Friday, October 26, 2007

Time's money, talk's cheap, and somebody's done spent their allowance

You know you are heading into one of these weekends when you see the numbers in a report from the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, the United States has spent roughly $604 billion on the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the tab is estimated to hit $2.4 trillion over the next decade. And to think, you were probably sitting here, feeling all good because you just made an Internet payment on your student loans. Yeah. Good for you.

Word from the Democrats seems to be they are not going to do anything on President Bush's $196 billion request for war operations until early 2008, which seems to fall right in line with the present modus operandi of not doing very much of anything of all. The train of thought limping down the tracks on this is that the Pentagon can foot the bill through March by borrowing against its annual budget. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but when the parent lets the kids borrow against their allowance, doesn't it result in a lot of wasted money? Besides, who would be surprised if the Pentagon's budget were to suddenly be increased by the exact same amount they had borrowed?

Officials in the industry say the beginning plan would cost other programs, like base support and training, increasing the costs on down the road. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), head of the Armed Services Committee, said the Dems were looking at approving dough six months at a time, to increase pressure for a timetable, as well as dodge a "negative message to the troops." Yes, sir. Nothing would increase pressure on a timetable like continuing to pay for the wars. The only timetable President Bush is interested in starts in January 2009, when he can get started on his Presidential Liberry. One year, six months, week-and-a-half, what exactly is the difference? As for the troops, I'm sure enough of them already have a negative message of some sort, regardless of how much more money is spent to not equip them. Speaking of negative messages, not one Republican member of the House Budget Committee showed for a Thursday meeting on the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something tells me somebody is pretty comfortable not only wit the cost of the wars, but the idea they are, in all likelihood, going to get the money one way or another and in some sort of eventually. And from what we've sen, why shouldn't they be anything but comfortable?

No comments: