Another $200 Billion to Iraq
Written by Sam on October 25th, 2007President Bush waited until he had vetoed a relatively inexpensive children’s health insurance bill before asking for tens of billions of dollars more for his misadventure in Iraq. The cynicism of that maneuver is only slightly less shameful than the president’s distorted priorities. Despite a pretense of fiscal prudence, Mr. Bush keeps throwing money at his war, regardless of the cost in blood, treasure or children’s health care.Mr. Bush is threatening to veto most of the 12 domestic spending bills now before Congress because Democrats want to provide $22 billion more than the $933 billion he has requested. His argument? Something about the president’s responsibility to rein in lawmakers’ “temptation to overspend.”
What’s another $200 billion? After all, the National Debt is only approaching $9 trillion. That’s just a drop in the bucket.
I think the Times makes a point that will resonate with a lot of people. Bush is vetoing all of this domestic spending while asking for tenfold in Iraq. While I am very much against SCHIP, if the government is hell bent on flushing $200 million dollars down the crapper on foreign nation building, I’d rather see that money spent on our own people rather than those half a globe away.
25
PM
That darn Constitution.
Too bad it provides for national defense, but not national health care, huh?
Besides, the war is an expense that will eventually end. Idiotic health care and social programs go on forever.
25
PM
Yeah I agree with Joel, Sam. I know you are very skeptical of the war in Iraq, but don’t give the NY Times and their ilk any credibility by pulling the Bush-hates-children card. Give me a break. Whether you like the war or not, we are at war, which, guess what! requires financing. Expanding a poor children’s health insurance program into socialized-medicine territory and bloating up spending bills is an entirely different matter.
And for the record, you know I’ve been critical of Bush in the past for not vetoing bloated spending bills because his party controlled Congress.
25
PM
joel, we will be paying veterans benefits for a very long time.
25
PM
OK. But they will live long, full lives that we pay benefits for–and die–long before major social programs go away (e.g. Social Security, the TVA, Medicare–all unconstitutional, by the way).
I assume that you are referring to disability benefits since we have not increased the base size of the military during this war.
But my point is simply that you can agree or disagree with the effort in Iraq, but it is clear that it is constitutionally legitimate. S-CHIP and other similar “our people” type programs, as much as they might be “good things” to do, are not.
At some point we, as Republicans, have to reject the thinking method of the Democrats and return to a small government thinking process (”Is this the responsibility of the government? If so, what level of government should do it?” Since we have the 10th amendment, we have a way to answer that last question.).
To be simple: HEALTH CARE IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT
25
PM
I never said health care was the responsibility of the government. I am against S-CHIP on the ground of everything you have all said.
But we have a President spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign nation while vetoing domestic social programs here. A lot of people DO have a problem with that and that makes the idea of Republicans returning to fiscal conservatism a bit hard to swallow.
My point is that we shouldn’t be putting money into EITHER of them.
25
PM
OK, Sam. Where I think I have an issue with you is that I do not see the spending on Iraq as spending on a foreign nation. I see that as spending money on an effort that insures the United States’ continued security.
What is an acceptable reason for the projection of force?
25
PM
Joel — Learn the difference between “insure” and “ensure” before you expect anyone to take your opinions about complicated foreign policy matters seriously.
25
PM
I cannot justify spending $200 billion on a bottomless money pit. I can think of other things that could be paid for with that money like paying down the $9 trillion debt we have (whatever happened to debt reduction in this country), and infrastructure improvements (the Interstate system does not seem to be getting any younger). We could also just give the people a tax cut.
25
PM
Violence is down 70% since June. Last week, not a single American soldier was killed in Anbar. U.S. Generals are considering proclaiming victory over Al-Qaida.
For once in 4+ years I see light at the end of the tunnel. If the current trend holds up then we actually could win this war. And depending on your view on the war, if we were to win the War in Iraq, would that more or less not Save the GOP for next November? (I realize RonPauloids would not agree)
I’d also add that $45 Billion of that $200 Billion is for new mine resistant vehicles that will directly save lives of soldiers and can be used in the future.
25
PM
Publius - get your head out of your you-know-what and quit bragging about your intellectual superiority, and engage in actual debate, then somebody here might take your opinions seriously.
Because heaven forbid anybody make a grammatical error. The horrors!
25
PM
Publius,
“insure: to make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions” from http://www.m-w.com.
I think I used it properly.
And this is not a complicated foreign policy matter. It is a relatively simple constitutional matter, which is why I have been posting on this thread. Ryan’s point is valid that there ARE some constitutional items that the money could alternatively be used for. But what I keep hearing and reading are complaints about Bush for spending money on Iraq when he could be spending it on “us”. Typically this has been said in context of the S-CHIP program as quoted in the original post by Sam.
25
PM
Ben, you’re right on! We’re making huge strides in the war, and the MRAPs are definitely a priority. We have to do everything that we can to fight the war to the best of our abilities. We’re the most benevolent, strongest superpower in history, and the worst thing that we can do is to convince our enemies that we’re a paper tiger.
Sure, President Bush has made his share of misjudgments in the past–not the least of them, his failure to communicate the extent and nature of the threat–but he’s been an amazing war president. Every war president has made misjudments. Yet Bush has been steadfast, though always willing to shift policy when necessary. And he truly cares about the Troops. Just watch how much he loves meeting with them, whenever he can.
Above all, the question of misjudgments (and the reason why we’ve spent so many billions) extends way beyond President Bush’s watch. Really, the issue addresses the fundamental incapacity of our government to respond to today’s decentralized threats. But we’re learning, and we have to continue doing more. Check out Max Boot’s amazing book, War Made New, on this issue.
Let’s keep the faith and win the war. Public opinion’s shifting upward, and we’re achieving some incredible military and political successes in Iraq.
26
AM
Ryan, unfortunately this money wouldn’t go to paying off of the National Debt because we are borrowing a lot of this money for Iraq too so we’re just adding to it.
I heard on the radio yesterday on my way home that we could have troops there through 2017.
30
AM
The Iraq war isn’t about national defense. This is nation building plain and simple. No real conservative can, in good conscience, support this war. Iraq is massively increasing the national debt; we will pass the cost of this misbegotten war to our children. Wasting the taxpayer’s money in a foreign country is no better than wasting money here in America. This administration has also hugely grown the federal government and military. To quote Washington “Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
30
AM
get rid of national parks, police, fire departments, public schools, transportation systems, too. Let everyone do it all on their own.
The war is making great strides? What are you smoking?
30
AM
Roger,
Thanks for your response. I’m interested in your comment that the “war is making great strides.” Towards what? If by progress you mean that security has improved; I can agree with you there. However, it seems to me that all we’re doing is propping up a house of cards that’ll collapse as soon as we leave. What I question is the overall objective. Are we now to pay for a new Iraq? If so, this is nation building on the backs of American taxpayers. I fail to see how it is in America’s interest to do for other countries what they should be doing for themselves.