Wasteful spending and inconvenient outrage
Tonight is the night, President Obama announces and attempts to justify to the public a troop escalation in Afghanistan. The other day I highlighted some discontent that is in the House of Representatives regarding how this activity is funded. The cost? A billion dollars per year per 1000 troops.
Rep Massa was on TV last night bluntly stating his opposition to the escalation and saying he will vote against the funding of this war.
Related to the cost of escalation is the bloated Pentagon budget.
Now David Sirota, the D&C’s newest syndicated columnist (damn, that sounds good), has a column in the D&C where he tees up the supposed conservative deficit hawks and smacks ‘em out of the park. You see
In e-mails, letters and website comments, right-wingers didn’t vent anger at Pentagon profligacy, but at the criticism of Pentagon profligacy — as if brazenly throwing away billions on outdated weapons systems and obsolete military programs is now a “conservative” value.
because as he points out
In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost — yes, lost — $2.3 trillion. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a subsequent Department of Defense study said it was only $1 trillion.To put such numbers in perspective, contemplate what those sums could finance. $1 trillion, for instance, could pay the total cost of universal health care for the long haul. $2.3 trillion would cover universal health care plus the bank bailout plus the stimulus package.
Yeah, where is the conservative outrage gift wrapped in either a teabag or American flag?
I suppose it is inconvenient.
Related posts:
Ahhh but war spending is OK for Republicans…
I think most of the spending we’re engaged in as a nation is wrongheaded and that includes the wars…I believe that his (Obamas) stance against the wars during the campaign season was a big reason why he garnered so much support from those who wouldn’t normally vote Democratic - I think last night he lost what was left of that support and he will not be able to regain it…many of us in that ‘gray area’ of the electorate were willing to trade 4 years of expanding social programs (another worngheaded way to spend in my opinion) if we could get an end to the drain of the wars…but now it’s just one big waste of time, money and a wasted vote
Obama has been consistent with with his stance on the wars - out of Iraq, into Afghanistan. I think there has been some belief that Afghanistan is a “good” war, to the extend that war is “good”.
Now, there has been some movement away from the notion of the good war, especially given the state that we are in with Afghanistan.
Wasted vote? No, Heck we would have been in Iran by now under McCain/Palin.
Social Programs? Well, we need them and I’m guessing that compared to the debt service, defense (including the wars) the social programs are not that much.
Frankly, 8 years of Bush, multiple years of deregulation and creation of, “too big to fail” mentalities, as well as attacks on the middle class - the foundation of our society is at risk. We are in a really deep hole and, in some cases, it gets worse before it gets better.