Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Democrats Issue Report that Just Happens to Support Campaign Strategy

The MSM is having a field day with this:

The total economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated at $1.6 trillion by 2009, a congressional committee said in a report released Tuesday.

That is nearly double the $804 billion in direct war costs the White House requested so far from Congress, the Joint Economic Committee said.

Now, wars are expensive enterprises, but this report is as about as reliable as Governor Doyle’s word.  Let’s look at a few of the details:

The higher total economic impact comes from, among other things, the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, lost productivity, higher oil prices and the cost of health care for veterans, the committee said.

Long term health care?  Lost productivity?  Oil prices?  These are things for which you can pull almost any number out of the air and make a convincing argument.  For example, let’s look at oil prices.  A lot of factors go into oil prices.  Uncertainty in the supply chain.  Demand.  Supply.  Extraction costs.  And on and on.  What precise part of the oil price is the unease in Iraq causing?  $5?  $1?  $20?  Who knows? 

Not to mention the fact that this was a report issued by the Democrat leadership and the Republicans were not allowed any input whatsoever.  I think this sums it up best:

Office of Budget and Management Director Jim Nussle dismissed the report, saying “the Congressional leadership is attempting to manipulate economic data for public relations purposes.”

“There are several ... distortions within the report, such as attempting to tie war costs to overall business investment and the price of oil.”

Exactly. 

This is not a report. 

It’s campaign literature.

(3) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2255 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

  1. Yeah, I’m sure it’s politically motivated, in large part.  But if that’s your accusation, quoting a former eight-term Republican member of Congress is probably not the best strategy to bolster your assertion.  Nussle’s neither more objective nor less partisan than the people he’s criticizing.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 14, 2007 at 0133 hrs


  2. I think a lot of this is bull but I do think the cost of borrowing money should be included, don’t you? Actually, I’m just yanking your chain because it really shouldn’t. When you say what something costs or is worth, you got to pick a point in time - typically present value. Say DOD pays Blackwater $119 million and deficit spends to do so. Essentially the DOD is not paying the $119 million, the lender is. DOD then repays the lender over say 20 years with some interest (called the discount rate). This will add up to more than $119 million but is really the same. A hundred dollars paid 10 years from now is worth a lot less than a hundred dollars today. To add the inital cost and the sum of the payments would be a gross overstatement of the price of the war. Health care cost should be included but they should also be discounted if they are really future costs.

    Posted by Charlie Hillman on November 14, 2007 at 0155 hrs


  3. Oh, the Joint Economic Committee came up with these numbers I see…

    Glad to see Chairman Chuck Schumer’s using governmental operations for DSCC business again.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2007 at 1359 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.