Here's something everyone in Congress needs to see as they consider President Obama's $83.4 billion supplemental war funding bill. National Priorities Project (NPP) just released The Cost of War in Afghanistan, a report examining the exorbitant human and economic costs of this rapidly expanding war, which estimates the war has currently cost taxpayers over $172 billion. When you factor in the projected costs of long-term military occupation, interest, and veterans' benefits, we're talking about a war that will cost close to $1 trillion. "All told," the report concludes, "this is more than the size of the recent bailout of Wall Street and rivals the historic economic stimulus bill just passed by Congress."
NPP is tracking the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq using an individual cost of war counter, calculating the state-level numbers and trade-offs of supplemental war spending. In my home state of Pennsylvania, for instance, taxpayers will have to pay $2.9 billion of the proposed $83.4 billion tab. Want to know what $2.9 billion could do instead of fund more war? NPP claims it could provide:
725,689 People with Health Care for One Year OR
3,533,713 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year OR
29,863 Affordable Housing Units OR
460,546 Head Start Places for Children for One Year OR
46,575 Elementary School Teachers for One Year OR
The list goes on and on. The fact is not nearly enough members of Congress are seriously considering the cost and impact of more troops, both in the U.S. and Afghanistan. According to NPP Executive Director Jo Comerford, "The purpose of this resource is to help people across the United States reflect on the current Afghanistan war and its proposed expansion."
Congresswoman Barbara Lee's One Voice PAC has released a new poll showing a clear majority supports either conditioning funding only to provide for safe redeployment, or opposes further funding altogether. Less than one in four support the funding to continue the war.
The majority of voters reject giving President Bush additional funds for Iraq with no strings attached. When presented with several options for how to respond to President Bush's request for an additional $200 billion to support his Iraq war strategy, nearly half of registered voters nationwide (47 percent) say that Congress should approve the funding request, but specify that it can only be used to protect the troops and bring them home. Additionally, over a fifth of voters (22 percent) say Congress should vote against the funding request entirely. Only 23 percent support Congress voting for the funding request without any conditions. Attitudes among registered voters closely mirror those of the adult population overall.
One of the things that Republicans learned to do really well in the early 90s was branding. In the modern era of marketing, the impact is really hard to overemphasize. People are increasingly relying on branding information where they were once using real data. That stinks, but it's the way the marketing game is played these days. So, we either play it or get steamrolled by it. I bring this up to point out our own failings within the state to build the "Democratic" Brand. So, I poked around a few Congressional (electoral websites) for some good practices and some bad practices. Flip it...
