Tuesday, May 10, 2005

$300 Billion Here, $300 Billion There...Pretty Soon You're Talking About Real Money

With the cost of the Iraq imbroglio now hovering around $300 billion, let us take a stroll down memory lane to see what was being said before the war started.

Larry Lindsey, then head of the Council of Economic Advisors, estimated that the war could cost between $100-200 billion. Lindsey was ultimately fired for those remarks and OMB Director, and current Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, said Lindey's estimate was "very, very high," and tossed out a figure of between $30-60 billion. (Mitch is currently working to balance the budget here in Hoosierland. Hope he has better success.)

When asked how much the Pentagon might need to effectively wage war against Iraq, Don Rumsfeld said, the "Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question."

Paul Wolfowitz, who is such a numbers genius that he now heads the World Bank, told Congress Iraq's oil revenue would be about $12-15 billion in 2004 and $19 billion in 2005, which was merely a fraction of the $100 billion dollars he was predicting before the war. Wolfie said, "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," which explains why American taxpayers are rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq while I'm paying $2.30 for a gallon of gas.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Darrell!

What's particularly sad here is the fact that we have no meaningful, representative voice that speaks for us on this matter of war financing. The Democratic Party, among it's many and very profound weaknesses, has done nothing more than rubber stamp the present aggression. Frankly, I feel completely disenfranchised yet I must pay handsomely for this outrage. There would seem to be an unexpected benefit from all such frustrations, however: One is forced back more and more on the crucified Christ in such instances. All expectations of anything more from history than the most profound ambivalence intersect there. Thanks be to God.

Yours In The Holy Trinity,

John Lowell

12:56 PM  
Blogger Mark Ivey said...

Howdy Darrell,

Love your writing. Keep up the good work. Looks like Peter Brimelow has noticed you, and I concur with him about the quality of the writing here. Carry on, sir. I'm proud to carry my link to you. We may be baptists and presbyterians repectively, but we're both on the same side of the arguments that matter.

Take Care,
Mark Godfrey
www.markgodfrey.com
www.kinism.net

3:32 PM  
Blogger Darrell said...

Thank you for the kind words, Mark. If there is any interesting and well-written commentary going on out there, it is coming from the likes of you and Degenhart. And, frankly, I'm not usually welcomed by my baptist brethren when I start talking about Iraq, immigration, or a 100 other things.

John, I think it was Buchanan who spoke of the two-parties as "wings on the same bird of prey." Of course, he still puts an elephant suit on come election day, doesn't he?

In truth, on most of the issues that matter, there is little in the way of partisan disagreement. We are, in fact, governned by an oligarchy, and the two-party facade merely shields us from that truth.

7:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home