EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Budget Lies that Haunt Us
Mitch Daniels and Lawrence Lindsey are footnotes who continue to kick us from behind. Lindsey was the chief economic policy adviser to President Bush who predicted in 2002 that invading Iraq would cost $100 billion to $200 billion.
It is largely forgotten that Lindsey said this not to warn Americans that this would blow a hole in the domestic agenda of the United States. He said this to make the president look good, swatting away fears that a war even at that level would hurt the economy. As the Wall Street Journal wrote, Lindsey "dismissed the economic consequences of such spending, saying it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on interest rates or add much to the federal debt, which is already about $3.6 trillion."
The Journal quoted Lindsey asking himself what one year of war spending would mean. Lindsey said, "That's nothing."
To Lindsey's surprise, his service to the president was considered a betrayal. Two days later, Daniels, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, called Lindsey's estimate "likely very, very high." Within a week, the Washington Post further quoted Daniels as saying that whatever Bush decided about Iraq, it could be managed by "rotating resources from things that are of less than life and death importance to meet the life and death imperatives of the moment."
It was political death for Lindsey, who was hounded into resigning within a few weeks. It did not matter that Yale economist William Nordhaus subsequently published a 50-page study that determined that a long war could cost up to $1.9 trillion and "claim the scarce resources and attention of the United States for many years."
By Dec. 31 of that year, Daniels - now governor of Indiana - conveniently replaced Lindsey's $100 billion to $200 billion estimate with one of $50 billion to $60 billion. Daniels told The New York Times that his estimate was based on "prudent contingency planning."
That set the table for the lies to come from the more well-known architects of the unprovoked invasion for weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. On Jan. 19, 2003, before the March invasion, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld what the war would cost.
Rumsfeld responded, "The Office of Management and Budget estimated it would be something under $50 billion."
Stephanopoulos countered with, "Outside estimates say up to $300 billion."
Rumsfeld shot back, "Baloney."
That same day, Rumsfeld was asked in a media availability, "Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?"
Rumsfeld responded, "Well, the Office of Management and Budget has come up with a number that's something under $50 billion."
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz would eventually and famously chime in that any high cost or large troop estimates for Iraq were "wildly off the mark."
This is all important to remember because this week, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a deep and prolonged occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion by 2017. In presenting the report to the House Budget Committee, CBO director Peter Orszag said, "We are on an unsustainable fiscal path and something has to give."
The White House refuses to give up its delusions. Asked about the CBO report, White House press secretary Dana Perino rejected it as "a ton of speculation" and "pure speculation."
She added, "We just don't think that it's appropriate to wildly speculate and throw out a number like $2.4 trillion that is based on just hypotheticals. It's not a smart way to run a railroad."
Perino, of course, could not counter with figures from the White House. The wars are about to cost $800 billion since 2001. Another year and another $200 billion, and the war will pass the costs of the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Five years ago, Lawrence Lindsey told us "That's nothing." Daniels said Lindsey's "nothing" was "very, very high." Today, Perino says $2.4 trillion is a ton of speculation. The footnotes to war continue to march us along the unsustainable path.
© Copyright 2007 The Boston Globe
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

16 Comments so far
Show AllYou can always tell when a politician is lying. Their lips are moving.
It would be "academic" fun to watch the various war cost projection arguments (sort of like watching the regular gang of CD posters here debate the next third-party takeover of government) except for the fact that it really is your money going down the corporate tubes.
Republicans have mis-projected and lied to you about costs from day one. Elect Democrats and get yourself as an individual citizen back into the game.
"Elect Democrats and get yourself as an individual citizen back into the game."
That's pretty funny.
The last thing the plutocrats want is to get citizens 'back in the game'. They've spent too much time and energy making sure we're asleep. Anything other than that is not a sound investment.
If the useless Democrats can manage nothing else, couldn't they at least separate funding for the Afghan War from the Iraq War? Keeping them together feeds Bush's lie that they're both part of the same "War on Terror". Even if they WERE related, the people are entitled to know how much each costs.
Daniel David:
'Elect Democrats for war until AT LEAST 2013, because that's what you REALLY want, you just don't know it.'
Fixed that last line in your oh-so-predictable little rant for you.
Budget lies that haunt us? This article is a strange mess, which is typical. The MSM, probably accurately, assumes that most of it's readers have never studied basic macro economics in their first year of college or in high school. Foreign held debt is going to destroy your quality of life. Writing yourself an IOU is something different.
(Which doesn't imply anything so simple at all.)
As an indirect example, GE hauls in billions for MRI and other devices at NIH in Bethesda MD, while people living less then a 1/4 mile away are dying of cancer with no health insurance. GE has profited so immensely from these golden years of fear, 9/11 should be some sort of corporate breakthrough moment as opposed to a national tragedy or terror attack. Unfortunately, the 'Brazilification' of the US has only increased with the speed of spending.
Cruz-control I am with you, when a politician opens their mouth, it is too often a lie, or some other deception designed to keep us asleep, or bewildered. Shame on them, we know they are liars, and manipulators who have outlived their time.
Not so long ago I read about two US women who, after sending in loads of ridiculously exaggerated invoices for bits they'd supplied the US (mis)government, to aid and abet that Bush bloodfest fiasco in Iraq, finally got found out and busted.
One of their invoices was for two very ordinary engineering washers, -posted out at a cost of around $100, for which the dolts in charge had duly paid up.
Who cares? it's not *their* cash after all!
Meanwhile, still in Bushbaby's Clod-Cuckoo Land, companies like DynCorp (corpse?) are, -as ever, proudly ripping off their proud 'troop supporting' fellow citizens to the tune of many millions / billions of dollars. Don't it just make you proud to be proud about national pride?
~ Yerkkk!
Here's a good report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7057629.stm
Read and weep, - to see how planet Earth's precious resources are being poured into a bottomless ME pit, -even as starving and destitute fellow human beings across the world who so desperately need a comparatively *TINY* bit of financial help, are being utterly, ruthlessly ignored.
Truly... the squandering, diabolical lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Now HERE are some interesting parallel costs (and it's just one of 3 pages
Financial Times FT.com
ARTS & WEEKEND
House & Home
Diplomatic baggage
By Troy McMullen
Published: October 26 2007 18:52 | Last updated: October 26 2007 18:52
The three-storey house for sale on Acacia Avenue in Ottawa, Canada has plenty to recommend it. Set on an acre of land in the leafy, upmarket Rockcliffe Park district, it includes five bedrooms, lush English gardens and a sunroom large enough to entertain dozens of guests. It even has a Hollywood connection, having featured in the 1990 Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward film Mr and Mrs Bridges.
But the thing that most distinguishes this house from its neighbours is its owner – the US government. The 64-year-old property, priced at C$2.85m ($2.93m), has served as a ministerial residence for generations of deputy ambassadors. And it is just one of more than a dozen diplomatic residences that the US State Department has recently put up for sale in capital cities from Bangkok to Bogotá as part of an unprecedented real estate disposal programme.
These range from a former ambassador's residence in Taipei, Taiwan, with views of the Yang Ming Mountains, valued at T$65.2m ($2m), to a 1,582 sq ft condominium in Santiago, Chile, listed at 75.7m pesos ($150,000). In Jakarta, Indonesia, Rp5bn ($550,000) will buy a 107-year-old single-family home dating back to the Dutch colonial era, and in Warsaw, Poland, where the property market is booming thanks to a shortage of high quality housing, 1m zloty ($400,000) each is the asking price for a pair of four-bedroom townhouses in the trendy Mokotow district. For more adventurous buyers, there is also the former ambassadorial villa in Tripoli, Libya, priced at LD1.9m ($1.5m).
"It's really the first time something on this scale has ever occurred," says Dwight Mason, a career US diplomat who served as deputy chief of mission and minister in Ottawa and lived in the Acacia Avenue house with his wife and two children from 1986 and 1990. "It will be interesting to see just what everyday house hunters think of these places."
The sales are happening because the US government is moving many of its overseas workers into more modern or secure buildings to meet stringent safety requirements enacted after the 1998 bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the September 11 terrorist attacks and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which have stoked anti-US sentiment around the world.
There have been more than 250 attacks or attempted attacks on US embassies or diplomatic residences since 1975, the State department estimates. Incidents include an incursion by armed Liberian marauders on the grounds of the US embassy residence in Monrovia in 1996 and a late-night rocket attack on the embassy security staff residence in Santiago, Chile, in 1991.
Some 29 sites in 21 countries have been deemed "excess property" and listed with private real estate agents selected by the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations, which manages the facilities. About half of are non-residential, including historic embassies and ancillary buildings such as London's immense former Navy Annex in Grosvenor Square, which is on the market for £90m. Chancery buildings in Panama, Nicaragua and Nepal are also being sold.
Nearly a half century ago, Bob Dylan sang that "the times they are a changin". A few millenia ago, King Soloman wrote that "what has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun". Soloman was correct. The Great Game between nations has been going on since there were nations and governments. Taxes and lying politicians have been around for a long long time. If you were living 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 150 years ago and following the news you would have been just as uncomfortable with the world situation as you are now. Don't forget to take some time to enjoy life...even it means burning a gallon of fossil fuel to drive out to a trail and take a hike in the forest.
@kayaker
I have to agree with you. Lying politians have, throughout history, waged wars to fatten the bank accounts of the elite, while the poor proles have done their fighting and dying for them. Now it's different. The internet makes it possible to discover their lies and deceptions in almost real time, and those of conscience have an obligation to resist. I don't know where you live, but here in the USA, our Constitution has been shredded and we are living in what is rapidly becoming a Police State. So, go ahead. Enjoy your hike in the forest while you can afford the gas to get there.
Ah, but with each new funding of the Iraq war More war industries get even wealthier.
Why is it someone on welfare is cheating all of us but say a Humbie not even armored costing many times as much as its civilian counterpart is patriotic?
Lets face it reader even you believe that about all welfare recipiants.
I once tried to explain to someone that Our government does not manufacture anything . Therefore it is totally dependent on outside venders just to even get one paper clip or staple. The people that work for the government spend all the money in their checks at home .
So you see you blame the government for what you think are high taxes ,when in reality those high taxes are causes by those paperclip and staple dealers.
My point the Government is us The suppliers are the staple and paperclip corporations which will not sell until they get their prices.
We salute the flag while they steal our cash.
Even the banks set their own interest rates when they loan the government money to buy more paperclips.
This is the Capitalizm all of you love.
We need a referendum on the war. let people decide like a real democratie. The rest is "baloney". bunch of fkn moron, we should bomb the idiot of Podhoretz for suggesting to bomb Iran now before it's too late and we'll see how he react to the orrors of war at home.
Referendums are a great idea. Why don't we ever have any? Could be because the money-power doesn't want the people empowered. Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy does that, so he is excluded from the debates.
WANT A REAL SHOCK:
Check this out:
US FINANCIAL CRISIS
Video: Asian countries dumping their dollars
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7196
PS: Don't say you weren't warned?
The paper on the real cost of the war, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001, and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard budget expert estimates the real cost of the Iraq War ultimately to be between one and two trillion dollars. Stiglitz wrote an article just over a year ago revising this estimate to OVER two trillion dollars.
Government sources are liars because they do not use accrual accountain methods, the standard for all accounting in the real world. There is no corporation in American that would hire an accountant not using accrual methods. It is the universal standard with the exception of the US government.
Here is another example. The Bush administration last year stated the federal deficit was 210 billion dollars. A team of expert accountants using accrual methods came up with $4.6 TRILLION dollars. We are headed for the government once again telling us about a 210 billion dollar deficit this year, and we can assume that the real deficit is several trillion dollars and that government is lying to us once again.