The current debate about health care reform seems to have moved from lies and scare tactics (finally) to concerns about cost. How, conservatives ask, are we going to pay for this project? This is a pertinent question, since the current legislation calls for $900 billion over a ten-year period. Well, I have a suggestion: Let's cut back on war.
Without getting into whether the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were warranted or perceived to be winnable, let's just look at the numbers involved. A Los Angeles Times article from March 2003 describes the contractor feeding frenzy regarding federal contracts to rebuild Iraq. Right off the bat, these were offered as "cost-plus-fee" meaning, it seems, that the sky was the limit on profit margins. Bidding was done in secret, with most bidders enjoying close ties to the Republicans and the Bush White House.
An editorial in our local paper in August of 2006 speaks to the skyrocketing bills associated with the Iraq war. The Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction had just released a report, which featured Rep. Henry Waxman commenting, "We've squandered $50 billion". Equipment and weapons disappeared and meals never materialized ($88 million down the tubes right there) as Bechtel, Halliburton and their subsidiaries enjoyed feeding at the public trough.
Stuart Bowen Jr.'s 2008 audit brought even more good news: $100 billion had been spent on reconstruction efforts in Iraq, many of them of dubious quality. Some were never started, many more were terminated early. The money, apparently, was still paid despite the lack of results.
The National Priorities Project presents the grand total so far: $915.1 billion spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a request for $130 billion more pending in the 2010 federal budget. Let's see...over $900 spent in eight years, so the same amount spent over ten should be a breeze!
I know that war will always be with us, unfortunately. If we had saved only half the cost of these two conflicts over the past eight years, however, we would not be worrying about how to pay for health care reform now. This year, I suggest that we fund health care and use whatever is left over for war. Sounds like a plan.
Without getting into whether the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were warranted or perceived to be winnable, let's just look at the numbers involved. A Los Angeles Times article from March 2003 describes the contractor feeding frenzy regarding federal contracts to rebuild Iraq. Right off the bat, these were offered as "cost-plus-fee" meaning, it seems, that the sky was the limit on profit margins. Bidding was done in secret, with most bidders enjoying close ties to the Republicans and the Bush White House.
An editorial in our local paper in August of 2006 speaks to the skyrocketing bills associated with the Iraq war. The Special Inspector for Iraq Reconstruction had just released a report, which featured Rep. Henry Waxman commenting, "We've squandered $50 billion". Equipment and weapons disappeared and meals never materialized ($88 million down the tubes right there) as Bechtel, Halliburton and their subsidiaries enjoyed feeding at the public trough.
Stuart Bowen Jr.'s 2008 audit brought even more good news: $100 billion had been spent on reconstruction efforts in Iraq, many of them of dubious quality. Some were never started, many more were terminated early. The money, apparently, was still paid despite the lack of results.
The National Priorities Project presents the grand total so far: $915.1 billion spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a request for $130 billion more pending in the 2010 federal budget. Let's see...over $900 spent in eight years, so the same amount spent over ten should be a breeze!
I know that war will always be with us, unfortunately. If we had saved only half the cost of these two conflicts over the past eight years, however, we would not be worrying about how to pay for health care reform now. This year, I suggest that we fund health care and use whatever is left over for war. Sounds like a plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment