Hidden costs double Iraq, Afghanistan war costs: Democrats

[ProSense]

Hidden costs double Iraq, Afghanistan war costs: Democrats

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The cost of the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are nearly twice what the government of President George W. Bush says they are, according to a report by opposition Democrats on Capitol Hill.

The Washington Post on Tuesday obtained a draft of the 21-page report, which is to be presented in Congress later in the day.

The "hidden" economic costs, which include higher oil prices, money to treat wounded veterans and interest payments on war loans, amount to about 1.5 trillion dollars, the Post reported, citing the study.

That is nearly double the 804 billion dollars the Bush administration has spent or requested to spend on the wars through 2008.

The report, titled "The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War," says the two wars have thus far cost the average US family of four more than 20,000 dollars.

more

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017.




On edit, Bush's policies and the roadblock Republicans are putting the squeeze on Americans:

The Bush administration has announced the changes one at a time since the start of the year, saying they are essential to curb abuses in the $346 billion healthcare program, which is funded by both the federal and state governments. About 50 million low-income and disabled Americans, including more than 1 million in Massachusetts, are served by Medicaid.

Congress has temporarily blocked two of the changes, but some others could go into effect by Jan. 1 despite opposition by the National Governors Association, hospital officials, and advocates in many states.

Federal funding that supports training new doctors would be cut. In addition, the proposed rules would reduce federal spending on rehabilitation for people with mental and physical disabilities, support services for schoolchildren with special needs, and hospital outpatient care for all Medicaid members. The moves could force Massachusetts to restrict some services - such as day pro grams for people with developmental disabilities - or pick up more of the cost.

link

Energy crisis heating up in Massachusetts

By SEN. JOHN F. KERRY
Sen. Kerry, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate. He is chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
November 13, 2007 6:00 AM

Every schoolchild in America learns about Paul Revere's contribution to the birth of our nation. But only rarely do we hear about his success as an entrepreneur. In the years after his heroic and famous "midnight ride," Revere started a business in New Bedford. He saw potential in the large-scale manufacturing of metal products, and launched a trailblazing copper company that put residents of New Bedford to work for almost 150 years.

Sadly, Revere Copper was forced to close its doors this March, leaving the families of its 85 employees out in the cold. Like many shuttered businesses, Revere Copper couldn't keep up with skyrocketing energy costs.

<...>

Earlier this year, I chaired a hearing on the impact of rising fuel prices on American small businesses, and we heard again and again from small business owners what we already knew: The rising price of fuel ultimately leads to less consumer spending, less capital for businesses to invest in growth, and depressed profits. These same businesses are also juggling considerable increases in health care costs, diminished access to capital due to a tightening lending market, and global competition from foreign companies that aren't facing the same constraints.

It's time for the government to empower small business owners and provide them with the resources they need to take control of their energy expenses. By conserving energy and creating incentives for investment in alternative and renewable sources that don't pollute our air and don't rely on foreign oil, not only will our energy costs go down, but we'll be contributing to a cleaner, greener America, too.

more

[Spurt]

1. K&R

[ProSense]

2. Updated. n/t

[ProSense]

3. Bush vetoes health and education bill...signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non-war budget

Bush vetoes health and education bill

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats. He also signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non-war budget.

<...>

More than any other spending bill, the $606 billion education and health measure defines the differences between Bush and majority Democrats. The House fell three votes short of winning a veto-proof margin as it sent the measure to Bush.

Rep. David Obey, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, pounced immediately on Bush's veto.

"This is a bipartisan bill supported by over 50 Republicans," Obey said. "There has been virtually no criticism of its contents. It is clear the only reason the president vetoed this bill is pure politics."

more

(emphasis added)

[ProSense]

4. Bush’s senseless veto of education, healthcare funding

Bush’s senseless veto of education, healthcare funding:

So, what happens now? The House approved the domestic spending last week with 274 votes — just three shy of a two-thirds majority. In contrast, the Senate passed the bill with 56 votes, 11 short of a veto-proof majority. In other words, an override would be awfully tough.

Stay tuned.

Statement by Robert Greenstein, executive director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in response to Bush’s veto:

We find it stunning for the President to reject a $5 billion increase for education, medical research and other priorities as unaffordable, while insisting that Congress finance the $51 billion cost of AMT relief through higher deficits instead of by closing tax loopholes exploited by multi-millionaires. The President’s action speaks volumes — not about fiscal discipline, but about his misplaced values.

With this veto, the President is saying that this nation can’t afford even to maintain current service levels in education, medical research, “meals on wheels” for the elderly, and other areas. In fact, he has proposed cutting funding for programs in the vetoed bill by $7 billion below the current levels, adjusted for inflation. Congress, by contrast, would boost funding by $5 billion.<1> To reach the President’s funding levels, Congress would have to cut from the vetoed bill $1.4 billion for medical research, $1.3 billion for K-12 education, and $254 million for Head Start, among other items.

At the same time, the Administration has denounced good-faith efforts in Congress to pay for AMT relief by closing several tax loopholes exploited by some of the wealthiest people in the country. The Administration and its backers are intent on protecting an unjustified tax break that millionaire hedge-fund managers use to shelter large sums in foreign tax havens and a dubious tax break that wealthy equity-fund managers exploit to pay taxes at lower rates than many middle-class families.

This veto is not about fiscal discipline. It is about priorities — whether multi-billion-dollar tax loopholes for a tiny number of very affluent individuals matter more than the needs of much of the public.