The McCain Budget

How to reconcile John McCain's reputation as a fiscal tightwad with his desire for open-ended war in Iraq? It's simple, magical ponies victory will solve the problem, as a policy paper leaked to Mike Allen at Politico says: "The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit." Jason Furman is skeptical:

"McCain would have to pay for all of his new tax cuts and other proposals and then, on top of that, cut an additional $443 billion from the budget—which is 81 percent of Medicare spending or 78 percent of all discretionary spending outside of defense," Furman said.

And of course even this may be too kind, as McCain has in the past hinted at a desire to increase defense spending back up to a Cold War share of GDP and McCain's plan to keep fighting in Iraq until the last Iraqi who wants us gone is dead seems unlikely to allow us to realize his "victory" savings on any feasible timeframe.

Comments

SAVINGS? How can it be SAVINGS when we're woefully over budget?! Not spending into deficit does not equal savings; it equals breaking even.

Posted by Adam | July 7, 2008 1:04 AM

McCain has it all figured out, dudes! He's just gonna PRINT MORE MONEY. He's surprised no one has thought of this before.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 7, 2008 1:16 AM

What Adam said. And there's also the fact that there's ALWAYS a new and deadlier enemy with these people. Their fear of others is evergreen.

Thus, by the time we've defeated whoever it is we're now fighting in Iraq, some 100 years hence, there will be a whole new existential threat that demands exorbitant defense spending. Bunnies, maybe. Who knows? But you can bet your great-great-grandchildren there WILL be one.

Posted by urbino | July 7, 2008 1:19 AM

But isn't the Iraq war an off-budget item (it's been financed through emergency spending)? We're not even counting that spending, so how can it become a savings if it's eliminated? Yes, I know that real money is being spent, but we aren't willing to fess up to it yet.

Posted by fostert | July 7, 2008 1:29 AM

Amazing math.

What McCain would have use do is assume that the current spending on the wars is now The Norm™ or the baseline and that spending anything less is to be considered lowering the deficit.

Talk about dumbing down expectations.

How about after the 'victory' (and lets not even try to guess what that means in the McBizarro world) we go back to what the budget was before the war spending and use that as a baseline? Of course that would be too difficult.

I fear that the fiscal fallout from the last 8 years will be more of a threat to our country then any terrorist could ever be.

Posted by Splotto | July 7, 2008 7:52 AM

Out of curiosity, what was McCain's take on the "Cold War Dividend" back when Clinton was president? Seems like if he's really serious about victory leading to big cutbacks, he naturally would have been front and center arguing for big cuts in the defense spending in 1992, after we'd achieved victory in the Cold War.

Alternatively, he could just be as full of crap as every single other Republican president since at least Reagan when it comes to the budget. Maybe one of these decades, the press will call one of them on it.

Posted by Doug T | July 7, 2008 8:18 AM

the devil is worse than the dress he's wearing. Turning the world upside down is what McCain is being prepped to do by his lobbyist advisers and former Bush cronies. A Federal budget of approximately $3.3 trillion (including the off budget wars and the spending of the "surplus" social security funds) will not be undone by victories in the Middle East, especially if we have bases and standing forces in Iraq. Nor will trimming pork net more than a few billion. The spending freeze on discretionary programs comes on top of harmful cuts in the EPA, in FDA, in USDA food inspections. A freeze means more sick and dead Americans. Add on a cut in the corporate tax rate, making the Bush tax cuts for the well off permanent, and incentives to the energy and auto industry to just keep doing what they're doing, and subsidizing nuclear power without addressing the waste storage problem, and you have the recipe for McDisaster. Of course, you can help business a little more by eliminating any responsibility for health care, and pushing it on to indidividuals. And in a McScrooge like act, you can say that war and tax cuts are so costly that social security and Medicaid benefits just have to be reduced, and that the best cost cutting strategy is privatization, which takes Generation X, 25 years from retirement, off the rolls. And this from a man who collects Navy retirement benefits, social security benefits, a Senator's salary, and a significant (2/3 of cost)health insurance subsidy from the Federal government and the taxpayers he wishes to harm. Is he McStupid or McHypocrite? Voters need to look long and hard.

Posted by dwmulenex | July 7, 2008 8:32 AM

He's pretty much going all-in on the whole victory in Iraq thing. It's the basis for his national security platform and his budget. Now all he needs to do is figure out how to tie it in to health care, energy, and the economy.

Posted by daveNYC | July 7, 2008 9:15 AM

McCain was right -- he doesn't understand economics very well.

Posted by RagingBull | July 7, 2008 9:59 AM

McCain was right -- he doesn't understand economics very well.

Posted by RagingBull | July 7, 2008 10:00 AM

McCain was right -- he doesn't understand economics very well.

Posted by RagingBull | July 7, 2008 10:00 AM

It's a Google!

Posted by cha cha cha | July 7, 2008 10:25 AM

I find it funny that Iglesias is calling McCain on his so-called "open-ended war in Iraq", when the Democratic candidate has fudged his position on the war so much that his stance seems almost identical to McCain's now. And when asked before about how Team Obama planned to pay for the largest increase in government spending/bureaucracy since the New Deal, they claimed that ending the war would be a huge part of it; so where does that money come from now that Obama plans on staying the cource in Iraq, just as McCain wants to do? Anyone who thinks that Obama's tax and spend plans are going to heal this wounded economy needs to get back into Economics 101 in their nearest community college.

Posted by Publius | July 7, 2008 10:55 AM

Once again, the "Largest increase in new spending" meme is a crock. It includes legislation that already passed, and his tax cuts, which are suddenly a bad thing if a Democrat does it. About half of the RNC claims are right, but in Economics 101, 50% is an F.

Posted by Seth | July 7, 2008 11:26 AM

Well, crap! Now I feel stupid for opposing the Iraq War, but, in my defense, I didn't realize there was an opportunity to win FABULOUS CASH PRIZES.

Posted by nitpicker | July 7, 2008 11:28 AM

"McCain's plan to keep fighting in Iraq until the last Iraqi who wants us gone is dead"

McCrank might as well just call for nuking it then. It'd be cheaper.

Posted by b-psycho | July 7, 2008 12:58 PM

Publius sez:

...when the Democratic candidate has fudged his position on the war so much that his stance seems almost identical to McCain's now.

Is this one of those "anything I tell you three times is true" things?

According to barackobama.com:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Funny, this would only "seem almost identical" to McCain's position if up is down, black is white and "war is peace."

Posted by Joe Max | July 7, 2008 1:01 PM

I know publius, I read publius, and you, sir, can't even spell Matt's name right, much less be publius. You know what tax and spend equals? A net zero. Know what borrow, cut taxes, and spend equals? Forget community college, go back to whatever grade they first teach negative numbers in for your jurisdiction.

Back on topic, I thought victory wasn't predicted until 2013. Is there any Victory Cash Prize for his first term, or are we really supposed to wait until he's 76 to see any tangible benefits from the McCain Administration? Is that when the magic *really* happens?

Posted by jibeaux | July 7, 2008 1:03 PM

"McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit."

Huh? Especially since, in McCainian parlance, "victory" means permanent bases, while "defeat" means bringing the troops home, which would naturally cost less.

But seriously, can I use my "savings" from not buying a Hummer to pay down my mortgage? That would be so cool!

Posted by Lauren | July 7, 2008 1:03 PM

Uh oh.

Obama is not qualified to lead.

Now McCain is talking crazy about cutting
Social Security and Medicare?

Maybe we need to move to China.

Posted by Maria Bonde | July 7, 2008 1:49 PM

You guys are forgetting: we'll have money saved from victory in Iraq AND money saved from victory in Iran to help pay down the deficit! And who knows, maybe even money saved from victory in Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, whatever, too!

Obama is not qualified to lead.

Riiiight. Because. . . ?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | July 7, 2008 6:19 PM

How is McCain going to save the budget by attacking Iran? We know he's going to do that - assuming Bush doesn't do it first.

I mean, really, at this point, if the main stream media cannot identify McCain as a senile, raving, Dr. Strangelove, Manchurian Candidate, lunatic by now, let's face it - he's going to be President.

I mean, next he'll be telling the electorate he can levitate. This guy is less rational than L. Ron Hubbard. And the media is in bed with all of that.

So at what point does Matt and the rest of the so-called "liberals" start pointing out that this guy is FUCKING CRAZY? We might have been better off if nutcase Giuliani had gotten the nomination!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 7, 2008 8:31 PM

Squirm and insult, my friends--it's the liberal way. Anyone who thinks I'm just making numbers up about Obama's massive tax and spend plans should really educate yourselves, as even the WaPost called b.s. on it in today's issue. How can he use the savings of "ending the war" to pay for his spending increases, when he's just decided to stay the course just as McCain has been saying all along? You can educate yourselves about this stuff, or continue living in ignorance--it's up to you.

Posted by Publius | July 8, 2008 2:21 PM

McCain - "We'll stay in Iraq for 100 years."

Obama - "We're out of Iraq in 16 months."

Publius - "Those two things are exactly the same, and if you can't see that, it's because you're a liberal idiot."

Posted by El | July 8, 2008 3:00 PM