Just read this shocking figure in the Seattle Times (an LA Times story. I can only begin to imagine what could be done with an expenditure of
a hundred thousand dollars a minute! on a project like universal health care or renewable energy sources or, or, or.
More details on the administration's BS about how the war wouldn't cost much and wouldn't last long in an excellent earlier post from pdq here but his/her story was buried so far down in the post that I was afraid folks wouldn't get to the details.
Some clips below.
The administration is asking for $70 billion over and above what's in the regular budget. This spending ...
would push the price tag for combat and nation-building since Sept. 11, 2001, to nearly a half-trillion dollars, approaching the inflation-adjusted cost of the 13-year Vietnam War.
... The higher costs are occurring even as the Pentagon is planning to reduce troop levels in Iraq in coming months, reflecting the continuing wear and damage to military equipment in desert combat, the need to upgrade protection for U.S. troops and the effort to train and equip Iraqi forces.
No large-scale reconstruction projects are included in the spending, officials said.
Ravage and leave. Who cares... they're only Iraqis.
Currently, the Defense Department says it is spending about $4.5 billion a month on the conflict in Iraq, or about $100,000 per minute.
Current spending in Afghanistan is about $800 million a month, or about $18,000 per minute.
The war-spending plans were detailed in a conference call with reporters held by Joel Kaplan, a deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Kaplan said the war-budget request would pay for military operations, training soldiers and policemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, repairing and replacing equipment, and running U.S. embassies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kaplan said the money also would go toward buying new equipment to help protect U.S. troops from roadside bombs, the deadliest weapon of insurgents.
The $70 billion the administration plans to seek would be added to $50 billion approved by Congress in December as an advance on 2006 expenses, making this year the most expensive yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In addition to the $70 billion for the remainder of 2006, Kaplan estimated an "emergency allowance" of $50 billion would be required as a "bridge fund" for war expenses anticipated in 2007.
Asked whether he believes that number is too low, given the $120 billion required for 2006, Kaplan said it was simply a "plug number" not intended to approximate the final need.
Doesn't THAT instill confidence ! How do we get out of this mess??
The article concludes by suggesting that the budget bill will pass easily because "nobody wants to vote against the troops."