Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party: Part 2 (Updated, October 4th-5th, 2008)

This is an updated and modified version of the paper I wrote on September 7th, 2008, right after the Republican Convention. This version is being written October 6th, close to a week after the vice-president's debate between Palin and Biden, similarly with the Wall Street stock market crash and the government 'bailout' which I believe was on Friday October 3rd, the day after the vice-president's debate, and then on the Friday also Palin accused Obama of 'hanging out with terrorists' which was developed further on the weekend by both Palin and McCain.

I will make my editorial comments here primarily on the state of the Republican Party after the debate, and relative to their resorting to 'trash-talking' tactics in order to try to undermine and sabotage The Democratic Party, and the polls that say that Obama and The Democratic Party are likely going to win the presidetial election in early November, and head to the White House early next year.

-- dgb, October 6th-7th, 2008.


.........................................................................

The impetus for this paper -- and what will likely become a series of papers -- came out of my Sept. 6th, 2008 preface to my 1979 Honors Thesis in psychology called -- 'Evaluation and Health'.

Here is the particular paragraph of my preface yesterday that stimulated what is about to develop here (Sept. 7th, 2008):

..............................................

In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; and H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1949, updated and republished about 6 times).

The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of what would, or what has, developed into DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa, regarding his classic introductory book to General Semantics:

"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."

See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party (Parts 1 and 2).

............................................................................

Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party (Part 2)

Madonna may have been strongly criticized for her visual political connections between Nazism and The Republican Party but sometimes I too can start to see some scary parallels between Republican right-wing extremism, nationalism, and patriotism on the one hand -- and the same type of German right wing extremism, Nationalism and Patriotism that led Hitler, Germany, and half the world off the deep end, and into destruction and self-destruction, in World War 11.

We all have to be very careful how we use the word 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' because these words can be used pathologically such as in the Hitler regime -- and in the McCarthy era -- to negatively stereotype anyone who doesn't look the same as us and/or anyone who doesn't believe the same as us -- or anyone who doesn't believe the same as the American Republican Party (even though there are strong differeces in the Republican Party itself such as between those who take a 'pro-life' vs. 'pro-choice' stance for or against abortion (the 'pro-choicers' tend to be 'muzzled'); and those of whom are 'mild', 'medium', or 'hardcore' right-wingers.) I'm a mild to medium right-winger myself but I don't support where this 'new and improved', McCain-Palin ticket is going...Nor where they are now...

Once a word is negatively stereotyped -- like 'communist' or 'socialist' or 'left wing' or 'terrorist' or 'insurgent' -- then anyone so labelled in a context/environment of fear and paranoia -- can become the subject of a civil and/or political witch hunt including degradation, humiliation, condemnation, punishment, imprisonment, torture, execution...

I see this morning -- Sunday Oct. 5th, 2008 -- that Sarah the Barracuda was 'doing her thing' again last night, pushing the fear button in the American people. Now, according to Palin -- even though this is old, old news with only an ounce of truth attached to it -- 'Obama has been hanging around with terrorists'. Is there no limit to this woman's lack of political integrity?

Ms. Palin says that 'her gloves are off'...Why? Because her ticket to stardom -- McCain and The Republican Party -- is fading fast away from her? Going down with the Wall Street stock market? Or is it her 'Republican advisors and speech coaches' pressing her to be more of 'Sarah the Barracuda' in order to reverse McCain's deep, dark slide into the abyss of yesterday's news?

Sarah Palin says that she is the new 'maverick' in town. But there is nothing new here. This is old-time 'dirty Republican politics'. When you're losing -- and your poll percentage is dropping -- hit below the belt. Sarah the Barracuda. There's nothing new about you. You are old-time Republican politics - thinly disguised behind a pretty face, a pretty smile, a wink, a 'folksy pre-canned repertoire', and a 'rope-a-dope' approach to answering hard questions.

Like...'What do you read?' I see you picked up a copy of The New York Times the other day. Wow, that is a significant development! What shall we call this? Fast evolution? Or trying to compensate for one of last week's biggest gaffes?

Unfortunately, this type of negative stereotyping and discrimination -- read: Palin associating Obama with 'terrorists' -- represents and reflects newer renditions of a number of sad chapters in American history -- slavery, The Civil War, the Ku Klux Clan, McCarthyism, all different forms of 'Nazism in an American bottle' -- but we as both individual and collective members of the human race -- and what is meant to be a 'civilian' -- must be extremely careful that we don't go back in history and repeat ourselves. This type of phenomena is based on a combination of ignorance, fear, anxiety, paranoia often masked under such American ideals as: 'freedom, God, and country', 'democracy', 'Nationalism' and 'Patriotism'.

In times of war -- or fear of war -- political divisionism can easily explode into more and more spiralling negative stereotypes, discrimination, hatred -- and violence.

It is easy to be 'nationalistic', 'patriotic', proud of America, proud of your son or daughter going off to war to fight for the cause of America -- to fight for 'freedom and democracy', and 'wanting to get the bad guys' who allegedly don't believe in these values (although they too are generally fighting in the name of freedom and God...)

That is, -- until, God forbid that it doesn't happen -- your son (or daughter) comes home in a box to put that final brutal exclamation mark on just how horrible war is and how this 'negative type of stereotyping' can be used to exploit the American people into believing that which is not true, to generate more 'fear-mongering', and to generate more excuses, justifications, rationalizations -- for starting new wars, and/or for continuing to fight a war that should never have been started in the first place.

Is there anyone today who doesn't believe that the Middle East -- and particularly Iraq -- has become a 'second Vietnam'? With a Republican stamp of approval on it! And that is the 'new and supposedly improved' version of the Republican Party; as well, of course, as the 'old and exiting' one.

McCain and Palin keep talking about cutting government spending. They ridicule Obama for what they believe he will do to 'raise taxes' in order to bring into effect his progressive ideas of: universal health care, reducing the cost of education, and so on. And yet there was Senator McCain right in the middle of the '700 billion dollar bailout' to Wall Street -- complete with an extra $150 billion of 'pork-laden fat' to appease the lobbyists and special interests groups to whom 'Christmas came early'.
This is the man who says that he is going to 'cut spending in government'.

So let's add up the $700 billion that the Senate and the House just approved for release to the Wall Street Pirates, and the $150 billion that is going to lobbyists and special-interest groups as 'sugar-coated candy' in order to get the first $700 billion to pass through the House...And let us add an approximation of the latest cost estimates on the war in Iraq...What is America spending -- about 200 million dollars a day in Iraq, a billion a month, and a total dollar figure that must be up around 2 trillion by now...It was approach a trillion dollars 2 years ago (March and October, 2006) according to two economic articles I just finished reading. (I will look for 'fresher numbers').

Gee, I think Senator Obama could have used this largely Republican 'earmarked' money to Iraq and Wall Street to give every person in America tax-paid health care, significantly subsidized post-education costs...and much, much more, probably with money to spare -- without having to dip one dollar further into any taxpayer's pocket.

So McCain and Palin still pump out the 'Adam Smith free market Capitalism' rhetoric -- get Government out of the picture and let Capitalism 'run free' -- 'no regulations on Wall Street for me'... (Remember just a few days ago Palin doing her best Muhammad Ali impression of 'rope-a-dope-and-avoid-the-question-let's-talk-about-energy-and-taxes-I-don't-want-to-talk-about-deregulation-right-now' maneuver with Joe Biden at the vice-president's debate.

All the CNN election analysts wanted Biden to keep his boxing gloves on (I, at least partly, didn't.) while he was debating with a 'woman'. So, presumably, did the Democratic Party and all of its best 'debate coaches'. One political commentator on CNN wanted Joe Biden to be 'boring, boring, boring...'. We all know what Biden is capable of doing when he lets his tongue get ahead of his brain. Nobody on the Democratic side of this ongoing boxing match wanted any Biden 'mega-gaffes' or anyone to accuse Biden of being'sexist' or 'hitting below the belt' or 'hitting with his boxing gloves off' or 'being too hard on Sarah the Barracuda'.

Meanwhile, that part of my 'politically incorrect and un-civil brain' was working fast and furiously: 'Go get her Joltin' Joe...Tear 'the Alaskan pitbull with lipstick on' into a hundred pieces. She'd do it to you if you weren't standing right there in front of her...She'd tear you to a hundred pieces if she wasn't afraid of what you might say back to her...

She did it at the Republican Convention to Obama...And last night she was doing it again to Obama...accusing him of 'hanging out with terrrorists'...Is there no political integrity in this woman's character...Sarah the Barracuda likes to launch her deepest right-wing Republican bites when there is no one right there in front of her to bite back at her...

Why didn't you accuse Obama of 'hanging out with terrorists' at the vice president's debate there, two nights ago, Governor Sarah Palin -- with 'Joltin' Joe' standing right there beside you. Were you afraid that Joltin Joe might have turned you into 'fish fry'?

Unbelievable!

'Hee, hee, hee...I'm Sarah the Barracuda...hee, hee, hee, I'm a hockey mom and I know what goes on in the hockey corners...hee, hee, hee, 'My gloves are off, hee, hee, hee, and I can tell you this...hee, hee, hee...Obama has been hanging out with terrorists...'

It is about time the American people finally start to take a closer look at the so-called 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' Republican leaders -- old and new -- who keep using nationalistic and patriotic rhetoric and slogans, over and over again, to the rhythm of 'war drums' to stir America up into an angry, discriminatory, hateful frenzy.

I like this article from The Calgary Herald written just this morning about the writer's (Robert Reminton's)editorial opinion on what happened at the Vice President's debate...

.......................................................................

Sarah Palin's candidacy is insultin,' dontcha know?
Robert Remington, Calgary Herald
Published: Sunday, October 05, 2008


Well, gosh darn it anyway. Geez, that there Sarah Palin sure can charm them Republicans. They're so gol-dang happy she didn't screw up Thursday night they actually think she won the debate against Joe Biden.

Trouble is, this ain't the Miss Alaska competition. Gee willikers, folks, this is a contest to see who's best suited to lead the U.S. in the event the president becomes incapacitated or dead. And Palin -- who prefaced one of her answers by saying "I've only been at this, what, five weeks" -- just doesn't have what it takes.

Like many American expats, I opted to forgo the Canadian leaders debate Thursday night for a front-row seat at a car crash that never happened.

Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, did not implode in her TV debate with Democrat opponent Joe Biden. Instead she proved, after weeks of tutelage, she can perform just as well as any bright high school senior, which was good enough for the idealogues at Fox News to declare her the victor.

After the embarrassment of the Katie Couric interviews, Republicans were so relieved Palin was able to string her answers together in coherent sentences they've started to actually believe John McCain didn't make a colossal blunder in choosing her. Well, sort of.

The reviews on Redstates.com are surprisingly tepid. "I honestly don't think she did that bad," read one.

The spinners in the Grand Ol' Party, the ones who drink most deeply of the party Kool Aid, were more delirious, praising Palin for rediscovering her "inner barracuda." Declared Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan: "She killed. It was her evening. She was the star."

Many average, demoralized Republican supporters saw it differently. Their attack dog in designer glasses was more like a well-trained puppy. Said one Republican blogger from the Midwest: "She won on style, he won on substance."

Republican strategists were quick to paint Biden as the ultimate slick politician and Palin as the candidate of the people. They, and Palin, accused Biden of dwelling in the past by focusing on the record of George W. Bush and linking McCain to it.

These are the same people who look back decades to the the administrations of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter as the root of America's current economic mess. The hypocrisy is stunning.

In a strained attempt to misdirect blame for the current financial mess, they cite the Community Reinvestment Act -- a law passed in 1977 to eradicate discrimination in lending in poor neighbourhoods -- as the culprit. This is laughable. The CRA covered commercial banks and savings and loans institutions, not the loosely regulated non-bank mortgage companies that are largely responsible for the sub-prime mortgage mess. But, then, blaming poor blacks and immigrants has always been a favoured tactic of cold-hearted, fear-mongering U.S. conservative idealogues.

Expectations of Palin were so low all she had to do was show up and run out the clock without fumbling the ball. That she did, buying some time for McCain. He needed the U.S. Congress to pass a $700 billion economic rescue plan, which it did on Friday, to salvage his sputtering campaign.

...............................................................

Wow, and I thought they bred only 'hard, right wing Conservatives' in Calgary...

Obviously, the results of the vice-president's debate were not good enough to restore the Republican's 'sputtering campaign'...Because Sarah the Barracuda was out there last night -- speaking like she did at The Republican Party -- with the 'gloves off'...

Don't fall for the 'Republican rhetorical, sophist dirt', America. Don't fall for it. What Palin said last night about Obama shows that Palin's mentality is closer to 'The National Enquiry' than it is to 'The New York Times'.

Remember, this is the woman who told you: I know American foreign policy because I can see Russia from my home in Alaska!; and remember, this is the woman who did not know any other Supreme Court decision other than the Roe vs. Wade decision. (Neither do I for that matter, but I am not trying to be Vice President of the United States and I know I read a lot more than she does...)

Yes, indeed, Sarah the Barracuda...able to dodge questions faster and better than our American troops can dodge bullets and bombs in Iraq...

But there is no 'quit' is Sarah the Barracuda...as she asks the American people rhetorically: What are we going to do in Iraq? Raise a white flag?

That a girl, Sarah! Show the American people your true American spirit! Your 'barracuda bite'! It is better to win a war -- and an election, of course -- than than it is to get out of a war that America should never have been in. In the words of Bob Dylan -- Governor Palin, must have been all those hunting escapades in Alaska because you are a true 'Master of War'!

Let us quickly review the evidence -- and the lack of it -- again:

1. There were no 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq;
2. Bin Laden was not in Iraq;
3. The United Nations didn't agree with America invading Iraq;
4. There is still no known connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
5. The Republican Party -- old and new -- supported Bush's philosophy of 'American Unilateralism'.
6. The Republican Party -- old and new -- didn't care which allies did or didn't go along with America into Iraq.
7. The Republican Party -- old and new -- supported the idea of a 'Coalition Of the Willing'...
8. The Republican Party -- old and new -- thumbed up its collective nose at The United Nations and allies alike because America was strong enough to go it alone...
9. Now five former U.S. secretaries of state agree that the next president should work to better engage America in the global community at a televised panel in Lisner Auditorium on Monday afternoon.
10. Colin Powell responded first by saying that in his first duty as commander in chief, the president must “restore a sense of confidence in the U.S.”

“We must let friends and allies around the world know we are supporting their work in unison,” said Powell, who served as secretary of state from 2001 to 2005 under President George W. Bush. He said that, as Americans, we “should have confidence in ourselves and in the rest of the world” and that we must convey this strong image to the global community, a large part of which currently views America less than favorably because of interventionist policies abroad.


............................................................................

From Wikipedia on the internet...

U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, has referred to the coalition formed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the acronym COW, expressing his concern that the United States was being "milked" as a "cash cow." A Canadian MP, Carolyn Parrish, referred to the "Coalition of the Willing" as the "Coalition of the Idiots". She was reprimanded for these comments, and was eventually removed from the Liberal Party of Canada caucus following a long-standing dispute with Prime Minister Paul Martin over policy.

Michael Moore devoted one sub-chapter to the Coalition in his book Dude, Where's My Country?. He remarked that most countries in the Coalition did not really help and that several had no army. He dubbed it "The Coalition of the Coerced, Bribed, and Intimidated".

[edit] References
^ Ibiblio.org (originally official White House release), Interview with the President by Sam Donaldson ABC, June 5, 1994.
^ "Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'". CNN (2002-11-20).
^ "Coalition Members". The White House (2003-03-27).
^ "Coalition Members". The White House (2003-03-27).
^ "What can Eritrea possibly do to help the US in Iraq?". Guardian Unlimited (2003-03-20).
^ "Coalition of the billing -- or unwilling?". Salon.com (2003-12-03).
^ http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10
^ Iraq War: U.S. & Coalition - Special Reports from CNN.com

......................................................................

Yes, Senator McCain, there will be no 'white flags' for you...You would sooner lose a million American soldiers than lose a war...you and Sarah the Barracuda...

How about trying this out for size: How about simply leaving a war that you should never have started in the first place. If the justification for the war in Iraq was ever put before the United States Supreme Court, you and the soon-to-be departing Republican regime which you so badly want to distance yourself from (but not bad enough to distance yourself from either or both: 1. the 'War in Iraq'; and/or 2.'regulations on Wall Street' -- would surely lose. Indeed, if you were in the private sector, you would probably be in jail. (And like Conrad Black and the righteous hypocrisy tied up with his trial -- there would be a lot of people on Wall Street -- and overseeing Wall Street -- who would be/should be in jail as well. McCain would certainly fire the man who he would not 'regulate' from the Senate and/or the White House.

Anyways, since there were many, many others involved in both pathological processes, both the 'American coalition of those willing to invade Iraq', and those 'Pirates on Wall Street aiming to steal from Main Street', not to mention the rich CEOs that are now going to make extra millions and millions from 'their mistakes' and 'The Bailout on Wall Street'...I cannot blame you alone, Senator McCain. There is much too much blame to go around...

........................................................................


Now to be sure, Barack Obama's 'rose has at least partly come off the bloom' as well. Nobody can keep giving perfect speeches (nor write perfect essays), not to mention the fact that there is more to being American President than delivering fine speeches...And in fairness, Barack Obama was/is partly tied to the 'bailout on Wall Street' as well. We will all await to see the consequences. Personally, I don't like it. Nor do I like the extra $150 billion going to lobbyists and special interest groups.

But sorry Govenor Sarah Palin, but in my mind, character-wise, you are no Barack Obama. Whether your speeches, interviews or debates are 'filtered' or 'not filtered' -- your 'depth of character' comes across as being about as strong and as deep as a melting, global-warming, Alaskan iceflow -- with or without the 'man-made intrusions' that may be causing it.

Sarah Palin, when Joe Biden talks about his family I know that he feels what he is saying to the depth of his heart. Rightly or wrongly, when you talk about your family, all I can think about is -- 'political expedience and manipulation'.


Sing along...The Republican Anthem....below

And have a good day!

-- dgb, Sat. October 4th-5th, 2008


..................................................................

Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on generals, let's move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those reds —
The only good commie is the one who's dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Huh!

Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

-- Country Joe and The Fish (I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die Rag)

...............................................................................

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 9, 1971
Reargued October 11, 1972
Decided January 22, 1973

Full case name: Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County
Citations: 410 U.S. 113 (see more...); 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159
Prior history: Judgment for plaintiffs, injunction denied, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970); probable jurisdiction noted, 402 U.S. 941 (1971); set for reargument, 408 U.S. 919 (1972)
Subsequent history: Rehearing denied, 410 U.S. 959 (1973)
Argument: Oral argument

Holding
Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority by: Blackmun
Joined by: Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence by: Burger
Concurrence by: Douglas
Concurrence by: Stewart
Dissent by: White
Joined by: Rehnquist
Dissent by: Rehnquist

Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1191–94, 1196

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a controversial United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.[2]

Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’" The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability usually occurs at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]

The Roe v. Wade decision prompted national debate that continues today. Debated subjects include whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into pro-Roe (mostly pro-choice) and anti-Roe (mostly pro-life) camps, and inspiring grassroots activism on both sides.


........................................................................

Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion
Estimates vary, but all agree price is far higher than initially expected

Jacob Silberberg / AP file
The economic ramifications are rarely included in the debate over whether to go to war, although some economists argue it is quite possible and useful to assess potential costs and benefits.

NBC NEWS EXCLUSIVE


By Martin Wolk
Chief economics correspondent
MSNBC
updated 8:25 p.m. ET, Fri., March. 17, 2006


Martin Wolk
Chief economics correspondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Profile
• E-mail


One thing is certain about the Iraq war: It has cost a lot more than advertised. In fact, the tab grows by at least $200 million each and every day.

In the months leading up to the launch of the war three years ago, few Bush administration officials were willing to comment publicly on the potential costs to the United States. After all, no cost would have been too high if the United States faced an imminent threat from an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, the war's stated justification.

In fact, the economic ramifications are rarely included in the debate over whether to go to war, although some economists argue it is quite possible and useful to assess potential costs and benefits.

In any event, most estimates put forward by White House officials in 2002 and 2003 were relatively low compared with the nation's gross domestic product, the size of the federal budget or the cost of past wars.

White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was the exception to the rule, offering an "upper bound" estimate of $100 billion to $200 billion in a September 2002 interview with The Wall Street Journal. That figure raised eyebrows at the time, although Lindsey argued the cost was small, adding, "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.”

U.S. direct spending on the war in Iraq already has surpassed the upper bound of Lindsey's upper bound, and most economists attribute billions more in indirect costs to the war effort. Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.

Back in 2002, the White House was quick to distance itself from Lindsey's view. Mitch Daniels, director of the White House budget office, quickly called the estimate "very, very high." Lindsey himself was dismissed in a shake-up of the White House economic team later that year, and in January 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with "a number that's something under $50 billion." He and other officials expressed optimism that Iraq itself would help shoulder the cost once the world market was reopened to its rich supply of oil.

Those early estimates struck some economists as unrealistically low. William Nordhaus, a Yale economist who published perhaps the most extensive independent estimate of the potential costs before the war began, suggested a war and occupation could cost anywhere from $100 billion to $1.9 trillion in 2002 dollars, depending on the difficulty of the conflict, the length of occupation and the impact on oil costs.

The most current estimates of the war's cost generally start with figures from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which as of January 2006 counted $323 billion in expenditures for the war on terrorism, including military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just this week the House approved another $68 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the total allocated to date to about $400 billion. The Pentagon is spending about $6 billion a month on the war in Iraq, or about $200 million a day, according to the CBO. That is about the same as the gross domestic product of Nigeria.

Scott Wallsten, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, put the direct cost to the United States at $212 billion as of last September and estimates a "global cost" of $500 billion to date with another $500 billion possible, with most of the total borne by the United States.

CONTINUED : The $2 trillion estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.............................................................................

The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
Sunday, March 9, 2008; B01



There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.

The end result of all this wishful thinking? As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Iraq is not only the second longest war in U.S. history (after Vietnam), it is also the second most costly -- surpassed only by World War II.

Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.

But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.

But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.

President Bush tried to sell the American people on the idea that we could have a war with little or no economic sacrifice. Even after the United States went to war, Bush and Congress cut taxes, especially on the rich -- even though the United States already had a massive deficit. So the war had to be funded by more borrowing. By the end of the Bush administration, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cumulative interest on the increased borrowing used to fund them, will have added about $1 trillion to the national debt.

The long-term burden of paying for the conflicts will curtail the country's ability to tackle other urgent problems, no matter who wins the presidency in November. Our vast and growing indebtedness inevitably makes it harder to afford new health-care plans, make large-scale repairs to crumbling roads and bridges, or build better-equipped schools. Already, the escalating cost of the wars has crowded out spending on virtually all other discretionary federal programs, including the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and federal aid to states and cities, all of which have been scaled back significantly since the invasion of Iraq.

To make matters worse, the U.S. economy is facing a recession. But our ability to implement a truly effective economic-stimulus package is crimped by expenditures of close to $200 billion on the two wars this year alone and by a skyrocketing national debt.

The United States is a rich and strong country, but even rich and strong countries squander trillions of dollars at their peril. Think what a difference $3 trillion could make for so many of the United States' -- or the world's -- problems. We could have had a Marshall Plan to help desperately poor countries, winning the hearts and maybe the minds of Muslim nations now gripped by anti-Americanism. In a world with millions of illiterate children, we could have achieved literacy for all -- for less than the price of a month's combat in Iraq. We worry about China's growing influence in Africa, but the upfront cost of a month of fighting in Iraq would pay for more than doubling our annual current aid spending on Africa.

Closer to home, we could have funded countless schools to give children locked in the underclass a shot at decent lives. Or we could have tackled the massive problem of Social Security, which Bush began his second term hoping to address; for far, far less than the cost of the war, we could have ensured the solvency of Social Security for the next half a century or more.

Economists used to think that wars were good for the economy, a notion born out of memories of how the massive spending of World War II helped bring the United States and the world out of the Great Depression. But we now know far better ways to stimulate an economy -- ways that quickly improve citizens' well-being and lay the foundations for future growth. But money spent paying Nepalese workers in Iraq (or even Iraqi ones) doesn't stimulate the U.S. economy the way that money spent at home would -- and it certainly doesn't provide the basis for long-term growth the way investments in research, education or infrastructure would.

Another worry: This war has been particularly hard on the economy because it led to a spike in oil prices. Before the 2003 invasion, oil cost less than $25 a barrel, and futures markets expected it to remain around there. (Yes, China and India were growing by leaps and bounds, but cheap supplies from the Middle East were expected to meet their demands.) The war changed that equation, and oil prices recently topped $100 per barrel.

While Washington has been spending well beyond its means, others have been saving -- including the oil-rich countries that, like the oil companies, have been among the few winners of this war. No wonder, then, that China, Singapore and many Persian Gulf emirates have become lenders of last resort for troubled Wall Street banks, plowing in billions of dollars to shore up Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and other firms that burned their fingers on subprime mortgages. How long will it be before the huge sovereign wealth funds controlled by these countries begin buying up large shares of other U.S. assets?

The Bush team, then, is not merely handing over the war to the next administration; it is also bequeathing deep economic problems that have been seriously exacerbated by reckless war financing. We face an economic downturn that's likely to be the worst in more than a quarter-century.

Until recently, many marveled at the way the United States could spend hundreds of billions of dollars on oil and blow through hundreds of billions more in Iraq with what seemed to be strikingly little short-run impact on the economy. But there's no great mystery here. The economy's weaknesses were concealed by the Federal Reserve, which pumped in liquidity, and by regulators that looked away as loans were handed out well beyond borrowers' ability to repay them. Meanwhile, banks and credit-rating agencies pretended that financial alchemy could convert bad mortgages into AAA assets, and the Fed looked the other way as the U.S. household-savings rate plummeted to zero.

It's a bleak picture. The total loss from this economic downturn -- measured by the disparity between the economy's actual output and its potential output -- is likely to be the greatest since the Great Depression. That total, itself well in excess of $1 trillion, is not included in our estimated $3 trillion cost of the war.

Others will have to work out the geopolitics, but the economics here are clear. Ending the war, or at least moving rapidly to wind it down, would yield major economic dividends.

As we head toward November, opinion polls say that voters' main worry is now the economy, not the war. But there's no way to disentangle the two. The United States will be paying the price of Iraq for decades to come. The price tag will be all the greater because we tried to ignore the laws of economics -- and the cost will grow the longer we remain.

linda_bilmes@harvard.edu

jes322@columbia.edu

Linda J. Bilmes, a former chief financial officer at the Commerce Department, teaches at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University, served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton. They are co-authors of "The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.

....................................................................