War to end all fiscal restraint
The U.S. seems destined to be stuck between Iraq and an even harder place as Democrats basically throw up their hands on any sort of accelerated withdrawal plan while high-level U.S. brass have begun evincing unprecedented uneasiness over the military's ability to absorb much more punishment in Iraq, which is beginning to look a lot like Afghanistan to our Soviet Union.
The cost of the invasion, which Paul Wolfowitz intially projected at about $3 billion a year for 10 years--an amount, he blithely suggested, that could easily be covered with a rebate of Iraq oil revenue--now appears headed past a previously deemed preposterous $1/2 trillion mark (and much more when future costs are factored in) as Bob Gates appears before Congress with a request for $190 billion for next year; $42 billion more than originally projected this year.
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money. Fortunately the lion's share of the tab seems destined to be absorbed by our great grand children. Would that I could pull off the same scam at a Chicago restaurant sometime: "Oh, no. Just leave the check here. There'll be a family by in 2037 to pick it up for me."
posted by Kevin Clarke @ 4:03 PM
12 Comments
Links to this post
12 Comments:
Yes, we can pass on our bill for fighting this war, but to extend the Childrens' Health Insurance Plan is too expensive? There's something wrong here!
It's too bad the SCHIP seems to have become entangled with a number of other somewhat disconnected ideological standoffs in Washington: abortion politics and socialized medicine bogeyman. God forbid that Wash could skip the opportunity for more talking point commentary on CNN and Fox and just pass a bill that would get more kids protected by some kind of health care umbrella. When it gets vetoed and fails both sides can blame the other but children will still be without health coverage.
Not only the children suffer but so have the vets when they can't get what they deserve when they come home. I'm talking about long term care, their immediate care is very good but they get to live with this the rest of their lives and congress and the administration think they take too much money over the long term.
You folks may be interested in the kind of analysis being done by the National Priorities Project. Also see this article at good old Salt of the Earth.
Kevin, why would you support a healthcare plan for children that will also fund the killing of children?
Um, I don't.
So do you support the president's veto?
Before I respond, please indicate why you believe the proposed SCHIP legislation in either House or Senate version explicitly leads to abortion funding (please no, "the language could be interpreted to . . . ") and cite an instance where the president has used abortion as a rationale for his threatened veto of this legislation. And I have a question for you: assuming there is a pro-abortion agenda lurking in SCHIP, were it removed, would you then support the current proposed expansion of the program?
Of course if abortion funding was removed, I would support it.
Thanks for the additional links Kevin. Appreciate it.
Anon, I think you can support SCHIP in good conscience. I find the argument that Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council is making that some provisions of House bill represent a back door to abortion funding to be somewhat strained, really intended to offer Bush some cover to go ahead with his veto. I think it is especially telling that he never tried to use this argument himself.
Catholic Charities USA, NETWORK, USCCB, Catholic Health Association have all backed the existing plan though Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. bishops’ conference did express some reservations. We do not live in a perfect world and Wash does business by juggling a lot of agendas and priorities. I can't accept that this important protection for children should be held hostage by abortion debate, especially when pro-life groups analysis to me does not seem persuasive. Bottom line is this stuff may get "committeed" out when a new compromise proposal (I'm presuming they're working on one) returns to the Prez's desk. Apparently the material that raised NRLC and FRC's ire is not in Senate bill.
Freebird,
Glad you found them useful. Do check out NPP's war funding ticker (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html). I find it oh so very relaxing watching all that money roll by!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home