The Six Trillion Dollar Man

I've been using $3 trillion as the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that Bush started as prime examples of why we're in so much financial trouble, and why any Republican in Washington during the Bush years should be laughed at when they say they are for "fiscal responsibility."

The number first popped up from Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Turns out that $3 trillion number is way, way too low, and that's coming from Stiglitz himself.

Joseph Stiglitz, who received the 2000 Nobel Prize for Economics, and Linda Bilmes, a public policy professor at Harvard University, said the number of veterans seeking post-combat medical care and the cost of treating those individuals is about 30 percent higher than they initially estimated. That, combined with increases in the cost of military medical care and the lagging economy, will likely push the true long-term cost of the war over the $4 trillion mark.

"This may be more of a crisis than the Medicare and Social Security problems we have looming," said House Veterans Affairs Chairman Bob Filner, D-Calif. "It rivals both in the potential impact. This is another entitlement we've committed ourselves to, and it could break the bank."

In a conference call with reporters, Bilmes said about 600,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have already sought medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 500,000 have applied for disability benefits. That's about 30 percent higher than initial estimates for care, and could cost the department nearly $1 trillion in costs for  the current wars alone.

The House Veterans Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the costs Thursday morning. Filner said he'll use the new research to push for a "veterans trust fund" to pay for the long-term costs of war, a proposal he's already pitched to Democratic leaders in the House.

Under his plan, lawmakers would add a 10 to 15 percent surcharge on all appropriations bills, banking billions of dollars for future veterans medical costs. Reaction to the idea so far has been negative, Fliner said, because lawmakers are concerned that such a move would make the costs of war look astronomical.

Well yes, that's because the $4 trillion to $6 trillion total cost of Bush's wars really is astronomical.  Just imagine where we would be if we had that money back.  And we'll continue to pay for the costs of caring for our wounded vets from this war for a long, long time.  Nice to know that Bush left future generations holding the bag on that bill, huh?

And let's not forget the number of Republicans who want us to attack Iran, too.  How many trillions will that cost us?  How many wounded veterans will that conflict produce?  How many families will receive the worst news imaginable?

Makes me ill just thinking about it.  We were such fools.