Today’s Washington Post‘s describes “America on the installment plan”:
Absent an agreement to fund the government until the end of the fiscal year in September, Congress has passed six short-term stopgap measures, one after another. The current one lasts until April 8.
The short-term extensions have kept the lights on. But the uncertainty over whether the two sides will eventually reach a long-term budget deal has done its own damage, producing waste and inefficiency as a massive federal bureaucracy tries to live paycheck to paycheck.
Some agencies have had to halt new projects in midstream, because the funds they expected have not arrived. In California, there is a new federal prison with 160 staff and no inmates. The government has no money to open it.
This is the same government that has launched over 150 Tomahawk cruise missile into Libya, each of which cost approximately $1.5 million. Galrahn at Information Dissemination calls that per missile figure a bit high, but emphasizes the operational/energy costs of an operation like this.
I am not familiar enough with the particulars of American involvement in Libya to have a strong opinion about it. But one thing is clear: unless we can pay our bills at home, it becomes very difficult to argue for expensive foreign ventures. One good reason to have a thriving economy and a well-financed government is so that we have the resources to act abroad when we need to. A major crisis — the unravelling of the North Korea, for example — might require American boots on the ground or American planes in the sky, and it would be a shame if they simply were not available.
I realize that this is as much an argument against unnecessary foreign intervention as it is an argument for fiscal prudence at home, but there is something unsettling about a government that neglects its domestic responsibilities but so enthusiastically uses force abroad.
(Just to be clear, there are a lot of ways we could better match fiscal means to ends, and I am not endorsing a particular strategy in this post)
Related posts:
I’m still not understanding the economics argument that seems to be front and center regarding Libya. There is no way in hell Libya’s total cost is even a drop in the bucket compared to what we’ve been spending EVERY FUCKING YEAR in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s not even a comparison, really. Do you think the U.S. is running out of expensive missiles to fire? Let me assure you, we have thousands, and for all intents and purposes, those missiles cost the U.S. government just as much money to sit there on the launchpad as they do to fire into another country.
What really seems to be going on is that FOX News and other pundits have suddenly discovered that war costs a shitload of money and have run endless stories about how much of it is going to Libya after laughably failing to report on the massive economic drag created by the two major conflicts we’ve been engaged in FOR A DECADE.
Your post seems to take the same tack as FOX, literally whining about paying for a $1 billion peacekeeping op while ignoring the HUGE STRATEGIC FOLLIES that have now cost upwards of $1 FUCKING TRILLION. So WTF? Why is Libya’s cost sooooo important?