Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
gospelnous
bleport
halldg
jack3566
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
JonFiscal Conservatives can’t be Pro-war!
With the Republican Party so attached to the concept of the “War on Terror,” their supposed crusade against the “biggest evil of our time,” one important thing is forgotten. Conservatives get their name mostly from being fiscally conservative, meaning low taxes, but more importantly, low spending. This is a major reason why conservatives in the past have opposed war and costly foreign policy. Which brings us to a more important question, are pro-war Republicans even conservatives at all?
The cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will come to about $173 billion this fiscal year. Next fiscal year, this is estimated to rise to about $195 billion, even as troop levels are expected to decrease, due to research and equipment needs. And note that these estimates do not take into account any military action in Iran and elsewhere, which all these “conservatives” are so eager to get involved in. These military operations would easily push this military spending up over $200 billion a year, probably closer to $300 billion if the war spreads to a third nation.
All this spending and are we even any safer than we were before? Afghanistan was initially a success, but there is still instability from rebels who come in and out from the mountains separating the nation from Pakistan. A long rebuilding and nation building effort seems to be underway there, just like Iraq. Even liberals are conceding that a long presence is needed there. Some have gone farther, like Sen. Barack Obama, who has suggested military action in Pakistan, even against the will of the government there (the count is up to 4 nations now we are at war with, or have threatened to be). Anyone using their head knows that U.S. military action there will spark backlash towards us, and Musharraf and will make us less safe.
According to Winslow T. Wheeler, a former Republican congressional budget aide, with CIA and embassy costs added, the war in Iraq will cost the American tax payers about $12 billion a month. In 2006 Congress estimated the war cost around $2 billion a week, and it is sure to be more now. Mind you, the government is also borrowing a lot of the money to pay for military operations and government functions.
In 2004 the two wars cost about $94 billion. In 2005 that number rose to about $108 billion, and last year the war cost $122 billion, a steady increase of spending that we are forced to pay. The White House has been going to Congress to get the new funding needed for these conflicts. Despite having a large number of critics, they continue to get the money they need, or else the opponents face accusations of not caring about the troops. Soon the war will pass the $600 billion mark, more than Korea and almost as much as Vietnam.
The funding bill last month was passed, as both Republicans and Democrats worked to avoid government shutdown. With the passage of the bill, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will get further funding, and the government is set to keep running for a couple months ahead. October 1st started this fiscal year, and none of the other fgunding bills had been signed.
The Bush administration took a strict stance against Democrats who wanted to add more money for domestic programs, adding up to about $23 billion. But compared the nearly $200 billion being asked for Iraq, is that even a just position? As one Democratic lawmaker said:
“The president would have the country believe that we … are pouring money into the domestic budget, I would suggest that restoring $16 billion in presidential cuts is mighty small potatoes compared to the $200 billion he wants us to spend in Iraq.“
The federal debt limit was increased by another $850 billion, now maxed at $9.815 trillion. These moves also secured more money for the war in Iraq. The senate voted 94-1 to pass the stopgap spending bill, the only “no” was Democratic senator Russ Feingold. In the house the bill passed 404-14. 13 Democrats, all anti-war members, voted against it. One single Republican in all of Congress voted against the measure, anti-war fiscal conservative Ron Paul.
We are now spending more money on needless war, and raising the debt limit of our federal government to new shameless heights. And the Republican Party, supposedly the party of smaller government and less spending, has almost unanimously supported it all except for congressman Paul. There are more Democrats voting against insane spending than there are Republicans, for a different reason, but it is reality nonetheless.
This issue got a bit of publicity from Paul during last nights CNBC debate, where he noted that our military costs in total overseas (everywhere) is about $1 trillion a year, and that we are also in debt to foreigners for about $2.7 trillion.
In the last eight years, Republicans have adopted a Democratic foreign policy, and Democratic spending habits. The answer to the initial question posed in first paragraph is: NO!! Real conservatives don’t advocate costly war where our defense isn’t threatened. You hear the Republican candidates take shots at Hillary’s healthcare plan, which would cost about $110 billion per year, yet they don’t take a second thought about the war, which will now cost TWICE that amount every year.
I’m not a fan of huge nationalized healthcare spending, but if we are going to be throwing $200 billion a year down the drain, we might as well take care of our prosperity and well being at home, shouldn’t we? Instead we are using a foreign policy forged after World War I to revamp the Middle East. It isn’t working, it won’t work anytime soon. But don’t expect current Republicans to give it up anytime soon either.
Good column! Even as the Democrats say we cannot afford tax cuts and the Bush deficit proves it, it is clear that the cost of the Iraq War is the cause of the federal deficit.
Supply-side says that if spending is held steady, that tax cuts can pay for themselves by generating more economic activity which can then be taxed. It may not be completely true, but the federal government has taken in record amounts of money in recent years, enough to pay for all domestic programs and legitimate defense. But the Iraq war is bankrupting us.
yay!
I’ve been cringing at the abrogation of the term “conservative” since Reagan stole it. That was when the absurd castigation of “tax-and-spend” Democrats by “borrow-and-spend” Republicans began. That was based on a fundamental distortion of conservative principles. Low taxes became the goal, when in fact they are merely a side-effect of true conservatism. Small government is the goal, because that makes us freer. Low taxes are a side benefit because small governments cost less to run. People who want big-government foreign and/or domestic policy with small-government tax rates are not conservatives, they are just stupid and greedy.
I agree with the author on domestic programs; I’d prefer a small government, but if I’m to be stuck with a big one, I’d rather it power the economic engine of the middle class than further enrich the ultra-wealthy.
I’ve abondoned the “liberal-conservative” political spectrum, as it has become meaningless over the past few decades. I now prefer the “fantasy-reality” spectrum. George W. Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton cohabit nicely on the extreme fantasy end of this spectrum. Ron Paul is about the only national politician I can think of on the reality end, though he is visited periodically by his Democratic doppelganger, Mike Gravel.
We don’t just need to get out of Iraq; we need to abandon our 700+ military bases in 60+ countries.
This is what Ron Paul has been saying for years now.
If you like this column, then please help out:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
First of all, you don’t understand the Republican position…their embrace of ’supply side economics’, that began in the Reagan…lowering taxes increases economic growth, which increases the tax revenue because of all the growth.
This is the Republican version of the “free lunch”…that you can have tax cuts AND government spending. According to the latest economic reports from the Bush2 Administration, even with the Iraq War, we are growing our way to a balanced budget.
It’s very complicated, but it seems that budget deficits are NECESSARY to finance the trade deficits…all that cheap Chinese junk that lines the shelves or Walmart, and those electronic techno-gadgets that Americans rely on wouldn’t be so cheap without budget deficits to finance them.
What happens is this: China accepts US dollars (paper promises to pay) in trade of real goods, and then what are they supposed to do with all these dollars? Answer: lend them back to us to finance our federal budget deficits! With interest, of course. Which we pay with more dollars.
The US economy enjoys the benefit of the US dollar as reserve currency for the world economy, which makes the whole ponzi scheme possible. Of course, the high dollar makes US hard goods too expensive for anyone to buy—that is IF the US economy actually produced anything that anyone needed, which it doesn’t.
In the end, your argument is irrelevant, because it based on what the “Conservatives” feel is backwards economics….it’s all monetary policy, the US economy is a Keynesian perpetual motion machine, that you can’t comprehend.
The main thing wrong with the Republicans is that this scheme generates riches for some, but drags most of the middle class down. The big beneficiaries are the CEO classes, who earn huge bonuses for downsizing their companies, and “outsourcing” manufacture and development to Asia. And of course, the hedge fund managers, and Wall Street Investment bankers who profit from the whole mess.
What we need to do is get rid of “free market” economics…”free market” capitalism doesn’t work for the majority, it just creates plutocracy, and ultimately financial collapse.
props (as the kids say) to lamont dumont: “I’ve been cringing at the abrogation of the term “conservative” since Reagan stole it.” i have never, ever understood why “conservatives” love reagan, a big spending foreign adventurer who shamed the name of this country (cakes and bibles to the iranian leadership?).
How much of the money for the War On Iraq (to call it by its right name) is borrowed, and on what terms is it borrowed. Oh, and from whom was it borrowed? And what hope do we have of paying it back? Will it require austerity measures to avoid losing our credit rating.
Now, as I remember the history I’ve perused, aggressive epiditionary war which result in no real gains on borrowed money is a State-breaker.
Joe Populist, doesn’t buying in to all that spin make you dizzy? The real numbers from the 80’s tell a much different story. (Figures can’t lie, but liars can figure.) George HW Bush was right when he said Reagan planned to balance the budget with “blue smoke & mirrors”. He shamed himself when he bought in to it just for a seat at the table. The lust for power makes people do bad things sometimes.
The reality is that Reagan’s tax cuts, while they benefitted the ultra-wealthy in a short-sighted fashion, did not jump-start the economic engine that is the middle class. We were deeper in the hole in 1989 than we were in 1981. The only difference was that the stock market was doing better. That was because oil prices came down early in his administration, something he had nothing to do with. The market made that happen because people began to use energy more efficiently. If Reagan hadn’t blown us off of that track, just think how much better off we’d be today.
Reagan was the master of “say one thing and do the opposite” and never got caught by the populace at large. That how he was able to very quietly enact the largest tax increase in US history just one year after making a huge splash with the largest tax cut in US history. The cut made a big noise because he went after witholding rates, something we see every time we get a paycheck. He snuck the increase in by going after niche taxes, excise taxes, and adding euphemistically named “user fees” (a tax by any other name) when none had existed before. Oh, by the way, while the ultra-wealthy were the greatest beneficiaries of the cut, guess who paid for the increase? (Hint, George W Bush didn’t have to start buying lower-grade coke as a result.) Federal revenues didn’t go up because of the myth of supply-side economics, they went up because REAGAN RAISED TAXES, more than he cut them. Even with that, he still spent like a drunken sailor and left us with more debt than he started.
Yes, some debt is necessary, but an economic model that relies primarily on government debt and consumer spending is unsustainable, period. At some point you’ll have to cut up the credit cards and tighten your belt. There goes your economic expansion. Anyone who tells you that you can just keep paying off the debt with more debt and deflated dollars is lying. It’s not just a law of economics, it’s a fundamental law of physics. There ain’t no free lunch. Instead of nodding you head and getting sucked into that lovely lie, ask yourself “how does it benefit this guy if I believe his lie?”
The majority of the federal debt was accumulated in the last 26 years by 3 presidents, 2 of them named Bush.
The last (real) Republican president was a warrior who evolved into a pacifist named Eisenhower. You may have heard of him. We warned us that we would come to no good end lest we dealt sternly with something he named the “military-industrial complex”. Too many of us ignored him, to the peril of what was once our republic.