Re: Boycott Brand America

Burning money in Iraq [excerpts from]
by David Lazarus 
Friday, August 29, 2003  
<..>

"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised its estimates yet
again this week and announced that the federal budget deficit will
soar to a record $480 billion next year, reaching $1.4 trillion over
the coming decade. [..] These new estimates don't include the rising
cost of the war in Iraq, which, if factored into the mix, would push
the 2004 deficit well beyond $500 billion.  

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has estimated that the "burn rate"
-- his words -- [..] is currently running $3.9 billion a month, or
nearly $48 billion a year. 

That's a highly conservative figure. It doesn't include the cost of
replacing damaged vehicles and equipment, or the cost of munitions
used in daily skirmishes. Some experts say the annual war cost is
actually closer to $60 billion. 

[..M]ost Americans believe they're taxed heavily enough already. We
aren't being asked to pay an additional war-in-Iraq tax for just that
reason. Instead, we expect the government to do the best it can with
what we give it. That's the idea, anyway. 

The Bush administration, which has cut taxes three times in the past
three years, is determined to spend whatever it deems necessary in the
"war on terrorism" even as it systematically slashes the government's
revenue. 

"In the last two and half years, this nation has acted decisively to
confront great challenges," President Bush said the other day while
raising money for his re-election. "I came to the office of president
of the United States to solve problems, instead of passing them on to
future presidents and future generations." 

He was referring to problems like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden,
wherever they are. Bush apparently doesn't see a budget deficit
lasting until at least 2012 as a problem for future presidents and
future generations. 

Moreover, he seems blissfully unaware that if his tax cuts are made
permanent -- a goal he has sworn to achieve -- the cumulative deficit
over the next decade will balloon to almost $3 trillion. The $400
billion Congress plans to spend overhauling Medicare over the same
period would push the total even higher. 

[..] At the same time, though, the White House is spending like a
sailor on shore leave. Paul Bremer, the administration's man in
occupied Iraq, was asked in a recent interview how much it will cost
to rebuild the country. 

"It's probably well above $50 billion, $60 billion, maybe $100
billion," he answered. Then, as if that didn't sound wishy-washy
enough, he added, "It's a lot of money." 

Bremer flew back to Washington this week to ask the White House for a
few billion more to tide him over until a larger budget bill can be
introduced this fall. 

For his part, Bush said he'd help out by cutting annual raises for
more than 1 million federal employees -- a move that will free up
billions for Iraq but impact the spending power of Americans on the
home front. 

We could have more teachers, or firefighters, or police officers or
nurses. Instead we have an open-ended commitment to policing and
reconstructing a Mideast nation that may or may not have posed a
threat down the road. 

And we'll put off paying the cost for many years, leaving a mountain
of debt and obligations for our children to somehow tackle -- the
president's self-congratulatory remarks notwithstanding. 

Kind of makes California's troubles seem quaint by comparison.