chlamor
11-17-2009, 07:39 AM
Afghan Escalation Would Make One-Year Pentagon Budget Almost As Big as Entire 10-Year Health Bill
by: David Sirota
Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 09:23
In pitting the 10-year cost of Democrats' health care bill against the 10-year projected cost of the bloated Pentagon budget, my newspaper column last week made a simple comparison rarely ever made in politics today - a comparison that might provide citizens with much needed context, but a comparison that is ignored.
Is the comparison's omission deliberate? It's hard to say, but when you read this typical New York Times piece, it's hard to argue that it isn't being irresponsibly ignored:
While President Obama's decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say...
Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.
So even if Mr. Obama opts for a lower troop commitment, Afghanistan's new costs could wash out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in 2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration.
Kudos, of course, to the Times for even reporting on the unfathomably large costs of intensifying militarism and adventurism. But as you'll see in the story, there's no attempt to put the costs into any context - specifically, there's no mention that an escalation in Afghanistan would mean outlays for the one-year Pentagon budget is approaching the total outlays of the entire 10-year health care bill.
Of course, the Times does offer up one fleeting contextual message indicating that increased defense spending from an Afghanistan escalation "would be a politically volatile issue for Mr. Obama at a time when the government budget deficit is soaring, the economy is weak and he is trying to pass a costly health care plan." But even that brief mention is dishonest.
On what basis does the Times call the health care plan "costly?" As I said in my column, while the Congressional Budget Office (ie. the nonpartisan institution that reporters/politicians use to price bills - the nonpartisan institution that congressional Republicans tout as an authority) says the health legislation would mandate about $890 billion, CBO also makes painfully clear its tax and budget-cutting provisions would recover a net of $109 billion over 10 years, meaning the bill is as "costly" to the public treasury as the purchase of a stock that produces a net 10% return on investment. I mean, seriously - if you invested $1,000 into a stock and got $1,100 back, would you lament to a friend about how "costly" the investment was to your bank account? No - because your friend would look at you like you were insane.
Indeed, only in Washington is a big return on taxpayer investment and a $109 billion reduction in the deficit an example of something that's "costly" to taxpayers - and only in a quickly deteriorating American media would defense spending be reported with almost zero context.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/16037/afghan-escalation-would-make-oneyear-pentagon-budget-almost-as-big-as-entire-health-bill
another kind of shopping spree (4.00 / 3)
As we approach the $1,000,000,000,000 mark, some have pointed out that, when all is said and done, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost us upwards of $2,000,000,000,000 or more.
What else could we buy with two trillion dollars?
M. Paskel from the website hubpages:
It's hard to comprehend what 2 trillion dollars can buy. I tried it this morning and developed my list. Do it yourself on the back of an envelope and see what you come up with.
For $2 trillion we could eliminate extreme poverty in the world, the cost of which is estimated by the United Nations and Worldwatch, to be about $150 billion per year for the next 13 years.
We could achieve universal literacy. Every illiterate in every country on the planet could learn to read and write, lifting themselves and their families out of grinding poverty for $5 billion dollars per year and we'd still have a lot of money left over.
And each of the following could be done as well:
For $1.3 billion per year we could provide immunization from deadly diseases for every child on earth. Imagine the savings to over stressed government treasuries by the reduction of medical costs that would follow, not to mention the degree of human suffering that would disappear. We could spend another $15 billion per year and ensure that developing countries would have sufficient resources to fight HIV/AIDS to a draw.
For another $60 billion we could achieve the World Banks Millennium Development Goals of tackling everything from gender inequality to environmental sustainability. And after all this, we'd still have $1.2 trillion left.
The average cost of a college education in the U.S. today, according to the U.S. Department of Education is $21,000. With our $2 trillion we could fund almost 2 billion full scholarships-that's 6 times the population of the U.S.
We could fully fund the cost of healthcare for the 47 million Americans who have none, thru the year 2020. We could adequately clothe, feed and nurture every child orphaned by war and pestilence or inflicted by savage cruelty and abuse. We could upgrade the water systems of every hamlet and village and bring clean safe drinking water where none now exists and we could put a doctor within a day's walk of every human being in this world.
We could provide a laptop to every student in every third world country allowing them to fully realize their educational potential and further the speed with which their countries could become developed and fully revitalized, and we could do the same in rural and urban pockets of poverty in the U.S. where time seems to have stopped dead in it's tracks.
The catastrophes that could be avoided, the rank obscenities, which could be wiped away, seem to be unfathomable with such a resource brought to bear on the most galling of human conditions.
by: David Sirota
Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 09:23
In pitting the 10-year cost of Democrats' health care bill against the 10-year projected cost of the bloated Pentagon budget, my newspaper column last week made a simple comparison rarely ever made in politics today - a comparison that might provide citizens with much needed context, but a comparison that is ignored.
Is the comparison's omission deliberate? It's hard to say, but when you read this typical New York Times piece, it's hard to argue that it isn't being irresponsibly ignored:
While President Obama's decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say...
Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.
So even if Mr. Obama opts for a lower troop commitment, Afghanistan's new costs could wash out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in 2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the overall military budget could rise to as much as $734 billion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667 billion under the Bush administration.
Kudos, of course, to the Times for even reporting on the unfathomably large costs of intensifying militarism and adventurism. But as you'll see in the story, there's no attempt to put the costs into any context - specifically, there's no mention that an escalation in Afghanistan would mean outlays for the one-year Pentagon budget is approaching the total outlays of the entire 10-year health care bill.
Of course, the Times does offer up one fleeting contextual message indicating that increased defense spending from an Afghanistan escalation "would be a politically volatile issue for Mr. Obama at a time when the government budget deficit is soaring, the economy is weak and he is trying to pass a costly health care plan." But even that brief mention is dishonest.
On what basis does the Times call the health care plan "costly?" As I said in my column, while the Congressional Budget Office (ie. the nonpartisan institution that reporters/politicians use to price bills - the nonpartisan institution that congressional Republicans tout as an authority) says the health legislation would mandate about $890 billion, CBO also makes painfully clear its tax and budget-cutting provisions would recover a net of $109 billion over 10 years, meaning the bill is as "costly" to the public treasury as the purchase of a stock that produces a net 10% return on investment. I mean, seriously - if you invested $1,000 into a stock and got $1,100 back, would you lament to a friend about how "costly" the investment was to your bank account? No - because your friend would look at you like you were insane.
Indeed, only in Washington is a big return on taxpayer investment and a $109 billion reduction in the deficit an example of something that's "costly" to taxpayers - and only in a quickly deteriorating American media would defense spending be reported with almost zero context.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/16037/afghan-escalation-would-make-oneyear-pentagon-budget-almost-as-big-as-entire-health-bill
another kind of shopping spree (4.00 / 3)
As we approach the $1,000,000,000,000 mark, some have pointed out that, when all is said and done, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost us upwards of $2,000,000,000,000 or more.
What else could we buy with two trillion dollars?
M. Paskel from the website hubpages:
It's hard to comprehend what 2 trillion dollars can buy. I tried it this morning and developed my list. Do it yourself on the back of an envelope and see what you come up with.
For $2 trillion we could eliminate extreme poverty in the world, the cost of which is estimated by the United Nations and Worldwatch, to be about $150 billion per year for the next 13 years.
We could achieve universal literacy. Every illiterate in every country on the planet could learn to read and write, lifting themselves and their families out of grinding poverty for $5 billion dollars per year and we'd still have a lot of money left over.
And each of the following could be done as well:
For $1.3 billion per year we could provide immunization from deadly diseases for every child on earth. Imagine the savings to over stressed government treasuries by the reduction of medical costs that would follow, not to mention the degree of human suffering that would disappear. We could spend another $15 billion per year and ensure that developing countries would have sufficient resources to fight HIV/AIDS to a draw.
For another $60 billion we could achieve the World Banks Millennium Development Goals of tackling everything from gender inequality to environmental sustainability. And after all this, we'd still have $1.2 trillion left.
The average cost of a college education in the U.S. today, according to the U.S. Department of Education is $21,000. With our $2 trillion we could fund almost 2 billion full scholarships-that's 6 times the population of the U.S.
We could fully fund the cost of healthcare for the 47 million Americans who have none, thru the year 2020. We could adequately clothe, feed and nurture every child orphaned by war and pestilence or inflicted by savage cruelty and abuse. We could upgrade the water systems of every hamlet and village and bring clean safe drinking water where none now exists and we could put a doctor within a day's walk of every human being in this world.
We could provide a laptop to every student in every third world country allowing them to fully realize their educational potential and further the speed with which their countries could become developed and fully revitalized, and we could do the same in rural and urban pockets of poverty in the U.S. where time seems to have stopped dead in it's tracks.
The catastrophes that could be avoided, the rank obscenities, which could be wiped away, seem to be unfathomable with such a resource brought to bear on the most galling of human conditions.