Wash. Post claimed McCain "most aggressive" of the three major candidates in "identifying ways to reduce spending," ignoring cost of Iraq policy
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article claimed that "[o]f the three candidates, budget analysts said [Sen. John] McCain has been most aggressive at identifying ways to reduce spending." While the article noted that "McCain's proposals come nowhere near generating the sums necessary to meet the costs," it did not note that, in addition to his proposals to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, those "costs" include the war in Iraq, for which, unlike Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, McCain does not support a timetable for withdrawal.
A March 28 Washington Post article, headlined "As Candidates Warm to Bush Tax Cuts, Economists Warn of Long-Term Effects," claimed that "[o]f the three candidates, budget analysts said [Sen. John] McCain has been most aggressive at identifying ways to reduce spending" and quoted McCain's senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin as saying, "We have to cut spending everywhere." But though the article, by staff writer Lori Montgomery, reported that "McCain's proposals come nowhere near generating the sums necessary to meet the costs," it did not note that, in addition to his proposals to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent, those "costs" include the war in Iraq. In contrast to Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, McCain does not support a timetable to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. Indeed, on his campaign website, McCain states: "Ultimately, Iraq's future lies in the hands of its people, government, and armed forces, and strengthening them is an essential requirement for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Until Iraqi forces are ready, however, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would condemn Iraq to civil war and intervention by its neighbors and energize al Qaeda and other jihadists across the globe."
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis detailed by director Peter Orszag during his October 24, 2007, testimony before the House Committee on the Budget, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is projected at $1.055 trillion for 2008-2017. The projections are based on a scenario in which "the number of personnel deployed to Iraq and other locations associated with the war on terrorism would decline ... from an average of about 200,000 in fiscal year 2008 to 75,000 by the start of fiscal year 2013 and then remain at that level through 2017." Orszag also asserted that the wars would cost $570 billion through 2017 if "the number of personnel deployed on the ground for the war on terrorism would be reduced from an average of about 200,000 in fiscal year 2008 to 30,000 by the beginning of fiscal year 2010 and then remain at that level through 2017." The CBO analysis included the cost of "military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities associated with the war on terrorism, as well as for related costs incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for medical care, disability compensation, and survivors' benefits."
Montgomery provided no details on how McCain has "identif[ied] ways to reduce spending" or specific budget cuts he is proposing to offset the costs of his tax and Iraq policies.
From Montgomery's March 28 Washington Post article:
Because the tax cuts were projected to yield giant budget deficits, they were written to expire in 2010. Bush and other Republicans, including McCain, want to make them permanent, arguing that the specter of higher taxes in 2011 is adding uncertainty to and weakening today's economy. That move that would deprive the treasury of $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Democrats, including Clinton and Obama, have said they want to keep the social-relief provisions, as well as income tax cuts for households making less than $250,000 a year, to help strengthen the middle class. By taking tax cuts away from the rich, the candidates suggest that they will generate cash that could be spent elsewhere.
But that is not technically true. The middle-class tax cuts also reduce revenue -- by about $800 billion over the next decade, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.
"They said President Bush was fiscally irresponsible for enacting the tax cuts, but on balance, they would increase the deficit by just as much," said Len Burman, the center's director. "All of the campaigns understand that, but they've collectively decided they can't recognize the reality that we're spending beyond our means."
Of the three candidates, budget analysts said McCain has been most aggressive at identifying ways to reduce spending. "We have to cut spending everywhere," said McCain's top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. But McCain's proposals come nowhere near generating the sums necessary to meet the costs, analysts said.
Out of curiosity, [former Bush administration economist Alan] Viard asked a research assistant to put together a list of spending cuts and revenue hikes to cover the cost of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Her findings? For starters, the government would have to slash benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid recipients.
"Any such package is political death," Viard said. "Not to put too fine a point on it."
Yeah, Glenn Beck was yammering about this yesterday. In the two-dimensional Conservative mind, $200,000,000 a day down the Iraq Rathole isn't a problem.... but we MUST dismantle the New Deal as quickly as possible, or we're DOOMED.
As long as the MSM keeps up the premise that the economy and Iraq are separate issues, there can be little progress.
McCain is like one of the Roman Senators in Mel Brooks' History of the World, Pt I when asked "But what about the poor?"
[SENATORS in unison]"F**K THE POOR!"
The "straight talking maverick" seems to be hellbent on perpetuating the stench riddled failures of the last seven years
ahh, here's the quote:
SENATE LEADER:All fellow members of the Roman senate hear me. Shall we continue to build palace after palace for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose and build decent housing for the poor? How does the senate vote?
Entire Senate: F**K THE POOR!
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis detailed by director Peter Orszag during his October 24, 2007, testimony before the House Committee on the Budget, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is projected at $1.055 trillion for 2008-2017.—MMFA
One trillion or three? This summary of the of the book “The 3 Trillion Dollar War” exemplifies MMFA modest style --- cartoonlike pundit objections not withstanding.
How does a cartoonlike pundit tend to respond. Are you providing a helpful model?
The costs of the occupation will extend for the next 70 odd years. Three trillion maybe a lose fit.
Care to share the context of that MMfa quote?
“How does a cartoonlike pundit tend to respond?”
In this context, Bill O’Reilly’s and Rush Limbaugh’s objections to their own words comes to mind.
Are you providing a helpful model?
That’s up to the reader of course. In this instance I don’t think so.
The costs of the occupation will extend for the next 70 odd years. Three trillion maybe a lose fit.
I’m not sure if you’re saying the cost will exceed three trillion or that it will be less. If you’re saying the cost will be over three, then in substance it seems to me that you are agreeing with my reference to the book, in that you think it will exceed the one trillion figure most commonly cited. If you’re saying that you think it will be signifigantly under three trillion, I would assume you would disagree with the thesis of the book. Therefore you would not think MMFA has not been “modest” in their argument (here at least) as I do.
Care to share the context of that MMfa quote?
As stated in the above article, MMFA is quoting the Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszage from a hearing in the House.
Thats not contex. The quote was of a specific time frame. It may be what was in the contex would clearify this. That figure could have been considered accurate for that time frame, it may still be accurate for that time frame. It is not correct for the total cost. It may not have been advanced as a total figure. MMfa may have been using it as evidence and not aggreed with the figure. They may have aggreed it was correct for the time frame only. Your evidence appears to be incomplete.
The costs of this occupation will continue till the last injured vet is laid to rest. The total cost could exceed three trillion. I suppose I was being a wise ass there. Scuse me.
In my original comment I asserted that MMFA is “modest” in its articles. By which I meant that they almost always make precise and understated claims which they can and do substantiate. This is a style which is especially well advised when opposing a group (the so called Conservatives) which lies and distorts without compunction. It’s also a style appropriate to those who have the facts on their side---a short, modest political argument is generally more convincing, and having the truth on your side allows for this.
I cited the book “The Three Trillion Dollar War” as an example of them wisely not using a less easily defensible source. They implicitly decided in this piece to not bring in as evidence anything more than what they needed. The CBO chairman’s testimony was sufficient to make their point, which is that the Washington Post is ignoring McCain’s stated position on the gorilla in the room as far as actual dollars expended---the “war” in Iraq. To have gone further than what the governments’ own CBO says would have been superfluous, and it would have opened themselves up to attack from the Right on the basis of their evidence, which at the very least would distract from their simple but fundamentally important point.
The motivation for my initial post was twofold. First to say in effect, “I know and admire why MMFA is using the more conservative figure in this context." And second to say “in my opinion 'these guys over here' are right about the cost actually being three trillion.”
And the alternative to winning in Iraq is...
Domination of the Middle East (and the oil resources) by militant Islam, establishment of Al Qeda and a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to freedom equivalent to, if not greater than, that of the Axis powers in the 1940's.
You can pay the price now or pay a much larger price later - if you're still around to exercise the option.
And the alternative to winning in Iraq is…
We beat the weak Iraqi military in no time---five year ago. It’s been a losing proposition since, an occupation that’s only bred armies of new terrorists while beggaring the Treasury and driving the value of the dollar way down and tempting the oil producing countries to switch to Euros or some other store of value---and then you’ll really see Hell break loose. You won’t need to a boogie man overseas anymore to obsess about. You’ll be too worried about your neighbor.
Domination of the Middle East (and the oil resources) by militant Islam, establishment of Al Qeda and a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to freedom equivalent to, if not greater than, that of the Axis powers in the 1940's.
Oil is fungible and whoever controls it will have to sell it to somebody if they want to make money. The war and occupation you like so much actually drove the price up and continues to keep it high as it has taken much of the Iraqi potential oil supply out of production. Also, we have created instability around the world with our preemptive invasion of a non-threatening country and by our lies to justify it which tells the world that our word is not to be trusted. There will be much less cooperation from other countries around the world when a legitimate threat arises which we may need help with at some future date.
Even if they were to develop nuclear weapons, Iran has too big a stake in a prosperous world to use them. Their use would greatly disrupt the global economy, including the oil consuming sectors. They have too much to lose.
Your cure is far worse than the disease.
You can pay the price now or pay a much larger price later - if you're still around to exercise the option.
This war is a racket. It’s a massive transfer of wealth both in direct manners through military and military support materials and services, and indirectly through the increased price of oil dependent products and related services. It’s put at risk the entire economy. We may indeed not be around later as we are currently organized, or at anywhere near the level of prosperity because of the “war” (occupation), and its’ continuation.Well put,
Be aware that Oldmarine is an old troll with some history here.
I like Oldmarine. His posts, somehow, aren't boring, even though they're built out of the same old crap as some of the most tedious posters.
But Old Marines don't die, they just relax their brains into hilariously false dichotomies.
An aquired taste Col, as an x-squid I suppose Its one I have too. Can't say I've got any hard spot for him.
Later ;o}