Over here, over there

My friend Poppy at Patridiot Watch started crunching some budget numbers yesterday and noticed that the costs of the war in Iraq, right now, add up to about $700 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Since his household has three people, that means $2,100 for his family. And based on the population of his town, that means $14.7 million for his local community.

Poppy then saw something interesting: his hometown spends more on Iraq than it does on itself.

In my town, dividing the population into our annual municipal budget local, state, federal and grant dollars spent — it turns out we spend less than $700 a resident. So each and every person in my home town will have spent more in the first 31 months of the Iraq War than they do on their own municipal services in a year.

He even created a handy-dandy spreadsheet so we can all play the same game at home. (You’ll need your town’s population and annual municipal budget.) It’s not entirely straight because Iraq costs extend beyond just one year, but it does help highlight just how incredibly expensive the war has become.

In April of 2003 I along with Elias Vlanton created the website http://costofwar.com, which does a lot of these calculations. We have since handed it over to the National Priorities Project, but it’s certainly worth checking out.

It computes the total spending on the war, also allowing you to select many metropolitan areas and see what percentage was drawn from taxes collected from your community. This cost is compared to the costs of things like schools, teachers, and other alternative projects commonly derided as “too expensive.”

Of course, like all such web sites, it is not a completely fair comparison either, but again it does give you a sense of the cost of the war.

  • Potential Administration spin: “Now then, who says we aren’t sharing the sacrifice? See, even the wealthiest among us are sacrificing!”

  • who says we aren’t sharing the sacrifice?

    But they’re not. “Per capita” (or “per household”) can be computed as a number, but so what? That doesn’t mean that every caput or household is actually paying that fair share. It’s the mal-distribution of the sacrifice that’s a scandal. “We” doesn’t mean “your hand in my wallet”, or it shouldn’t mean that anyway.

    Another little tidbit from Pareto (or Macchiavelli if you prefer): whenever a Republican says something is in the public interest, ask which part of the public. Whenever he (it’s always a he) says something is good for “the Economy”, ask whose economic well-being. If he accuses you of trying to stir up class consciousness, smile and say “Yep.”

  • Good idea Ed.

    It’s all abaout language, something Democrats have yet to fully process.

    Sorry to plug twice, but read "Don’t Think of an Elephant" . And ignore progressive BS–the important part is on language.

    Or better yet, get some Luntz. I have a great presentation he/they did for the Republicans that explains SO much of the language coming donw from the spin machine. Carpetbagger, can I email it to you for a post? I pulled it down from somewhere, and now I can’t seem to find the site to refer people to.

  • Comments are closed.