Well, not everything – but at this point, it is about time that even the most timid of Democrats can use the out of control amount of money being dumped into Iraq as a sledgehammer for just how much of a trade off Americans have had to (or will have to) make with respect to Iraq
Since there is such a low percentage of people in this country who are actually making a sacrifice for this failed ploy at world domination, unless Americans see the stark numbers of where their tax dollars (and their children’s tax dollars) are going to, and all of the much needed and neglected services they are no longer getting, all of the opinion polls about the growing percentage of people who want funding for Iraq cut or want our troops out of Iraq won’t matter at all.
And this leads to an excellent framing opportunity that frankly, should have been used a long time ago. The change here is that finally, FINALLY, an increasing number of Congressional Democrats are realizing just how much their constituents are very (passively) against continuing this disastrous Iraq policy, and how much those who are dictating this policy are (1) clueless and (2) ignoring other more pressing issues.
On last night’s 60 Minutes, the head of Interpol talked about the international law enforcement agency and the trouble it is having when it can’t monitor terrorist activities or respond to threats that it may be aware of:
Security isn’t the only reason that countries don’t cooperate with Interpol. Sometimes they’re just embarrassed. Last year, when 23 people escaped from a prison in Yemen, including the mastermind of the al Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole, Interpol found out about it by monitoring Arab television.“Worldwide in the last two years, we’ve had 43 countries where escapes have occurred. And zero of those countries — zero of those countries notified Interpol. That can’t happen. That shouldn’t happen. People wouldn’t believe it’s happening, but it’s happening,” Noble says.
Not only is Interpol underutilized, Noble says it is also hopelessly under-funded. The U.S. contributes $5.5 million to the organization’s $50 million budget, a pittance compared to big city police departments.
—snip—
“And we know that terrorist activities are being planned,” Noble says, wiping a tear. “And we know that if we don’t respond, people will die. And I know I’m a smart guy. I know I work hard and I know I can persuade people to do things. I know. But I can’t get the U.S. and other governments to understand that the problem’s a billion-dollar-a-year problem. You know, not a million-dollar-a-year problem. But I know that it’s gonna change. It’s gonna happen one day.”
OK, granted, many countries don’t respect Interpol, but if the US is so concerned with Homeland Security and “monitoring terrorists”, then why not provide some funding for the entity that has the world’s largest database of known terrorists? By the way, the amount of funding provided by the US for Interpol is the same as it spends for 10 minutes in Iraq.
House Speaker Pelosi is starting to get it as well. Yesterday, she equated the SCHIP funding that Mister Bush just vetoed as being equal to the cost of 40 days in Iraq. Say what you will about her leadership or some of her actions or words, but this is a brilliant move on her part. It shows just how out of control the spending is on Iraq (regardless of how poorly many Congressional Democrats are handling the funding issues), how little Bush and the republicans who side with him on SCHIP care about the problems facing millions of families here in the US, and also the sacrifices that these people are willing to make in pursuit of their priorities.
This is a winning formula. Just take a look at the 2007 Budget proposed by Bush and take your pick of program cuts. Environment. Education. Medicare. $300 million cut to the EPA. Over $3 billion cut for education. Over $45 billion in cuts to various Medicare programs. With a low ball estimate of $200 million per day, the education and EPA cuts amount to just over 2 weeks in Iraq, while the Medicare cuts would be equal to around 7 months in Iraq.
Medicare gets sacrificed. Tax cuts for the middle class get sacrificed. Screening cargo at our ports gets sacrificed. Education funding gets sacrificed. SCHIP gets sacrificed. But untold billions for Iraq never get sacrificed.
Most Americans aren’t even aware of these program cuts, let alone how they compare to the amounts being spent every day in Iraq. By not only highlighting each and every thing that the republicans in Congress filibuster (or default filibuster),or that Mister Bush vetoes but also contrasting the cost of Iraq as compared to these programs, it will compound the defense into not only why it is so necessary to cut, vote against or veto so many of these vital programs, but also to defend why needlessly sending all of this same money to Iraq is more important.
And regardless of whether Bush or the Congressional republicans think, the vast majority of American people would rather have their money spent here than in Iraq.
also in orange
I’ve never understood why Dems and progressives don’t make the economic tradeoffs the center of their argument. It’s the way to bring big abstractions like the billions being stolen by contractors in Iraq down to the local, personal level.
The National Priorities Project website is a great and overlooked tool for beginning to dramatize the tradeoffs. It deserves more support and use.
And while as usual clammyc makes a brilliant point, it’s easy for Republicans to say “The Democrats haven’t cut spending for the war AND they want to increase spending on all these programs, therefore they are far worse than we are fiscally.”
If Democrats really did reduce spending for the war instead of handing over hundreds of billions without a fight, the argument would work a lot better. America could surely use the money here rather than wasted in graft in Iraq, but even more, America wants to end this war altogether.
I respect the argument that comparing domestic spending in terms of Iraq spending is long, long overdue. But the argument loses some power when the Democrats make no concrete efforts to stop the spending or even curtail it.
Yes, framing the spending in that way may indeed help lead to ending this disaster (I hope). But efforts need to be paired with action on curtailing that spending.
They should also use the rethugs/Karl Rove playbook of attacking the supposed strengths of the opponent. Specifically all the cuts to the Veterans Administration and various other monies to do with the troops..their pay increase that bush said he’d veto because it was too much, not wanting to spend any money on research for what military doctors say is one of the signature wounds of this war-brain injury, still not enough armored humvees for the troops..too many things to count really of how this administration continues to not support the troops for all bush’s insisting that he does and they have everything they need. Ask why Walter Reed still hasn’t been fixed, so far nothing apparently has been done according to report last week. The list just goes on and on concerning the troops.
If the dems repeated this non support of the troops over and over this just might get through to the general public and they might also start wondering just where are all those billions of dollars going if not to the troops or Veterans Administration.
Oh, how they cried that we did not have the $74 billion to shore up Social Security. Hypocrites!