You mean that was a chimp? I thought it was Max.

***that's twenty-four and a half in blog years ****

Now THAT was a funny line (why didn't I think of that?)

Dr. Weevil,

I don't understand your point at all. Are you saying that it is good that Bush is asking for Congress to ignore the war in its budget process? How could it possibly be a good idea to make a budget without taking into account the largest item? That's totally bizarre. It's as if I came to the conclusion that I could afford to take a vacation to Hawaii without taking into account my mortgage payment.

I think calling your post "Worst Argument Ever" was very honest of you.

Dr. Weevil,

Your logic makes no sense, as Bush's tax cuts were made on the premise that America could AFFORD them AND maintain the services that the federal government currently provides.

Given that we MUST pay for the war now that we've gotten into it (unless you would just propose not paying for the weapons and fuel we expend during the conflict??) and that Max thinks that BOTH spending money on the war and tax cuts are bad ideas, whereas spending money on existing government programs is a good one, then Max's logic is completely consistent: he's saying we should reverse the bad decision that we can still change, namely the tax cuts.

Until you learn the first thing about economics after 1000AD (and maybe logic even as it was developed by Aristotle), maybe you should stick to making snarky remarks about people's ancient Greek grammatical errors.

DM:

I wrote nothing that disagreed in any way with the idea that the war will have to be paid for, mostly because it's obvious. What I was criticizing was the one sentence in which Sawicky clearly implied that it's better to fight a useless and even harmful war and not cut taxes than to avoid the war (and all its expenses) and cut taxes. That's an asinine thing to say: high taxes are not a good thing in themselves, and tax cuts are not an evil to be avoided even at the cost of human lives. Like most people who don't work for the federal government, I would like taxes and spending both to go down, though there are some forms of spending that need to go up from time to time. After the massive cuts of the 1990s, military spending is one of them. There are plenty of other things that could be cut, and I'm deeply disappointed that Bush and the Republicans in Congress seem to be making no effort to cut them. (I expect nothing better from the Democrats.)

By the way, war on Iraq could not possibly be "the largest item" in the budget. If you look at the FY 2004 budget (Excel spreadsheet), you'll see that Social Security (462 billion) cost more than the entire military budget (362 billion). Most of the latter (salaries, durable weapons, and so on) would be spent whether we go to war or not. The additional costs of war include any munitions used and fuel burnt over and above peacetime training needs, weapons and vehicles that are destroyed and have to be replaced, and (I think) hazardous duty pay. But once an aircraft carrier (for instance) is bought and equipped and provided with a crew, the additional costs of the bombs and jet fuel are relatively small. The only way the costs get huge is if the ship is sunk or most of its planes shot down, which is unlikely to happen in this war.

If you'll recall, many criticized the cost of war in Afghanistan, which they said was a whole billion dollars per month at the peak of U.S. action there. Even if that rate had persisted for a whole year (hardly likely), that's far less than 1% of what the government is already spending. (The total for the 2004 budget is 2,090 billion. The farm budget alone adds up to 23 billion.)

In sum, you're right: you didn't understand my point at all.

Doc:

I have to disagree w/ your choice of sentences to focus on. In his fifth point, Sawicky argues that war finance "provides no scope for altering the way the war is fought". THAT, to my mind, is the worst statement.

1. And you (Sawicky) want to use taxes to affect how the war is fought, why?
2. And you (Sawicky) are qualified to affect HOW the war is fought, how?

Basically, what Sawicky, I suspect, would REALLY like to do is end the war now, by refusing to pay for it. At least, that's a more charitable interpretation than the idea of micromanaging war operations from 6000 miles away (and by means of FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS?????).

Just a note: The US military spending is about eight-times that of education or health care spending and twenty-times that of training, employment and social services spending. In the same budget, with such huge military spending that is already $100 billion higher than Bill Clinton’s final year, one will notice the following program cuts that relate to poverty and hunger in America:
-36,000 seniors will be cut-off of meal programs
-532,000 families will be cut-off of heating assistance
-8,000 homeless kids will be cut-off of education programs
-50,000 kids will be cut-off of after school programs
-33,000 kids will be cut-off of child care

Pete writes: "The US military spending is about eight-times that of education or health care spending". This is not entirely true. US federal spending on the military may be eight times federal spending on education or health care, but the ratio of total spending is quite different. Something like 97% of American spending on education is at the city, county, and state levels. Something like 99% of military spending is federal. So you're comparing apples to oranges. If the federal government spent nothing on education, the schools would continue pretty much as before. If the federal government spent nothing on the military, we and a lot of other countries would be totally defenseless. (Well, maybe not totally, if you consider the effects of the 2nd amendment.)

Eric:

Learn to read. As you say, Sawicky thinks tax cuts are a bad idea. He seems to think that all tax cuts are bad. He certainly clearly implies that the good thing about a war is that it will force cancellation of Bush's tax-cuts. Think about it: better to waste money on useless harmful things than cut taxes. If you can't see that that's a stupid thing to say, you're a lot more ignorant of modern economics than I will ever be. Are higher taxes always and everywhere better than lower taxes?

By the way, I half expected Sawicky to explain that that was not really what he meant and then rewrite or clarify his statement to exclude my interpretation. Instead, he confined himself to insults, for instance comparing Bush to a dung beetle. (Sounds like a clear case of projection to me.)

What Pete overlooks is that Clinton reduced defense acquisition expenditures to the same level, in current dollars, as Carter maintained in his last year in office, in then-current dollars. IOW, Clinton cut defense by unprecedented levels.