The Political Universe  

A new study released by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculated that the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could be as high as $2.4 trillion by 2017 depending on how many troops are still involved in operations in each country. The CBO ran two different cost scenarios. The first has the U.S. keeping a permanent force of 30,000 in Iraq, and the second has the force numbers at 75,000. Currently, 70% of war spending goes to Iraq, and the study doesn’t see this changing.

So far, $603 billion has been appropriated for the wars. Of this amount $533 billion has been given to the Department of Defense for military operations. $2 billion has been spent for Veterans Administration war related benefits. $30 billion has been spent to train Iraqi and Afghan security forces; $39 billion has been spent on reconstruction, and additional $3 billion on veterans’ medical care. The projected cost would be an additional $570 billion under the 30,000 troop scenario from 2008-2017. For the same time period, the 75,000 permanent troops would cost $1.055 billion.

If that wasn’t enough to blow your mind, it is estimated that the indigenous security forces in each country will cost an additional $50 billion. They will also require $26 billion more in foreign aid from 2008-2017. The really depressing estimate is that debt service for the money borrowed to pay for this war is expected to cost the American tax payer $415 billion from 2001-2017. Remember, this is just the interest payment on the money that was borrowed to finance this war. Depending on the size of the permanent forces, debt payments could rise to $175-$290 billion from 2008-2017. The total estimated cost of these wars will be $1.9-$2.4 trillion.

According to the U.S Treasury Department here is the exact amount of U.S. debt the month Bill Clinton left office, $5,728,739,508,558.96. As of yesterday, October 23, 2007, the U.S. deficit stood at, $9,057,981,725,122.80. If the war spending estimate is correct, the U.S. government will continue to dig its taxpayers a hole that they will never be able to get out of. Remember, both the top two Democrats, and all the Republicans want to leave troops in Iraq. These numbers aren’t based on hundreds of thousands, but tens of thousands of troops.

There are many reasons to be against this war, but the fact is that Americans will be paying for this folly in the Middle East for at least a generation to come. America has had a greatest generation, a counterculture generation, and me generation, I think now we had better start getting ready for the impoverished generation. That or we all had better hope that the Chinese don’t come calling for payment on this war debt.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8690&type=0

Democratic presidential candidate Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) today urged the U.S. Senate to reject a bill that would provide immunity to telecommunications companies who helped the Bush administration secretly eavesdrop domestic telephone calls and computers from 2001-this year. The bill, which was negotiated with the Bush administration, was approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday.

 The bill as currently drafted directs civil courts to drop all lawsuits against telecommunications companies that were in essence spying on their customers and turning over data to the government. Suits would be dropped if the attorney general certifies that the companies assisted the government in terrorism investigation. Cases would also be dropped if the attorney general certified that companies did not assist the government in terrorism investigations.

“Like most of his promises, President Bush's inauguration day pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution has been folded away and forgotten. From torture to secret prisons and wiretapping, this administration systematically has stripped away or ignored many of the most basic rights and principles upon which this nation was founded. This unprecedented assault on American laws and values, cloaked falsely and irresponsibly in the guise of national security, must be stopped,” Richardson said.

Richardson criticized the Senate for this compromise. "Incredibly, the Senate stands on the verge of abetting another Presidential outrage by considering a bill that would grant immunity to telecommunications companies that admitted to assisting the government in spying on American citizens by disclosing personal information. This bill must not pass.”

He also took Clinton and Obama to task for saying that they don’t support the bill, but still leaving the door open to vote for it. "We need strong leadership to prevent this latest injustice, not equivocation or political calculation. Senators Clinton and Obama say they will oppose the bill, but are leaving the door open to a potential compromise. There can be no compromise on personal rights and privacy. I urge my Democratic primary opponents, and every Senator, to stand up and state loudly and clearly -- without any equivocation -- that he or she will not pass any bill that grants retroactive immunity to companies that willingly aided the Bush administration in violating the law and spying on our own people.”

The White House claims that they will veto the bill without the immunity provision, but why shouldn’t the telecommunications companies be taken to court? Why do they get a free pass here? Could it be because the communications industry gave $70 billion to candidates in both parties last year, or maybe because they have already given $28 billion this year? According to www.opensecrets.org ,68% of their contributions this year have gone to Democrats.

The communications sector is the fifth largest donor to the Clinton campaign, and it is not surprisingly the fifth largest donor to the Obama campaign. No wonder the two Democratic frontrunners are so willing to compromise on this issue. The telecommunications companies would stand to lose millions upon millions if they lost in court.

President Bush is trying to protect big business, and an industry that went along with his administration’s illegal plans, but there is no good reason for Democrats to accept this compromise. Richardson is correct the Democratic Party and their top presidential candidates need to place personal rights and privacy ahead of campaign contributions.

If this week’s Rasmussen Reports Republican primary poll update proves anything, it is that this race is completely unstable and none of the top four or five candidates should be ruled out of contention. Once again this week, Rudy Giuliani has maintained a small lead over Fred Thompson, and still leads Mitt Romney, and John McCain. Giuliani dropped four points from last week, but still leads Thompson 25%-19%. Mitt Romney is seriously challenging Thompson for second. He is now at 15%, which is four points behind Thompson.

John McCain continues to hang around. He is now three points behind Romney and at 12%. However, McCain better watch his back because Mike Huckabee has been slowly climbing in this poll and is now sitting at 8%. A win in Iowa by Huckabee could propel him into contender status, but Huckabee still has no money and would have to rely on socially conservative Republicans to fuel his support. I think Giuliani’s 29% last week was a bit of an aberration. Giuliani has been pulling in the 19%-23% range for three months now, so 25% is just a tad above his normal range. Giuliani is still far from a consensus frontrunner, but so far only Thompson has shown the ability to challenge him in this poll.

Mitt Romney has settled into a solid third, and wins in Iowa and New Hampshire would definitely make this at least a three person race. McCain also needs a win in New Hampshire, as he has pretty much put all of his chips into this one last gasp gamble. Thompson is probably going to win in South Carolina, and Giuliani will do the same in Florida. Outside of a potential strong Ron Paul showing in Iowa, none of the other remaining Republicans have much of a chance. In this week’s poll, Paul is at 2% with Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter at 1%. The number of undecided Republicans continues to slowly drop. This week it is at 17%.

I still think that is unlikely that Mike Huckabee will be able to win the nomination, but he has made a national name for himself and would make a fine running mate for any of the top three Republican candidates. As last night’s Fox News debate illustrated, this race is already turning particularly nasty. You can be certain that tempers will continue to rise as votes are cast and the nomination remains up for grabs. I don’t think any of these candidates can consolidate the national base a build a consensus big enough to earn them the nomination. No one should be surprised if the Republicans head to their convention without a nominee.

www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_presidential_tracking_polling_history

Earlier today, President Bush requested an additional $46 billion dollars in supplementary spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The majority of the supplemental funding is for day-to-day -- is for day-to-day military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill provides for basic needs like bullets and body armor, protection against IEDs, and Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles. It also funds training missions, vital embassy programs, improvements in Iraq and Iraqi security forces, and intelligence operations that protect our troops. These are urgent military necessities, and the supplemental was prepared in close consultation with our commanders on the ground. This funding is what General Petraeus and other military leaders say we need -- and Congress ought to give it to them,” Bush said.

However Democratic Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are having an absolute field day with the idea that Bush won’t fund more health care for poor children, but he will spends a couple of hundred billion dollars per year on war. "For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage to 10 million children for an entire year,” Pelosi said. Harry Reid said in statement, “President Bush wants us to rubber stamp another $200 billion in war funds – all borrowed money, none of it paid for – for next year alone.  But when we sent a bipartisan CHIP bill to his desk to provide health insurance for the children of working families, the President called it too expensive.  Let’s remember, every dime of the money for CHIP was paid for.”

Pelosi once again called for an end to the war. “The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment of our troops and the President’s plan to spend another trillion dollars for a 10-year war in Iraq.  We must end this war.” Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards suggested that if the Democrats in Congress really wanted to end the war, then they should cut off funding.

"Enough is enough. The American people voted for change last November and now, almost a year later we still have the status quo. Once and for all Congress must stand up to President Bush and pass a funding bill with a timetable for withdrawal. If the president vetoes that bill, Congress must send it back, again and again, as many times as it takes for the president to finally get the message that he can't defy the American people,” Edwards said.

I think Edwards is right. Congress has been completely gutless on the war. Pelosi and Reid continue to talk a good game, but at the end of the day, they always continue to fund the war. They could easily ignore Bush’s request, and not act on it, or reject it outright. The problem is that most Democrats, Clinton and Obama included, are afraid of being labeled unpatriotic, so they continue to campaign against this war while still funding it. The Democratic Party has completely let down the American people on the issue of Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071022-8.html

http://speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0371

www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20071022-timeline-for-withdrawal/>

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=285781&>