In an era when "trillion" is thrown around so often, perhaps we've become numbed to mere tens of billions. To understand the magnitude of the latest supplemental appropriations request, $84 billion for continued war in Iraq and Afghanistan (out of a now-$94-billion spending bill), let's reel the clock back a few years.
In September 2002, with the U.S. already occupying Afghanistan, White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey estimated the cost of invading Iraq could amount to between $100 billion and $200 billion.
Donald Rumsfeld dismissed high estimates as baloney and suggested that $50 billion was a better figure. Likewise, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels suggested estimates of $50 billion to $60 billion. Notably, the Democrats were not much better, suggesting that an Iraq war would be in the $100B range.
Lindsay was fired within months after his remarks. However, even once we were bogged down in Iraq, occupation czar Paul Bremer was using a figure of only $100 billion for the cost of the war.
Now, here in 2009, it seems clearer that the combined war is already at or nearing a $1 trillion pricetag (let alone the human, moral, and foreign policy costs) and that a staggering ultimate figure of up to $3 trillion is possible. In other words, about 60 times what we were originally told. And, at $6,000 per taxpaying household per trillion spent, that's the equivalent of taking a new car, or the better part of a year's worth of mortgage payments, from every American household.
How has a Democratic Congress, which has both the sole constitutional authority to declare war, and the purse-strings to fund it (or not), continued this? One major problem is that the ongoing use of supplemental appropriations bills, such as the one pending this week, minimizes Congressional oversight (as acknowledged by the Congressional Research Service) and reduces both transparency and actual debate.
In response to what by now seems like an endless series of blank checks, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA3) offered an Exit Plan Amendment to the supplemental bill, requiring that any continued funding be contingent on there being an exit strategy in place. The amendment was not allowed, and so this morning, McGovern introduced it as a standalone bill. As of this morning, the bill had 64 co-sponsors.
Other contributors here have documented the cost of war in Afghanistan and offered information on how to call in to Congress to oppose the supplemental appropriation. It's worth adding to the call, or making a second call, a request that your Representative or Senator support the McGovern Exit Plan Bill.