert
December 2nd, 2009
11:05 am
Cynthia, do you believe their is any justification for going to war? You made a comment about our young men and women being wounded and maimed, and their children rendered fatherless or motherless… Has there ever been a war where we didn’t suffer casualties? War is not easy and when the soldiers signed-up to join, they knew the risk involved. What would you do next time our country is attacked? Would you suggest we barricade our country from the rest of the world, maybe build a huge wall on the borders and stop all incoming flights? How do you protect this country in this day by having no offense? Please give me some insight, smart lady.
Joan
December 2nd, 2009
11:12 am
Cynthia, I quarrel with your statement that those progressive programs will improve the lives of average Americans: Your idea of an average American must be people on welfare, very, very low income people. The average American is still working and paying his own way and resents the government’s intervention into every aspect of his/her life. The polls have shown the average American doesn’t want what Congress has to offer. About the war, I agree, we need to pay more attention to what is happening in this country. If we want to bring the troops home, decommission them, put them on local police forces throughout the nation and clean up our own mess.
Tommy Lee Maddox
December 2nd, 2009
1:44 pm
So there’s General McAullife and his men sitting in Bastogne. The XLVII Panzer Corps [they would be the Germans] rolls up and surrounds the City. McAullife calls for help.
What did Roosevelt do? “Sorry Tony; We can’t help because we have to fund some social programs so we can stay in office. Besides, fuel for tanks is a little high on the price scale…”
Nope. They sent Patton – not a teleprompter.
Scott
December 2nd, 2009
2:00 pm
“To the German Commander: NUTS. The American Commander!!!”
Altascene
December 2nd, 2009
2:44 pm
Ms. Tucker,
It’s simple. $30 Billion to continue to protect us from those who wish to wipe us from the face of the earth, vs. $1.2+ TRILLION for a program that has no possibility of doing what it’s advertised.
Tom Middleton
December 2nd, 2009
4:02 pm
As usual, Cynthia, you’re right. Republicans hate domestic spending when it doesn’t directly benefit the elitist few (financial backers) in their party. (The poor are lazy and don’t want to work, they say, so why help them when we can benefit those already having way too much and don’t need another dime.)
And like you strongly suggest, they love to war, especially never-ending war, especially when it makes them look strong on national security, especially at election time. (Ever notice how the closer we get to an election, the more militaristic they become?)
So when we marry these two “patriotic” attitudes together, we get a party that loves to war – especially the never-ending kind – and do so for the “God-given right” of too few Americans to have way too much. Strip away the fat, and this is who they are, you know?
They do have a few others in their base they string along for sheer numbers at the polls (like white racists in the South), but they’re essentially a party of, by, and for the rich and always have been (at least since President Roosevelt).
Is there any wonder why their lawmakers can’t compromise in the way our Founders intended? And is there any wonder why they can’t bring themselves to spend money on anything but their never-ending wars? Not to me.
Thank God we finally have a president who understands the limited need for war on occasion – war with an end – and who also understands that “freedom” means freedom for all of us, not just their elitist few.
And let’s hope our one God will allow us a long lineage of such leaders – to both demonstrate our freedom for the spiritual good of all humankind, and ultimately render all war, limited and never-ending, as unnecessary means to any kind of ends!
Top Daily Articles » Accounting for the costs of war | Cynthia Tucker
December 2nd, 2009
7:01 pm
[...] the rest here: Accounting for the costs of war | Cynthia Tucker Share and [...]
atlshirt.org
December 2nd, 2009
9:17 pm
ummm, I was in the military, and there is not a single soldier being paid one million a year… I seriously think someone is LYING about that number!
scott
December 3rd, 2009
8:18 am
atlshirt.org, I thought the same thing. It is probably the same person from this administration that provides us with the phone jobs saved number, the projected 8 percent unemployment number that would result from the stimulus package, the shady numbers being used for the healthcare bill, or the incredulous numbers used to calculate the per capita cost of the unnecessary Cap and Trade Bill. I would really be interested in seeing where that $30B is going. The Dems wanted it so badly under the Bush Adm. How come they are not demanding the same review by this Admin? I probably should be biting my tongue on that request though because that would simply prompt Obama to stop all action, deliberate some more, and come up with a new decision to send half the amount required 6 months from now, costing more American lives. This guy has got to go. Damn you American public for treating last election like an American Idol Competition. We need a leader, not a community organizer.
Joe
December 3rd, 2009
11:29 am
Cynthia,
You are right to criticize Obama’s Afghanistan policy. The US has no valid objective and the Taliban’s part in the crimes of 9-11 is unclear. And whatever happened to bin Laden? The FBI has stated that there is not enough evidence to convict him. Look at his most wanted page; there is no mention of 9-11. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
The federal government has no Constitutional authority to…meddle in private matters such as healthcare, give away our tax money to wealthy bankers, or “stimulate” our economy. Because our elected “representatives” have overreached and overspent, we are now $12 Trillion in debt and on the verge of financial and political collapse.
We should keep in mind that the neo-conservatives are not really conservative. They are imposters. The Jewish neo-cons, i.e. former communists (Kristol, et al) hijacked the Republican Party in the 80’s and 90’s and redefined its philosophy. And their mission has been accomplished: the US military is in the Mideast neutralizing Israel’s antagonists.
Tommy Maddox
December 3rd, 2009
5:52 pm
Oh brother.
William Laidley
December 6th, 2009
9:47 pm
Dear Cynthia, Keep up the good work, as always. Maybe we already have a ‘jobs bill’. It’s called War/Defense-keeping all those men, and women busy around the world protecting America’s Empire. Can you guess what the employment rate would be if all the troops were brought home? Just imagine.