How Will We Pay For The War?
"Time to come clean about the cost of Iraqi freedom," writes Charles V. Peña in Reason:
The White House has announced that it will ask Congress for an $82 billion supplemental bill to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. That's on top of the $25 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan that was part of the Defense Department's fiscal year 2005 budget the president signed last August.Taken together with the previous supplemental requests—$75 billion in 2003 and $88 billion in 2004—and given that the U.S. commitment of troops and resources in Iraq is five to six times larger than its commitment in Afghanistan, the latest tally of the cost of the Iraq war is over $200 billion. The U.S. Army announced that it plans to keep 120,000 troops in Iraq for at least two more years, so we should expect another supplemental request of $80 billion or more next year.
Does anyone remember what the administration said the Iraq war would cost? When White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsey suggested that going to war against Iraq might cost $100 to $200 billion, he was rebuked and chose to resign three months later.
Citing Office of Management and Budget estimates, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once thought the Iraq mission might cost $50 billion or less. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz once opined that Iraqi oil revenues of $50 to $100 billion, instead of U.S. taxpayer dollars, would pay for the occupation and reconstruction.
Oops!
But, let's go after the correct taxpayer dollars...by taking Andrew Sullivan's suggestion, from August, that we tax gas. Good idea. No, great idea.
Some conservatives say it's antithetical to the American Dream. Hooey. Conservatism in America rightly emphasizes personal responsibility alongside freedom. You can't have one without the other. And using a car affects not just you but many others. When your driving habits lead to higher levels of pollution, when your ownership of a gas-inhaling 2-ton SUV puts others on the road at risk, when traffic jams drastically reduce the country's productivity (as well as make radio shock jocks into millionaires), don't you think you might give a little back in return? To paraphrase the President, can't we shift from a philosophy of "If it feels good, do it" to one of responsibility?
The real reason so many Americans hate gas taxes is that they see them. The government can eat away at your life with payroll taxes, but because they are usually deducted before you get to see your paycheck, you don't notice. But the price of gas is broadcast on big placards across the country. When it goes up, eyebrows rise a notch. But that's a good thing! The government has to tax you somehow. Isn't it better to shift taxation to places where people notice it, so they can demand accountability? The gas tax is therefore a win-win conservative-liberal synthesis. It cuts the deficit, helps the environment and keeps the government fiscally honest and accountable.
Let me add one further reason, and it's a simple one. We're at war. So far, the Bush Administration has refused to ask for a general sacrifice to pay for this effort. But that leads to a sense that we're not all involved, that we do not all owe the troops our support. More important, the war is about the Middle East. A long-term strategy to protect us from constant involvement in that region would include greater energy independence. A gas tax helps pay for our current struggle and helps us avoid future ones. Why not therefore a wartime gas tax of a dollar a gallon? If we do not owe it to our fellow citizens, to the environment, to greater fuel efficiency, can we at least owe it to the troops? Or is that minimal level of personal sacrifice too much to ask of ourselves?
"the price of gas is broadcast on big placards across the country. When it goes up, eyebrows rise a notch. But that's a good thing!"
Amen.
"Isn't it better to shift taxation to places where people notice it, so they can demand accountability?"
Or better yet, so that they can reconsider their consumption patterns and start demanding more fuel-efficient cars, better public transportation, and groovy bike paths?
Sullivan is such a deft rhetoritician sometimes. Wrapping up the argument with the "supporting our troops" schtick is so good.
Lena at February 17, 2005 8:07 AM
Lena has been known to bike to many a location, and gets even better mileage than Amy's hybrid. Amy used to bike everywhere, but is now too terrified of getting picked off by somebody in a Hummer putting on their mascara while drinking coffee and screaming at their agent. She occasionally shops while on the run -- literally. But mostly drives to do her errands. Forgive her for this third-person comment. She doesn't know what got into her.
Amy Alkon at February 17, 2005 8:23 AM
There is a great website www.costofwar.com that everyone should check out. Check out "where your federal tax dollars are spent". Half goes to interest and the military.
Up here in Idaho, there is a very real and existing terrorist threat- methamphetamine. This drug destroys thousands of lives each year here, both directly and indirectly, creates environmental hazards that Islamist fundamentalists would dream of inflicting across America, and floods our judicial and correctional systems. The threat is here and now.
Unfortunately funding for detectives and education is not a priority in relation to "homeland defense". Actually, "homeland defense" is not as much of a priority as Iraqi liberation/occupation. The money flows freely to Iraq, with no real debate or opposition. For our domestic programmes, every dollar is scrutinized and fought over.
The question now is, with limited resources, where is our money best spent?
eric at February 17, 2005 1:54 PM
Eric --
The state of California has made great strides in dealing with the meth problem. One of the federal drug institutes (SAMHSA, I think) has been tracking drug-related emergency room visits for decades, and the visit rates specifically for meth have been coming down in California for the past 3-4 years. It's amazing. In you're interested in finding out about your state, the name of the database is "DAWN" (I think that stands for Drug Abuse Warning Network). It would definitely show up in a Google search. One of the great things about DAWN is that it contains data from every hospital with an ER in the United States. They have to report these adverse events by law.
Lena
Go Ask Lena at February 17, 2005 3:39 PM
Thanks Lena-
Interesting website. The closest data to me was Seattle, about 300 miles away. I am shocked you say meth is declining over there. It is like a tidal wave here. They are even putting all the Sudafed type drugs behind the pharmacy counter nowdays.
The prison system here is out of control with overcrowding, and the prison hospital and dental clinics can't even begin to afford the mandated health\dental care prisoners are guaranteed. There is even word of a new property tax\sales tax assessment just to handle the problem. It really sucks.
eric at February 18, 2005 11:03 AM
"They are even putting all the Sudafed type drugs behind the pharmacy counter nowdays."
That's a good first step. No one has gotten away with buying crates of Sudafed in California for a very long time. Educating health care providers is also crucial.
By the way, crystal is a great high. It's too bad that it's destroying so many people's lives.
Lena-doodle-doo at February 21, 2005 1:38 AM
Leave a comment