I grew up in a blue-collar neighborhood in a small “steel town” in what is now referred to dismissively as the “Rust Belt.”   We were a motley crew of immigrant mutts and Post-War DPs (Displaced Persons), as we called them, to draw a line between “established” second generation immigrants (mostly Irish and Italians, in our town) and those just catching their breath after running for their lives (lots of Germans, Eastern Europeans and Russians).  Like academics, immigrants, left to their own devices, establish their own pecking order based largely on tenure.

The one thing that we all had in common was large families and a perpetual shortage of cash, which we made up for by total commitment to the Cult of the American Dream.  We might be strapped today but we all fervently believed that Easy Street was right around the corner.  The money-management mantra that we grew up with was “Don’t throw good money after bad . . . “ which, translated for the younger generations, was a homespun caution against continuing to spend money on something that has already failed.  And heaven help any fool who was deluded enough to actually borrow money to support “throwing good money after bad . . . “

Which brings me to my main topic which is:  How/when did the American taxpayer’s role in our government’s spending decisions become so diminished and inconsequential that our hard-earned tax contributions can be diverted to “throw good money after bad” at rapacious corporations, which are given a pass on their own tax responsibilities; or to bankroll the misguided, very expensive foreign adventures of feverish neocons?  Aren’t we the very ones who proclaimed that taxation without representation is tyranny?  Looking at our foreign and domestic policy decisions, of late, I certainly don’t feel very well represented.  Furthermore, I have little to no confidence that a trip to the ballot box will materially change anything.  I got sucked in by that one the last time around . . .

Coming, as I do, from my own peculiar fiscal background (and without the benefit of an MBA) I know that something has to give, sooner or later, to keep a national budget like ours from imploding.  I also know, from my own political background that, if a decision has to be made between guns and butter, butter will quickly become only a fond memory — notwithstanding Julia Child’s advice that “If you have enough butter anything is good.”

What keeps me awake at night, though, is: how does it happen that a large number of what appear to be relatively rational, fairly well-educated, moderately privileged elected officials who can’t seem to agree on much of anything else, can get solidly behind the unifying principle of a blank check for defense spending (that doesn’t really “defend” anything)?  Maybe we should start calling it the Department of Offense . . . ?

No More Budgetary Sleight-of-hand at the Pentagon (Pres. Barack Obama, 2/25/2009)

President Obama is about to go through the motions of a Congressional vote on his most recent defense supplemental appropriations of $33 billion for the “surge” in Afghanistan, but that horse has already left the gate – troops have been surging for months on that “unapproved-as-yet” invoice.  For you chart enthusiasts out there, remember when you’re looking at the Federal budget that that “lion’s share” slice labeled defense is far from the whole story.  The rest of the budget is a virtual Easter Egg Hunt of defense spending charged to someone else’s tab, like the State Department, Justice, etc.  If you want to make yourself really crazy try to figure out what the CIA’s budget is for any given year – I dare you.

Now we are poised to throw an additional $33 billion at the War in Afghanistan despite the fact that a majority of Americans don’t believe Afghanistan is worth it, according to a recent Washington Post – ABC poll.  And despite the fact that, now, even the Pentagon doubts we can pull off anything that looks like a success in Afghanistan, per their report released on April 26, 2010 along with similarly pessimistic recent statements to the press.  The Pentagon is critical of Gen. McChrystal’s ambitious strategy, for the timeframe and point to the Marjah Campaign, which was supposed to serve as a counterinsurgency test case, as a failure.

Furthermore, Gen. McChrystal has been forced to walk back his previous promise that he will not proceed against Kandahar unless he has the support of the Kandaharis – because he clearly doesn’t.  The much ballyhooed Kandahar Offensive has been serially downgraded, in recent months, to an Operation, then, most recently – to a Process (whatever that means, in military terms).

The conventional wisdom bandied about over this issue is that maybe we don’t like the wars we’re involved in, maybe they’re not even going very well; but, now that the troops are there, we have to support them, don’t we?  Very few, even hard-liner Peace-niks, can stomach the thought of our brave boys and girls doing without in a war zone.  So the money keeps gushing without even tripping so much as an alarm buzzer in the (selectively) Anti-Government-Spending Tea Party.

David Swanson, writing for TomDispatch.org, sheds some light on the Obama Administration’s apparent determination to “soldier on” in this no-win situation:

“Early in 2009, President Barack Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan with 21,000 “combat” troops, 13,000 “support” troops, and at least 5,000 mercenaries, without any serious debate in Congress or the corporate media.  The President sent the first 17,000 troops prior to developing any plan for Afghanistan, leaving the impression that escalation was, somehow, an end in itself.  Certainly it didn’t accomplish anything else, a conclusion evident in downbeat reports on the Afghan war situation issued this month by both the Government Accountability Office and the Pentagon.”

“ . . . Even as Congress voted overwhelmingly for a massive war and military budget in December, some representatives did speak out against further escalation and the funding needed for it.

“While all sides in this debate agreed that such escalation funding would need to be voted on sometime in the first half of 2010, everyone knew something else as well: that the President would go ahead and escalate in Afghanistan even without funding in place — the money all being borrowed anyway — and that, once many or all of the new troops were there, he would get less resistance from Congress which would be voting on something that had already happened.”

Another point to keep in mind is that these incomprehensibly large numbers of dollars that we have become numb to committing to — according to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress has already approved $345 billion for war in Afghanistan, not to mention $708 billion in Iraq – are only the up-front costs of war:

“ . . .   As economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz demonstrated in The Three Trillion Dollar War, their book on the cost of the Iraq war alone, adding in debt payments on moneys borrowed to fight that war, long-term care for veterans wounded in it, the war’s impact on energy prices, and other macroeconomic impacts, the current tax bill for the Iraq War must be at least tripled and probably quadrupled or more to arrive at its real long-term cost.  (Similarly, the cost in lives must be multiplied by all those lives that could have been saved through other, better uses of the same funding.)  The same obviously applies to the Afghan War.”

Stop the Madness – please!

Greater minds than mine have quite eloquently made the case that these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and probably soon to include Pakistan and/or Iran) are illegal and immoral and are ruining our economy as well as our stature as a world power.  Throw in the facts that our mission is murky, our chances of succeeding at anything much are slim and that our national security is more threatened than it has ever been and it’s very hard to fathom why we’re still there, let alone escalating.

Too many of those that we have elected to represent us skate right on by those obvious, weighty reasons to vote down the supplement to escalate in Afghanistan, offering instead a wink and a nod and the cringe-worthy intention to hold off committing to a “yes” or “no” vote until they see what political goodies might tag along, on the bill, as sweeteners (i.e., bribes).

So it is that the US Marines will continue to burn through 800,000 gallons of diesel per day, at the Pentagon’s “fully loaded” cost of $400 per gallon, for at least another year.  If things go as well (not) as they are going in Iraq, we’ll probably be in both locations considerably longer.

According to an article in the Huffington Post:

“At the Pentagon, “there’s been a renewed focus on Iraq lately,” said the senior military official there. He said all options were being considered, including later delays (of troop withdrawals), adding that “we need to get out in an appropriate way … not completely tied to a timeline.”

Funny . . .  I don’t remember “appropriate ways” being all that crucial getting into the Iraq war . . .

In conclusion, for anyone who thinks that getting our troops out of Afghanistan will put an end to the insane spending there, we have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s promise to the visiting Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, to never “neglect” Afghanistan again.

“This commitment, Mr. President, will endure long after US combat troops have left because we have learned the lessons of the past,” insisted Clinton, who frequently cited 9/11 during the announcement.”

Talk about throwing good money after bad . . . underwriting Afghanistan’s day-to-day operations, “long after US combat troops have left” sounds almost as reckless as waging war there.

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton, Hamid Karzai, Supplemental spending bill, Department of Defense