The Washington Post ran a budget-related editorial on Saturday (“A critical question”) that attempted to explain why it insists that health care reform not increase the deficit even though it doesn’t believe that spending for activities in Iraq and Afghanistan have to be offset. The Post’s arguments weren’t just unconvincing; they also don’t make any sense.
Military activities deemed necessary for the security of the United States shouldn’t be avoided because of the federal budget. The U.S. can’t go to war only when there’s a surplus or when we think the higher deficit caused by the increased military spending won’t have negative impact on the economy. To paraphrase former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the economy you have rather than the one you would like.
But the fact that you go to war doesn’t mean that you can do what the Post recommends: ignore the economic effect the additional federal spending and borrowing will have. To the contrary, it absolutely and unequivocally is the responsibility of policymakers to deal with the economic impact.... That means that the budget impact of the military and other activities in Iraq and Afghanistan should always be considered. They occurred when a deficit had already replaced the surpluses that existed in fiscal 1998-2001, the Bush administration’s policies were projected to increase the red ink even further....
The Post tried to say in its editorial that activities in Iraq and Afghanistan are being paid for because the amount that will be spent each of the next few years will be decreasing. The editorial said that the fact that this spending will fall from $180 billion in 2008 to a projected $130 billion in 2010 shows that the higher Iraq and Afghanistan-caused deficit is being offset.
Excuse me?
Since when does spending $130 billion more enable you to pay for something you previously purchased? I can’t pay for the $150 video game I bought last year by buying another this year for $130. That’s not saving $20; that’s spending $130 more....
The Post then tried a different and equally ridiculous argument to justify its position: spending on Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t have to be offset because wars “eventually come to an end” while entitlement programs like health care continue.... [T]he Post is completely wrong about Iraq and Afghanistan being one-time, never-to-be-repeated spending. The most obvious is that the military and other activities in these two countries have already been happening for multiple years and so can hardly be considered one-time events. This is especially true of peacekeeping and nation-building activities that occur after the shooting war ends. In addition, if history is any indication, Iraq and Afghanistan are not likely to be the last times the United States commits troops somewhere. World War II was quickly followed by Korea, which was followed by Vietnam, etc.... [J]ust because the funds for Iraq and Afghanistan were annually appropriated doesn’t mean the spending isn’t as ongoing as any entitlement...
Comments