“Bacon” a drop in the bucket compared with Iraq

A few days ago, we told you a bit about all the earmarks local lawmakers are bringing in (and bragging about, of course).  If you recall, Slaughter, Reynolds, Walsh, and Kuhl each brought in between $10 million and $36 million a piece in 2007.  In total, the four brought in $89 million dollars. That sounds like a lot, right? Well, it’s not compared with the cost of the Iraq war. Recall that Jeremy Moule of the City Paper estimated that the Iraq war has cost taxpayers from the four districts about $5 billion dollars since 2003. Even if multiply the earmark numbers for 2007 by 5 to account for the five years of Iraq war funding we’ve had so far, here’s the comparison:

Iraq: $5 billion

Earmarks: less than half of one billion

Or to put in the form of ratios:

Iraq: 10

Earmarks: 1

You may also recall that The Decider is requesting about $200 billion for Iraq in 2008 alone. That somes to about just under $2 billion for the local Congressional districts in 2008 alone. As wasteful as we might think the Renaissance Square project is, Iraq will cost ten times as much — just for the local area — in 2008 alone. By the time 2008 spending is factored in, the local Congressional districts will have spent $7 billion on Iraq — that’s 35 Ren Squares.

VN:F [1.6.5_908]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Related posts:

  1. McCain’s 40 quadrillion (yes, quadrillion) dollar plan for Iraq
  2. The cost of the war in Iraq
  3. From City News: The Price of War
  4. Walsh to vote “no” tomorrow on Iraq withdrawl
  5. $50 billion for the “surge” in 2008…for a total of $192 billion

2 Responses to ““Bacon” a drop in the bucket compared with Iraq”

  1. Jiminy Bizbo says:

    The National Priorities Project has a nice calculator set up where you can break it down by state and by county…and further by type:

    http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

    The figures are staggering - absolutely staggering.

    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Thanks for the link!

    VN:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.6.5_908]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply