"Small Price"

As James Clyburn and Steny Hoyer slam Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) for his view that thousands of dead Americans is a small price to pay for the Iraq War, I guess the defense he's edging toward is that the monetary cost of the war in Iraq has been small. In reality, however, the monetary cost has been enormous, ranging into well over $1 trillion in the more inclusive estimates. Mark Kleiman takes a look:

If we get out of Iraq having spent less than $1 trillion (the total so far is roughly $600 billion) we ought to count ourselves lucky. Invested in long-term Treasuries, that would yield $50 billion a year. For a modest fraction of one year's interest on that endowment, we could end malaria worldwide. For another very modest fraction, we could implement the Nunn-Lugar bill to tighten up on loose nukes. A national ID system with secure documents tied to biometrics probably wouldn't cost more than few billion a year to operate. $5 billion a year — a tenth of that endowment income — would fund 100,000 Peace Corps volunteers, or just about a doubling of the National Science Foundation budget or of the budget for monitoring the nation's 4 million probationers, or the proposed expansion the S-CHIP insurance program for not-quite-poor-enough children.

And, of course, the monetary costs of plans that have us staying in Iraq for 10-15 years as stability emerges are also enormous even if they only entail 2-3 more years of us staying there at full strength.

Comments

boehner demonstrates the problem of acting as though george bush's (or bill kristol's, or any of the kagans') rhetoric makes sense. if you really think we are in a "defining" war where victory is essential, then the "price" is "small."

if you live in reality, the price is enormous and what's worse, the benefits minute.

however, given the new standards of what constitutes a "small" price for the US government to pay, i'd say that a future democrat has loads of manuevering room to increase public programs (i'm kidding, of course: boehner and his colleagues will suddenly rediscover fiscal responsibility the minute a dem is elected, and "ending malaria worldwide" will be deried as a utopian, expensive scheme that only crazy dem liberals could come up with).

Posted by howard | September 15, 2007 11:42 AM

Malaria? Poor kids health? All piffle. As long as the richest 1% of the populace has 70% of the wealth AND makes the rules for the other 99% that 99% can go fuck themselves.

Posted by steve duncan | September 15, 2007 11:46 AM

"For a modest fraction of one year's interest on that endowment, we could end malaria worldwide." .....It's amazing, isn't it. Some 30% of citizens still approve of what turned out to be a bunch of powerful people's delusions of grandeur. If some US president dared to try eradicate malaria worldwide, I imagine that fully 90% would crucify him.

Posted by Independent | September 15, 2007 11:56 AM

Heck, let's add funding a Manhatten project to replace fossil fuels to the mix (in my opinion, the "ironies of all ironies"). I'm actually fiscally conservative, but at this point, fuck it, the debt is at such absurd levels (and likely will be for the next 10-15 yrs) maybe just one more big chunk of change for energy independence won't raise the interest rates on my house TOO much.

Posted by Rihilism | September 15, 2007 12:00 PM

Just to add, when I say fiscal conservative, I mean we should actually raise taxes to pay for what we "want" to do rather than spending the money and hoping it will be magically replaced. And could someone point out to the numb-nuts in charge that any of the alternatives Kleiman suggests might actually demonstrate a "return on success" (whatever the hell that actually means...)

Posted by Rihilism | September 15, 2007 12:07 PM

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/09/gop_leader_boeh.php

Please note that Boehner's comment wasn't about the money, it was about the number of American troop casualties. Viewed in that light, his glibness is only slightly less disgusting than when Laura Bush said that no one suffered the pain of Iraq more than her husband.

Excuse me. I need to take a long shower now.

Posted by jonathan | September 15, 2007 12:12 PM

Please note that Boehner's comment wasn't about the money, it was about the number of American troop casualties.

Following that link, it looks as though the question was about both casualties AND money. Here's the question:

"How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?"

Boehner's wrong about the costs being a "small price to pay", but I don't think it's too outlandish to imagine he listened to the first part of the question (re. money) and ignored the second (re. loss of blood, etc.).

Posted by Dave White | September 15, 2007 12:28 PM

Fair enough, except that when called about his statement, his flack said that "Wolf only asked about the money." Which isn't true.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Boehner_hammered_over_small_price_comment.html

I may hove not chosen my words carefully enough, which I apologize for, since it seems pretty staightforward that Boehner was referring to both dollars and blood in his response, but even if so, it's a ghastly, thoughtless comment. Notice his flack's continued reply:

There isn’t a Member of Congress who appreciates the sacrifices of our troops more than Mr. Boehner.

Back to the shower now, to try to get rid of the dirt...

Posted by jonathan | September 15, 2007 12:39 PM

There isn’t a Member of Congress who appreciates the sacrifices of our troops more than Mr. Boehner.

Not only that, but I think that we should all appreciate the sacrifices the Mr. Boehner is making, too.

/snark

Posted by Tyro | September 15, 2007 12:50 PM

For a modest fraction of one year's interest on that endowment, we could end malaria worldwide.

Or instead of investing the money and using the interest, we could just spend it year by year, as we're doing now, and fully fund Jeffrey Sachs's proposals to end absolute poverty throughout the entire world.

I mean, I'm not a big believer that Sachs's program would actually work, but somehow if we're going to throw $110 billion a year down the tubes I'd rather see it go towards ending world poverty than towards bombing the hell out of Iraq. Call me crazy.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 15, 2007 1:43 PM

Imagine if we spent $50 billion a year in perpetuity on high speed rail, public transportation and alternative energy development...

Posted by Steve in Sacto | September 15, 2007 2:37 PM

"I'm actually fiscally conservative, but at this point, fuck it, the debt is at such absurd levels..."-Rihilism

Actually our debt as a percentage of GDP is not unusually high compared to other countries. We are at about the same level as France and Canada (65%), below Germany (67%) and well below Italy (108%) and Japan (176%).

Posted by Isocrates | September 15, 2007 2:49 PM

Isn't he really saying that because we're "defeating" terrorism that the dead people are a small price to pay? I think that's what he meant.

Posted by bg | September 15, 2007 4:21 PM

We are at about the same level as France and Canada (65%),

But which way are things moving? Canada, for one, has a balanced budget now, and has had a balance or surpluses for some years. The US is going into the hole at an ever-expanding rate.

Posted by sunsin | September 15, 2007 5:52 PM

Matt's Comments are fairly good, especially on the Opportunity costs - money we could have invested elsewhere.
The Iraq costs have been ruinously high, but part of that is because we have elected for a "hearts and mind" approach to defeating the insurgency vs. a far cheaper "fear and intimidation" methodology we used in the Civil War, WWII - and in enforced "safe hamlet" programs in S Korea & Vietnam.

The casualties have been very low, as real wars go. Boehner is right about that. We are taking more maimed, but far less dead each year than in any year of Jimmy Carters 100% peacetime military.

But, we have done tremendous damage to Al Qaeda and insurgents - not just with our own killings and maimings of them - but with huge numbers captured and interrogated that have uncovered networks throughout the world that are now being quashed by the "host nation". Shocked Swiss and Swedes have gotten word of secret cells that were exposed in AQ's haste to get Jihadis to the "Central Front for Islamic Victory" - Iraq.

Our kill rates are 7:1 in Anbar, and nearly 45:1 in Afghanistan. With saner ROE, we could be killing 15 Islamoid terrorists for every soldier in Iraq...

Hoyer I respect. Clyburn is just an idiot high in seniority in the Black Caucus most recently famous for saying "If the Surge succeeds, that would really hurt us Democrats".

*******************************
Imagine if we spent $50 billion a year in perpetuity on high speed rail, public transportation and alternative energy development...
Posted by Steve in Sacto

We do already. It's called "pork". It hasn't gotten us much.

America uses 106 Quadrillion BTUs of energy. 41 Quads oil. Private transportation that uses oil only amounts to 16 Quads. "Exciting alternative energy" might amount to 12 Quads by 2030.
Except the same people most enthusiastic about alternative energy are the same people that say the 3rd World has a moral right to come to America across Open Borders and that means 363 million energy users by 2030 and 420 million by 2050.

The only CO2-gas free, storable able to be used on demand energy source that can possibly replace oil demand and handle the 120 million immigrants and their spawn is nuclear power. Which is the source most opposed by the "exciting oil from chicken guts and hempseed" crowd..

I'm not a fan of wealthy fatcats claiming they are "all green power" because they buy electricity from a 75-year old hydro dam, nor carbon sequestration from coal plants.

Capturing the CO2 and pumping it underground reduces coal plant generation efficiency from 40% down to 25% with the energy spent capturing, separating, and injecting CO2 into high pressure reserviors. Meaning you would have to burn 60% coal for the same amount of electricity. And worse, who wants to live above a giant coke&mentos fizzie threat?
An earthquake or some other fault and millions of tons of CO2 from anyone of the thousands of plants some environmentalists want CO2 injection at could boil up, and blanket a region, smothering it. An African volcanic lake disgorged most of its CO2 in saturation with a thermocline shift. 800 villagers and up to 10,000 cattle and all the wildlife in a 3 square mile are were smothered.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 15, 2007 6:05 PM

"The US is going into the hole at an ever-expanding rate."-sunsin

I disagree. The deficit last year was 1.9% of GDP. This year it is 1.2%. The average over the last 40 years is 2.3%.

These numbers come from the CBO and are availiable at: CBO Budget Numbers

Posted by Isocrates | September 15, 2007 6:25 PM

The key is to cut down as much of the world's trees as possible (but don't burn them, make a lot more furntiture - think of a table as a carbon sink), and replant them. Newly growing trees take in a lot more CO2 than mature ones do.

And contra that silly bitch Sheryl Crow its positively good to use as much toilet paper as possible (really clean inside the anus) because it'll mean ever more new trees being planted.

Posted by Jesmond | September 15, 2007 6:33 PM

isocrates, although it is far afield from the topic of this thread, anyone who discusses the budget deficit without discounting the social security suprlus is being either knowingly or unwittingly dishonest.

which one is it in your case?

Posted by howard | September 15, 2007 6:40 PM

"...anyone who discusses the budget deficit without discounting the social security suprlus is being either knowingly or unwittingly ..."

Howard, I think you're confused. There's no reason to separate Social Security from the rest of the budget. Payroll tax revenues are inflows and social security payments are ouflows and they do not differ fundamentally from other forms of revenue or expenditure. I think you would find few economists who believe the social security "trust fund" ought to be separated from the rest of the budget.

Now, there are some economists who favor "generational accounting" that takes into account the present value of all future revenues and expenditures, but there are many practical problems with that, not the least of which are the tremendous uncertainties involved in long-term budget projections (I would be glad to discuss generational accounting with you further if you liked).

So, at any rate, I was using the current and past budget figures just as most economists (both of the left and the right) do.

Posted by Isocrates | September 15, 2007 7:24 PM

"We are at about the same level as France and Canada (65%), below Germany (67%) and well below Italy (108%) and Japan (176%)."

Them freedom fry eating, maple syrup eating, back-rub disliking bastards! Can someone explain to me how they can spend so much on them there commie social engineering projects (health care, public transportation, early childhood development, education, research, ...) and STILL have enough money to bribe the entire country of Iraq AND support the two hundred thousand troops they have stationed over there fightin' the war agin the Islamo-commi-fascists that keep trying to blow up our oil? Mighty sneaky, migh-high-ty sneaky.

The only CO2-gas free, storable able to be used on demand energy source ... is nuclear power. Which is the source most opposed by the "exciting oil from chicken guts and hempseed" crowd..

You tell 'em, brother. Everyone knows that the "Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator!" we use to power our nucular people-power plants pops magically out of the ground, refined and ready to use and when it's done powering our much needed electrofied fence to keep out the monguloid hoards we just zap it with our super secret Star Wars defense shield and "What do you know, it disintegrated..."

"An earthquake or some other fault and millions of tons of CO2 from anyone of the thousands of plants some environmentalists want CO2 injection at could boil up, and blanket a region, smothering it. An African volcanic lake disgorged most of its CO2 in saturation with a thermocline shift. 800 villagers and up to 10,000 cattle and all the wildlife in a 3 square mile are were smothered."

Does Hannity know about this?! I always knew them enviro-Islamo-commie terrorists were up to somethin', claimin' that CO2 reacts calcium to form a stable solid, my ass. Everyone knows the Devil lives down there, and when the Devil and them enviro-Islamo-commie-immigrant-huggers get together, well sir, there's going be a whole lot of dead villagers and cows.

Posted by Rihilism | September 15, 2007 7:59 PM

isocrates, apparently the answer is knowingly.

no, i am not confused: social security is a pay-as-you-go program. the purpose of the surplus is to fund future social security expenditures, period. when the unified budget was invented, no one foresaw the social security trust fund surplus project (nor the republican attempt to steal same), so no one worried about the minor distinction between the general fund budget deficit and the unified budget deficit.

but that was then and this is now, and the surplus should be discounted from any budget discussion. the supreme court has ruled (with respect to the highway trust fund) that a special purpose tax must be used for that special purpose, so using the "trust fund" for general purposes is, in fact, well, let's call it not kosher and leave it at that.

generational accounting addresses an entirely different matter and is irrelevant to this conversation. and actually, of course, you'll find economists coming out of your ears who will tell you that the general fund is what matters when we address the budget deficit or absence thereof.

in point of fact, if the trust fund has no meaning, the surplus has no meaning, and the payroll tax should be reduced to pay-as-you-go levels, leaving the general fund deficit exposed for all to see.

Posted by howard | September 15, 2007 9:09 PM

Imagine if the Iraq war had been funded from the beginning by raising taxes or cutting other programs, rather than just borrowing the money against our children's standard of living. How long do you think the war would have lasted? Would we ever have started it in the 1st place?

Posted by kafka | September 15, 2007 10:47 PM

In other news, the latest on the upcoming attack on Iran follows.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411410169&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | September 16, 2007 10:44 AM

In other news, the latest on the upcoming attack on Iran follows.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411410169&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Bernard Kouchner is a piece of slime. He was for the Iraq war, too. He is Jewish. Do you think that is a coincidence, SLC? It is, in any case, very bad to judge things by ethnic loyalty in world events.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 16, 2007 9:44 PM

The $600 billion the war has cost us so far is also missing a key portion of the real total monetary costs of the war. A recent article pointed out that the ongoign veteran's healthcare costs over the next however-long-until-this-generation-of-soldiers-passes-on that are incurred by the extra tens of thousands of wounds and PTSD cases that would not have occurred had we not invaded Iraq comes out far past $1 trillion as well. In fact, for all the expensive high tech equipment our military now employs, the health care costs following any war are likely to be the dominant factor in the real total war costs for quite some time, due to the exponential rise in costs associated with all healthcare right now, and due to a significantly higher percentage of casualties being wounded survivors instead of soldiers KIA.

Posted by Will | September 17, 2007 9:51 AM